House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Oct 1991

Column 503

Public authorities purchase about 800 ambulances a year. But what is happening in respect of standards? In the London ambulance service the reports are not reassuring. The vehicle which it is trying out is a matter of some controversy. The handling of consultations with the crews is also controversial. It is a modified van, unlike the present purpose-built ambulances, which themselves were built on a goods chassis.

An extraordinary fact about our motor vehicle industry is that, even for 800 vehicles a year--about the same level as Rolls-Royce production--we do not appear to produce a proper ambulance chassis. Many years ago the London county council ambulances were Daimlers. They were a version of that firm's chauffeur-driven car. I do not see why the British motor industry or, indeed, any other industry should not produce a proper ambulance chassis with which we might lead the world. If we cannot do that, should we be tied to a single body design in this important sphere? We badly need progress and innovation. I suggest that to set a single standard for a single type of vehicle, undoubtedly decided by four or five people in some committee deep in the heart of the Department of Health, is not the best way to achieve progress, or public confidence.

The vehicle being introduced by the London ambulance service apparently has room for only one stretcher instead of two, is diesel rather than petrol and has a bulkhead between the driver and the rear compartment. Whatever the final decision, there is a lack of confidence among at least some staff about its design.

I leave the question of central procurement and its dangers to deal with the service given to the public by patient transport services in London. As the London ambulance service is one of the largest in the world, it should be a world leader. But I am afraid that it is not. Long ago, in 1986, it became clear to London Members of Parliament that the service to our constituents faced a crisis. The number of journeys to take people into hospital was being sadly reduced. In the summer of 1986 London Members received many a heart-rending letter from old-age pensioners and sick people who could not get to hospital. Something of a scandal ensued.

I initiated an Adjournment debate on 31 October 1986 when it became absolutely clear that the number of people taken to hospital by the non- emergency ambulance services had been reduced by 44 per cent. between 1984 and 1986. When that was confirmed by the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie), I am afraid to say that she said :

"About 10,500 fewer walking patients were being transported--a reduction of 44 per cent. I am more than happy at that development. We are keen to have a better emergency service. We are determined that the equipment and resources are not used inappropriately."--[ Official Report, 31 October 1986 ; Vol. 103, c. 666.]

That was an extraordinary statement at any time. I suggest that it clearly demonstrated the Government's policy. I am sorry to say it, but I do not believe that their policy has changed. The House will notice the emphasis on resources.

It is clear to anyone who reads what the Minister said in that debate that she meant that the Government intended to use resources previously used for taking patients to hospital to make sure that the front-line

Column 504

emergency service received the money that it required. They were transferring one part to another. Why? It was because the whole sum was kept at the same level and sufficient total amounts were not given to the service to provide the demand-led service for which every person in Britain would probably be willing to pay. Here we have a Donnington example, the other way round from usual--almost in extremis.

I am afraid that the tendency continued. The present chairman of the London ambulance board wrote less than a year ago to the regional and district hospital authorities. He said that it needed to ensure that money was properly used. He said :

"It is not our intention that this new approach should in any way deny the right of hospitals and GPs to order transport required on medical grounds by their patients. But ideally with your assistance we would restrict the use of ambulances to patients requiring a stretcher or wheelchair and to those undergoing serious treatment such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, renal dialysis or for severe cardiac or respiratory problems."

That was written as recently as a year ago in an effort to reduce this important service. A report issued by the National Union of Public Employees confirms that the trend continues. I wish to make it plain that my relationship with NUPE is that of almost any other citizen, except that one or two of my colleagues are sponsored by it. I am not sponsored by any union and certainly not by any health union. I am sponsored by the people of Newham, South and I am proud and pleased of the fact. They have suffered grievously under the restrictions that I have described.

