§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment (1) if he will list those allegations of anti-competitive behaviour against local authorities under the Local Government Act 1988 which his Department has received, detailing the initial date of complaint, the originator of the complaint, the subject of the complaint, that is, which local authority, and the nature of the complaints, on which the Secretary of State is currently considering futher action;
(2) if he will list the number, and nature, of complaints made by private contractors, or others, to his Department with regard to alleged anti-competitive behaviour on the part of local authorities in the awarding of contracts; and if he will list which authorities, and when, were the subjects of those complaints.
§ Mr. PortilloThese questions could be answered only at disproportionate expense.
§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the date, for each respective local authority, on which he received the initial complaint of alleged anti-competitive behaviour against the local authorities listed in his answer of 31 October,Official Report, columns 543–44.
§ Mr. PortilloThe information requested is as follows:
- Bristol city: 8 May 1989
- London borough of Hillingdon: 12 May 1989
- Metropolitan borough of Knowsley: 19 May 1989
- Borough of Charnwood: 20 June 1989
- Metropolitan borough of Wolverhampton: 11 May 1989
- Braintree district: 13 April 1989
- Eden district: 4 August 1989
- East Lindsey district: 13 November 1989
- Birmingham city: March 1989
- York city: 3 August 1989
- Liverpool city: 31 May 1989
- Metropolitan borough of Bury: 18 December 1989
- *Humberside county: 15 September 1989
- *London borough of Camden: 2 October 1989
- Borough of Woodspring: 21 December 1989
- Leicester city: 27 February 1990
- Metropolitan borough of Doncaster: 19 February 1990
- Borough of Thurrock: 16 March 1990
In each case the date given is the date of the earliest complaint related to the matter which was the subject of the section 13 notice. In the two asterisked cases the complaint was not of anti-competitive behaviour but rather of financial failure under section 10 Humberside and Camden and a failure to comply with the detailed specification of the work under Section 7(8)—Camden—of the Local Government Act 1988.
§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment whether his Department, as a matter of procedure, notified those local authorities against which he has received complaints of anti-competitive behaviour under the Local Government Act 1988.
§ Mr. PortilloThe Department notifies the local authority concerned in all cases where my right hon. Friend investigates a complaint that a local authority has failed to comply with the requirements of part I of the Local Government Act 1988.
§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number and nature of complaints made by private contractors or others to his Department with regard to alleged anti-competitive behaviour on the basis of a direct services organisation or44W direct labour organisation not meeting the terms of the contract awarded to it by the local authority; and if he will list which authorities, and when, were the subject of those complaints.
§ Mr. PortilloThe information requested is as follows:
London borough of Camden: failure to comply with detailed specification under section 7(8) of the Local Government Act 1988: complaint made in October 1989.
§ Mr. BlunkettTo ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will list the number of complaints of alleged anti-competitive behaviour received by his Department, initiated by the organisation Public and Local Service Efficiency Campaign; and which local authorities were the subject of complaints by PULSE.
§ Mr. PortilloIt is our policy not to reveal the identity of the originators of complaints about failures by local authorities to comply with the requirements of part I of the Local Government Act 1988.