HC Deb 08 December 1982 vol 33 cc838-40
7. Mr. John Townend

asked the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on recent further privatisation of local authority refuse collection services.

Mr. King

I understand that during the past 18 months eight local authorities have contracted out their refuse collection service with an estimated saving of £17 million. A considerable number of other local authorities are reassessing the ways in which their services are provided to ensure that efficiency and economy are achieved.

Mr. Townend

Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the East Yorkshire borough council announced that it was going out to private tender for refuse collection the county council threatened to terminate all agency agreements between the East Yorkshire borough and the Humberside county council if refuse collection was privatised? Will my right hon. Friend condemn that blatant attempt at blackmail? Does he agree that it is an abuse of local government power?

Mr. King

What I find most distressing—there is an echo of it in my hon. Friend's question—is the attempt to prevent local authorities even from examining alternative methods or checking whether the service is being provided as economically and effectively as possible. I roundly condemn any attempt to prevent local authorities from examining their responsibilities intensively. That is their duty.

Mr. Allan Roberts

Will the Minister also condemn councils such as the Liverpool city council and Sefton district council for running down and cutting their services in an attempt to justify future privatisation for doctrinaire reasons?

Mr. King

The hon. Gentleman will know that recent evidence, as was demonstrated in Birmingham this week, has shown clearly that, far from what the Opposition always refer to as cuts and threats to services, it is possible to make substantial economies, amounting to about £17 million over a five-year contract period, without, so far as I am aware, any change in the quality of the service.

Mr. Durant

Has my right hon. Friend seen and heard today's reports in the press and on the radio that Blackpool council, which merely wishes to examine the problem of privatising its refuse collection, is being blackmailed by the Transport and General Workers Union, which is withdrawing its conference from Blackpool in an attempt to persuade the council to withdraw the plan?

Mr. King

I understand that Blackpool council has taken no decision and will take none for some months. As my hon. Friend said, it is considering investigating alternative tenders. It says little for the confidence of the union and its members that they dare not even run the risk of being put into competition and that they feel it is necessary to take such a decision before competition arises.

Mr. Skinner

Is the Minister aware that if the Labour Party and trade unions decide to take action in respect of conferences at Blackpool it is because they know that privatisation in, for example, Southend, Wandsworth and various other places has not turned out as was expected but has resulted in a large number of sackings, thus adding to unemployment, which the Labour Party wishes to reduce, and that in Southend—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to put a question. We do not want a statement of his views. We want a question.

Mr. Skinner

I started with the words "Is the Minister aware". I thought that that was sufficient.

Mr. Speaker

That does not justify going all over the country.

Mr. Skinner

Is the Minister aware that it was suggested in Southend that there would be substantial savings for the ratepayers, but that in practice, over a two-year period, not only has the council almost given away lorries that had been bought by the ratepayers, but that the massive profit which the Tory firm involved was supposed to make has not materialised?

Mr. King

The hon. Gentleman will not convince many hon. Members by peddling every odd rumour that he can drag up about these operations. The answer lies in two places—in Kensington and Chelsea and in Birmingham—where the workpeople involved have shown where savings can be made. I am in no doubt that those savings would not have been forthcoming without the prospect of privatisation being able to provide better value for the ratepayers' money.

Mr. Eggar

As Birmingham's work force has just reduced manning levels by 30 per cent. and this has been approved by Birmingham's own work study team, does not that give us an idea of the amount of overmanning and waste in local authorities throughout the country?

Mr. King

The press release that I have seen, which carries the names of the chairman of the relevant committee in Birmingham and of the three trade union leaders concerned, refers to some 263 of the present work force of 715 ceasing to work in that sector. I am afraid that that shows how much overmanning and restrictive practice occurred in the past and the great improvement that can be achieved.

Mr. Graham

Will the Minister acknowledge that in the past many public services arose as a direct result of the private sector's failure to provide the services and that the current interest shown by the private sector has occurred only at a time of recession and may well disappear when the economy improves? Does he appreciate that when private profit is substituted for social need it is the ratepayers and the community who suffer in the long run?

Mr. King

What social need does the hon. Gentleman think is served by paying bonuses for the collection of refuse from 42 streets that no longer exist? What is the point in the Labour Party resolutely refusing to see any merit in achieving value for money for the benefit of the electors and ratepayers? I should have thought that there would be one voice from the Opposition welcoming such an initiative.