The NUPE report shows that the reduction of 44 per cent. between 1984 and 1986 was in fact even greater. The service was reduced by between 40 and 60 per cent. in each of the London ambulance areas over those years. There has been a 40 to 60 per cent. reduction in that vital service. The amount of money sent to the London ambulance service via various routes and tortuous channels from the Department of Health may have remained the same, but it is clear that it has not been sufficient. The excuse has been that we have robbed the non-emergency Peter to keep going the necessary emergency Paul. But I am afraid that the emergency Paul has not done very well either. I had to initiate another debate as recently as 18 April this year to point out the present deficiency in the London ambulance service. I identified the following : 10,000 cancelled out-patient journeys a month--which I am glad to say on record has been markedly reduced in the past six months-- extended response times to emergency calls, continued telephone stacking of 999 calls, overtime of ambulance crews limited to two hours a week, 50 ambulance officers made redundant, and a major headquarters failure in computers which has cost a cool £2 million or £3 million. The computer failure was comparable to that at the Foreign Office about which we have just heard. The ambulance service is still subject to cash limits. The London ambulance board is still invisible and unaccountable to the London public. The patient ambulance service will be subject to competition from April 1992.

The matters that I have listed were dealt with in the Adjournment debate on 18 April. I am sorry--or in a sense glad--to say that the junior Minister who replied to the debate said that I was right and all those things were happening. He then tried to say that the Government were doing something about it by allocating more resources. He

Column 505

grandly announced at the end of the debate that another £5 million was being made available by his Department for capital investment. I would not go so far as to claim that winning the ballot for that Adjournment debate resulted in the £5 million announcement. The announcement certainly took the wind out of the headlines because, having admitted what was going on, the additional £5 million was good news--I am not too proud to admit that. I was grateful for it. The recent annual report that has just been sent to London Members by, I think, the chairman of the London ambulance board--it is rather a thin annual report in most respects--shows a remarkable jump in expenditure. In 1990- 91, £556,000 was spent on capital projects and vehicles, whereas for 1991-92 the sum is £3,666,000. Other investment of more than £1 million, over nothing equivalent last year, means that there is an extra £5 million investment. That is just about equivalent to what I got out of that Adjournment debate. That is welcome and nobody would quarrel with it.

What is most significant is the source of the income. In the financial year 1990-91, the income was £51 million and for 1991-92 the income is £63 million. That is a welcome increase of about £12 million. The big difference is that it is not direct funding. The income for this year comes after the implementation of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, which means that it comes through contracts from regional hospital authorities or district health authorities, as the case may be, and no doubt a trust or two. Therefore, instead of the Treasury and the Department of Health allocating money, it is down to market haggling for contracts between the London ambulance service and individual district health authorities, to which it is sensibly tied for the current year for income and services. That is only for this year. The question is what will happen next year.

Next year, the separation of the ambulance service into two will be completed. There are three contract centres in London, each of which is to reach an agreement--but not with each district health authority. I understand from an authoritative source in the LAS--I do not think that it is properly in writing ; it might be, but it is obscure--that the contract for next year for the patient transport service will be funded by individual contracts between the LAS and each health unit. That does not apply to the emergency service, which will be funded by the four regions comprising the London area.

I put it to Tory Members in particular, and I am glad to see at least one London Member present, that that will mean that each London centre which is fed daily by the LAS must make its own individual contract with the LAS for day care ambulances on the basis of projected need at a projected level of quality. That could be in excess of what is contracted for at a certain rate : less punctuality, cancellations, so many vehicles with tail lifts, or so many vehicles with skilled people on board. Those are the claimed standards of quality that we are becoming so used to in this market- oriented world.

I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, rhetorically, but I ask more than rhetorically of Tory Members, all of whom have hospitals in their constituencies : can they see their individual health units practically making an individual contract agreement with the local ambulance service about ambulances in the financial year 1992-93? If they can, how can that provider organisation, of which we are beginning to hear, estimate the cost properly?

