2. Mr. Robert G. Hughes>: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to meet representatives of Unison to discuss the provision of local authority services. [10369]
Mr. HughesMy hon. Friend's reply is somewhat disappointing. Will he arrange a meeting with representatives of Unison, and use that as an opportunity to explain to them that compulsory competitive tendering has saved enormous amounts of taxpayers' money and has led to the improvement of many services—benefits that are now widely recognised across the political divide? Will he impress upon them the importance of removing their armlock from Labour party policy so that Labour drops its stupid opposition to CCT, which proves once again that it cares for those who pay for the Labour party and not for those who pay for local services?
§ Mr. CurryI am afraid that my hon. Friend is seriously wrong in one of his statements: that view is not shared 761 across the political divide because the Labour party quite clearly does not share it. Labour is hostile to competition because it is funded by Unison and, if Labour ever came to power, we know that the council tax payer would finance Unison.
§ Mr. DobsonDoes the Minister recognise that we acknowledge that we meet with trade unions? In the past few weeks, I have met the ex-Tory Member of the European Parliament, whom the Secretary of State appointed to chair the Countryside Commission, people from the City of London and from London First, and the people whom the Secretary of State has appointed to the Audit Commission and to the Local Government Commission. While we are on the subject of ministerial meetings—this is the Department that managed to lose £300 million in taxpayers' money through the privatisation of the Property Services Agency—will the Minister tell us whom Ministers and officials met when they organised that transaction? Did they meet any ex-Tory Ministers when they were deciding to sell off that industry?
§ Mr. CurryI am very reassured to learn that the hon. Gentleman has such a busy social diary. However, he will know that his remarks have nothing whatever to do with the question. We sold that company because it was better in the private sector than in the public sector. The employees have benefited from that sale, and it has become an efficient company.
The hon. Gentleman persists in believing that such bodies are run better by the state than in the private sector. There is no evidence to support that view—and I am not even sure that his leader believes it.
§ Mr. ButterfillDid my hon. Friend see the report in an edition of The Spectator from last year in which Mr. Leo McKinstry—who was the aide to the hon. Member for Peckham (Ms Harman) at the last general election—said that the unions still have a great deal of influence in Labour town halls? Is it not true that they are more interested in representing the producers than the consumers in our society?
§ Mr. CurryOne of the encouraging signs in recent years is the way in which a great many people in local government have embraced the partnership between the public and the private sectors. However, I am not sure to what extent that is followed by the Labour party at Westminster. It seems wedded absolutely to the idea of trade union power and the trade unions finance many of its activities. If my hon. Friend wants to discover what Labour is really like in government, I suggest that he makes some calls on a few local authorities, and he will find out in a very short time. Perhaps he should start with somewhere like Hackney.