HL Deb 08 November 1983 vol 444 cc691-3

2.50 p.m.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that the privatisation of street cleaning in Wandsworth has been a failure and that there is strong pressure for the reinstatement of a public service; and whether in these circumstances they will abandon their own privatisation plans.

The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, no, I do not agree that the arrangements for street cleaning in Wandsworth have been a failure: quite the reverse. I understand that after some initial difficulties, the contract is working well and that the ratepayers of Wandsworth are receiving an improved service at an estimated saving over the contract period of around £1.5 million. The Government remain firmly of the view that all public authorities must ensure that services are provided in the most cost-effective and efficient manner, from whatever source.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he is both misinformed and mistaken? Is he aware that privatisation—an ugly word for an ugly thing—has broken down and is breaking down in Wandsworth? Is he aware that the local authority has had to conclude its contract on gardening with one of the private firms (Pritchards) because the whole thing has completely broken down? Is he aware that legal action is contemplated between Pritchards and the Council? Is he further aware that many complaints are being made about the privatisation operation of the refuse collection? Will he investigate the possibility of the Department of the Environment taking over these services in the interests of public health?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, as to the last point, I should have thought that the last thing that the noble Lord would have wished to pursue was the attempt further to centralise a local authority service. That is certainly not the intention of the Government nor will we pursue it. As to the point about grass cutting, I can think of few better illustrations of the virtues of "contracting out"—a term I prefer to use rather than one used by the noble Lord—than the fact that if the contract does not work satisfactorily the authority has the power and the right to terminate the arrangement. It had no such possibility in the circumstances that pertained prior to this. As to the number of complaints referred to by the noble Lord, my information is quite the opposite. My information is that the complaints bear no relation to the complaints that were made before the service was carried out in this way.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, can the noble Lord the Minister assure the House that he will condemn any inefficiences in privatised services in the same robust way that he has always criticised inefficiences in council public services? Will he hear in mind that most public services evolved out of a public need which was badly met from private sources? Will the Minister urge on councils the need to scrutinise council efficiency, and very often that will mean that town clerks and borough engineers are made redundant before dustmen and tea ladies?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I am not quite sure what line the noble Lord is taking; but if it is the drawing of the comparison between the merits of service provision by the private as opposed to the public sector, I really feel that is irrelevant to the matter at issue. What really matters is how the service can best be provided. It is the wish of Government that all—I repeat "all"—local authorities should look at all the alternatives and not take one of them as opposed to another one without investigating very carefully.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, is the Minister quite accurate in saying that people have choice in sacking the contractors and moving to other contractors if they are dissatisfied with the service they get? No such choice exists where the service is in the public domain. If the service is carried out by the local authority they have the ultimate right to terminate the use of in-house workers and go to contractors. While that possibility exists, is it not a strong incentive that the refuse collection departments of local authorities should provide the best possible service to the ratepayers?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, I have yet to know in my slight experience of local government, of a single instance—and if there is one the noble Lord will surely bring it to my attention—where the situation he describes has ever happened.

Lord Jenkins of Putney

My Lords, if I may, I should like to draw the noble Lord's attention to such a case. I should like to ask whether he is aware that the authority has refused a tender from its own direct labour force because it is lower than the private tenders? In these circumstances will he ask the district auditor to investigate, with the possibility that the councillors might be surcharged personally for the difference between the two?

Lord Bellwin

My Lords, the noble Lord says that the reason for the authority refusing a tender was because it was the lowest. I should need an awful lot of information about that before I was convinced.