Column 506

If the Government have their way after the general election--that is, if they unfortunately stay on the Government Benches, which they will not--they will make such contracts open to outside bidding. Indeed, there is a suspicion that some ambulance services outside London, perhaps in the surrounding counties, may try their luck and win a contract. It will be much easier, will it not, to contract for an individual hospital than for the whole of a health district, which was the original idea? Indeed, it will be easier for a private individual to contract half a dozen ambulances to a particular hospital for its patient transport service and run them in, perhaps from Colchester or Maidstone or elsewhere. As I understand it, that may be possible. It certainly is the direction in which the Tory party wants to take the service. Naturally, they would be private firms. I invite any Tory Member to deny that if that happens--it is happening with privately run old people's homes--and there are private ambulance firms under contract, just as there are private cleaning services for hospitals, it is privatisation, at least, of a sort. Although the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Committee's commentary are valuable, they are in a sense starting from the wrong end. The Committee assumes that the task of this service is to economise a little here, perhaps looking at standardised equipment of one sort or another, which may or may not be a good thing. If the joint purpose, which was well defined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) in his opening speech, is to be fulfilled-- to protect citizens and ensure the proper use of citizens' taxes--the Committee must ensure that there are adequate funds for and proper administration of this literally life-giving, life-saving, demand-led service.

8.16 pm

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington) : I listened with great interest to the greater part of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing). He will forgive me if I did not quite hear the end, because I was in engaged in conversation arising from something that he said. My hon. Friend has played a notable part in defending London ambulance crews, who write to me regularly and who regularly congratulate him on the work that he has done in recent months.

My hon. Friend sparked off a series of thoughts in my mind when, early in his speech, he referred to the Public Accounts Committee being a Select Committee of the House of Commons. Under the strictest interpretation of the term "Select Committee", I understand that the PAC is not a Select Committee. It has a different role, in that it is supported by about 900 personnel, one third of whom are accountants working from offices in Victoria, at the former British Overseas Airways Corporation building. Therefore, we are a highly resourced Committee. Select Committees may appoint specialist advisers, but in the main have a small staff and little expertise on which to draw. When I explain the PAC's role to people outside the House, I try to set it in the framework of access to information which might otherwise be denied to Parliament. Without legislation on freedom of information, the PAC and, in particular, the National Audit Office play an important role. Through its powers to certify the appropriation accounts of Departments, the PAC can gain access to information which Ministers might well deny to

Column 507

Parliament. Select Committees cannot get that information. Although they have the power to demand persons and papers, if they were to push it to the nth degree, they would need a resolution of the House of Commons to enforce that right which Parliament has given them by resolution. So there is a distinction between a Select Committee, which is formed by resolution of the House, and the Public Accounts Committee, which has a role almost enshrined in section 1(3) of the National Audit Act 1983.

I wish tonight to deal with a report which has not been commented on at length during the debate, and in particular one sentence in it. I beg the indulgence of hon. Members if I draw on matters in a report which we produced the previous year and which links with the later one. The 10th report of the Committee this year dealt with the new headquarters building for the Department of Energy.

That report dealt with the new headquarters which the Department of Energy took over in 1989 at 1 Palace street, formerly Buckingham gate. The Department's former headquarters were based on a lease at Thames house, South Millbank, SW1. The Department moved out shortly after the lease expired in 1982. The Property Services Agency took on the responsibility of finding new headquarters accommodation. It found that accommodation, but there appears to have been a comedy of errors. Grave mistakes were made over a number of years by departmental officials and others. A project which was to have cost £2.7 million exceeded £12.5 million, a 367 per cent. increase on the original estimate. That occurred as the result of a lack of management and control.

Our report which dealt with the matter identified confusion in the relationship between the PSA and the Department of Energy, the developers and the contractors, perhaps similar to the confusion over the building of the national library. We said in our conclusions : "In our view, to secure value for money in the acquisition of a new headquarters building"--

no matter the department concerned--

"it is crucially important for departments to undertake full and soundly based investment appraisals. These should identify and evaluate the costs and benefits of the main options We consider that the Department of Energy's failure to do this was a regrettable omission We note that a year after moving into their new building the Department of Energy intend to reconsider the location of the Department."

I understand that to mean that the Department is considering moving elsewhere.

I put it to the House that the decision to move to 1 Palace street and the approach taken by the Department were wrong, and that it set a bad example for other Departments. It certainly set a bad example to the nation in terms of energy conservation policies. I say that because, in the original remit as set out in the NAO report, the Department in July 1984 formally advised the PSA of its broad requirements. They were for

"one single building not further than 1 miles from the Houses of Parliament ; 90 per cent. cellular accommodation and the building to include an energy efficiency controlled system."

I shall concentrate on the final phrase, because it seems that, despite the rhetoric of Government Departments over the years, they are not addressing the issue of savings that arise from energy efficiency measures. Indeed, the

Column 508

fourteenth report which we issued the previous year on national energy efficiency said in paragraph 34, under the heading "Departments' Own Use of Energy" :

"the Energy Technology Support Unit of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has estimated the maximum potential energy savings in the Civil Estate at some 40 to 55 per cent. The Property Services Agency considered the Unit's estimates highly theoretical and that the investment required would not be cost-effective except in the very long term."

It seems, on that basis, that the Department of Energy was not even prepared to measure its own efficiency savings in 1985. That was the year when the Government first introduced energy efficiency saving incentives to Departments, for in paragraph 35 of that report we said :

"We were informed that neither the Department of Energy"-- the Department responsible for the savings--

"nor the Treasury had information on departments' in-house energy efficiency--for example, whether they had achieved the five per cent. savings target for 1985, or how many departments had appointed full-time energy managers."

Until departments of state themselves apply energy efficiency savings to all the work they undertake, householders throughout the country will not consider that an example is being set, let alone local authorities fully implementing their responsibilities in this area. I understand that, at the time we published our report, the PSA had 46 other development schemes in the United Kingdom. To what extent have those properties been subject to the maximum use of insulation materials and the latest energy efficiency technology? Now that departments have taken on greater responsibility for their construction work and have their own training courses--I understand that there are interdepartmental committees that spread available information and expertise within Departments--one wonders to what extent the initiatives that were taken by Government are being followed in energy efficiency appraisals to see if there is a major cost benefit, or any benefit, available to Departments which introduce the latest technology.

In the summer months this year, I visited an organisation in Scotland called the Findhorn Foundation. I also visited a centre in north Wales, at Machynlleth, which deals with alternative energy and is a centre in that discipline. I was interested during my visits to see in a practical way that I could comprehend some of the latest technology being applied. Indeed, I understand that 70,000 people a year examine the potential for energy efficiency at Machynlleth.

Mrs. Llin Golding (Newcastle-under-Lyme) : It is a waste of money.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I hear my hon. Friend's comment, but those centres are demonstrating to the world that energy can be saved. One might have thought them to be a waste of money, but having visited them, I do not take that view. I was able while at Findhorn to examine four houses under construction. They were powered by gas condenser boiler systems. I asked, on noticing a boiler outside one of the properties, why it was positioned there, and I was told that that one condenser boiler was heating four houses. What interested me was that it was the same type of boiler as heats my single home in the Lake District. If the same boiler that can heat one

Column 509

home in the Lake District can heat four houses of broadly similar size in the north of Scotland, major savings in gas consumption must be available.

Those savings could be made because of the degree of insulation in the buildings. At the Findhorn Foundation, they have done much work on applying insulation techniques to building and construction methods on a scale which far exceeds the building regulation requirements--and those are higher in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I was looking only at private residential property. If we applied the same technology, including flat plate solar panel systems, to commercial buildings in the public sector, tens of millions of pounds of public money might be saved per year.

I visited a large hotel at Elgin in Scotland. On top of it were about 50 sq m of solar panels. I asked about their function and was told that they provided almost all the hot water required by the hotel. If that was possible, why can we not inbuild that technology in public sector buildings in the rest of the United Kingdom, with the inevitable savings for the taxpayer?

When I asked about savings, I was told that the technology was fitted in 1983-84. The hotel management said that the payback period for the solar panels feeding the hot water system had been only three years. That is a remarkable payback period for an investment. If that was possible in the north of Scotland, which has a very temperate climate, what might be possible in the rest of the United Kingdom, where we have more sunlight every day, even using only simple technology?

I drew attention to the need for us to consider applying that technology, and developing energy efficiency technology, in public buildings. The Department of Energy could have been a trail blazer. Instead of picking a building within a few hundred yards of Parliament, might it not have been better if it had picked somewhere a little further away, and put up a brand new building, a trail blazer and a flag-flier for all kinds of alternative and highly efficient use of energy systems available here? Why could the Department of Energy not become a centre where such systems could be displayed, generating argument about the extent to which the public sector could lead the way in implementing that new technology? Until I went to Findhorn and Machynlleth, I was not convinced, even taking it in its most elementary form, of solar technology. But, having used boiling hot water on a cool day in a country with a temperate climate and little sunlight, and knowing that it has been heated by solar energy, one begins to wonder whether we are irresponsibly turning our backs on an area of vast potential savings. I ask Ministers to examine the possibilities in their Departments. If payback periods can be so short, despite what the PSA said in the 1990 report on energy efficiency, surely it is the responsibility of Government Departments, especially the Treasury, to find out whether large sums of taxpayers' money can be saved.

The maintenance costs of much of the equipment--certainly that for solar panel technology--are low. I understand that there is no deterioration in the insulation material, so that, once the costs are paid back, they are paid back for ever. The building remains permanently insulated so long as it survives.

My purpose today is to draw attention to the need for those now responsible for public sector buildings, especially those in Government Departments, to lead the

Column 510

way in implementing the technology. If the Department of Energy has to move again, it should no longer think in terms of moving a mile or a mile and a quarter from the centre of London. Perhaps the Department should move outside London and build a centre at which the whole nation could at least pay tribute to the technology that it sought to apply.

8.35 pm

Mr. Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne, East) : There are recurrent themes in these debates--and, indeed, recurrent Government Departments. The scope and sheer volume of the work of the Public Accounts Committee means that it is not possible to do justice to all its reports in such debates. We must choose highlights--although if there were a corresponding term, "lowlights", I should be tempted to use it as in some cases it would be more appropriate.

This is my fifth year of responding to such debates on behalf of the Opposition. As I have done for the past four years, I thank the members of the Public Accounts Committee, especially its Chairman, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), for the incredible amount of work that they do on behalf of the House. Last year I wished the hon. Member for Scarborough (Sir M. Shaw) well on his retirement and said that if we had a debate this year I would do so again. However, the hon. Gentleman seems to have taken early retirement and been replaced by the right hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Sir I. Stewart), who did the business for him. I do not know about that right hon. Gentleman's past involvement in such affairs, but I look forward to taking part in debates on Public Accounts Committee matters with him in the next Parliament. I was especially struck, as I have been in previous debates on such matters, by the efforts made--successfully, I believe--to get to grips with the complex issues of defence procurement. The affairs of the Ministry of Defence figure regularly in our debates, and I believe that the steady and unremitting pressure, led by the Committee Chairman, is beginning to have some effect. The same can be said about the equally complex subject of social security. It is only fair to point out, as the Chairman did, that the 11th report--the 1989 statement on major defence projects--highlights the substantial delays in non-nuclear defence projects. Nineteen out of 33 of them are behind time, and 12 of those are more than two years behind time. It is indicative of the continuing problems at the Ministry of Defence that the Committee says that continued vigilance will be necessary. Having followed these debates for some time, I endorse that view. In previous debates we have emphasised themes such as the failure to spend public money in time, thus incurring more expense later. The Department of Transport's road programme and the failure to protect art treasures in the museum service are good historical examples of that tendency. Another continuing theme of the debates has been the clash between the Government's ideological commitments and sound financial management.

Nowhere is that clash more evident than in the Government's privatisation programme. In previous debates we discussed the Rolls-Royce privatisation and the last-minute sweetener that was almost blackmailed out of the Government in the final days before that privatisation. In previous debates we have discussed the

Column 511

royal ordnance factories' land holdings and their undervaluation before privatisation. Last year we also discussed the PAC's interim report on the sale of Rover to British Aerospace--the failure to test the market to get the best price and related deceits surrounding surpluses, sites, shareholdings and tax advantages. We also discussed what was even more disgraceful--the hidden £38 million subsidy from the European Commission.

Those matters are still alive, but this year, in spite of all that has been said in previous years, has produced its own crop of reports on privatisation. They show that the way in which those sales have been handled has resulted in the Government's ideology being put before the interests of the public purse. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis) that, in terms of the sheer amount of money involved, the greatest privatisation scandal is the £1.8 billion paid out to those who have chosen private pensions and opted out of SERPS. Unfortunately, there will be an extra cost to our citizens when people realise later in life that it is in their financial interest to go back into SERPS.

Among the privatisation scandals that have been highlighted in this year's batch of PAC reports, and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill drew our attention, was the sale of Herstmonceaux castle. I am surprised that the Chairman of the PAC did not make a passing reference to that case as it is the type of issue that he normally picks up. The report says that the castle was sold for £8.1 million but that offers of £9.25 million and £14 million were rejected. What sort of statement is that on the Government's management of such affairs? Perhaps if ptthere were sound reasons for rejecting the higher bids--if they were against the public interest or it was suspected that the people making them did not have the money--that would offer a reasonable defence, but the PAC concluded that the Science and Engineering Research Council did not give the higher bidders the real reasons for the rejection of their bids. It appears that the council did not take any steps to discover whether those bidders could come up with the money. If a local authority behaved like that, people would suspect corruption ; if the authority were Labour controlled, those allegations would come quickly from Conservative Members. The entire episode leaves a rather nasty taste in the mouth. The best that can be said is that it did not represent an effective handling of public assets.

That case is not unique, although I accept that buildings such as Herstmonceaux castle do not come on to the market every day of the week. A study of the privatisation of the work undertaken by certain new-town bodies in England reveals that precisely the same thinking prevails and ideological considerations have been put before the interests of the taxpayer. Proper competition did not exist when assigning the work to certain business ventures. The decision to go ahead was taken without any basic cost criteria being calculated. A mechanism for tracking those costs was not even established. What makes matters even more "cosy"--that description has already been used in the debate--is the way in which in some instances employees were allowed to take redundancy payments and then to start work again doing exactly the same job but with strong employment safeguards. We would all like to do that, but the opportunity is not there

Column 512

for most of us--the opportunity to do so at the taxpayer's expense certainly does not exist. Those are precisely the sort of arrangements that prevailed in those circumstances and the PAC was right to draw our attention to them in such a scathing manner. The sale of the National Bus Company repeated the issue at the heart of the privatisation of the royal ordnance factories and the sell-off of Rover to British Aerospace--the correct valuation of assets held by an institution that is about to be privatised. One would have thought that the Government would have been alert to the issue by then, but the PAC report states :

"On the basis of this evidence we consider that more should have been done to identify operational and other properties that had an alternative use, and to put a realistic valuation on it. As only 18 out of 1,500 properties were subject to clawback, we do not feel that the taxpayer's interest has been fully protected".

This is not a new problem ; it has arisen year after year in our debates but there is still strong evidence to suggest that the ideological push for privatisation is always put before the interests of the British taxpayer.

If public assets are to be sold, they should be sold at their true value. They should not be allowed to slip away from public ownership with the return on their sale being much less than it should be. However, the report on the sale of the National Bus Company reveals that, essentially, that is what happened in that case.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hodge Hill also referred to the work of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for Northern Ireland. The affairs of Northern Ireland have been one of the continuing themes of our debates. My right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) struck a deep chord with me when he referred to the arrangements surrounding the privatisation of Harland and Wolff. He also referred to the similar arrangements, dealt with in the 28th report of the PAC, surrounding the sale of Short Brothers plc. My constituency was severely affected by the scandal surrounding the AOR1--the auxiliary oiler replenishment vessel-- procurement at Harland and Wolff. Two thousand of my constituents lost their jobs because of the way in which that issue was handled, so perhaps I feel more strongly about it than many other hon. Members. The scandal surrounding that procurement is now moving towards its inevitable conclusion, with costs escalating well beyond those predicted. The unfairness and the cheating--I put it no stronger than

that--surrounding that procurement is reflected, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West has stated, in the concealment of information surrounding Harland and Wolff. There is a similar reluctance to hand over information surrounding the sell-off of Short's. The PAC states :

"It is important in Parliamentary accountability terms that, in privatisations such as this, the retention by Government of liabilities with a potential high cost to the taxpayer should be quantified as accurately as possible and notified to Parliament at the earliest appropriate opportunity".

However, the AOR1 contract, the privatisation of Harland and Wolff and the sell-off of Short's has revealed that the bill that the British taxpayer must pick up has been inaccurately quantified. I am not blind to the particular difficulties that relate to the governance of Northern Ireland. However, if specific arrangements are made because of the difficulties in the Province they should be declared up front. We should not be subject to the pretence that somehow or other matters

Column 513

are dealt with in the same ruthless, competitive manner in the Province as they are in other industrialised parts of the United Kingdom. That is just not the case.

Having dealt with cases that arise from the Government's ideological commitment to privatisation, I now move one step further to cases that involve sheer fraud. The Chairman referred to the Committee's continuing work on that matter. I was slightly saddened to hear him forecast that such issues may become more prevalent in the Public Accounts Committee's work in the near future. In past years we have had many debates that focused heavily on absolute issues of fraud.

The 40th report deals with the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce : Management, Accountability and the Prevention of Fraud. Although, in a narrow United Kingdom context, the Committee finds that we have less to worry about than our European partners, British taxpayers' money now goes into a slightly larger pool, and the fact that we are running our affairs reasonably correctly is not the assurance that we require when we find that fraud in other parts of the Community is much more extensive. The PAC rightly takes careful note of the Government's determination to reduce the risk of fraud, not only in the United Kingdom but in the Community. That is not a party-political point. The PAC goes on to say that it is concerned about the apparently varying standards against which irregularity, including fraud, is reported in other member states and it looks to the Treasury to encourage the Commission to require fuller and more open reporting of irregularity, disallowance and especially fraud across the Community. That issue is important because of the sums of money involved and we should return to it.

The continuing issue of the BBC's licence fee may seem small beer in comparison. I remember the first occasion on which we discussed a report relating to that issue. I predicted that we would discuss it again, just as I predicted that we would discuss a report on vehicle licences again. I said that little progress would be reported and the 30th report says :

"There has been little real progress since we last examined this subject in 1985".

The report makes the point that I made last year and states : "although only some 1 million households have black and white televisions, 1.8 million monochrome licences were issued last year." The PAC draws an obvious conclusion--that people are buying black and white television licences and watching colour television. Clearly that state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue.

A wider point about such licences applies to television licences, car tax and the poll tax. Where consent for paying those taxes breaks down, collection becomes very difficult. The Government have been extremely foolish in undermining the necessary consensus that links the taxpayer to those who rely on the income from the tax. They have done that in the foolish way in which they have gone about handling the poll tax affair and I am worried that the attitudes that they have engendered may spin off into other smaller taxation issues, especially those relating to car tax and television licences. For example, the region with the highest level of non- payment is Northern Ireland. We all accept that there are special collection difficulties in

Column 514

Northern Ireland-- [Interruption.] I shall content myself with saying that there are special collection difficulties in Northern Ireland.

A new crop of reports deals with issues that can only be described as negligence. The Chairman understandably highlighted the new building for the British Library. Several hon. Members have referred to it and, without going through the saga again, it seems bizarre that the number of seats to be provided increases the number that were provided by only 7 per cent., whereas the original plan provided for that number to be more than trebled. The PAC says that it is not convinced that the final building will have a proper balanced scale of provision and in apportioning blame for that, which it does very nicely, it says :

"We are disturbed that the Office of Arts and Libraries, despite having commissioned and paid for the building, did not regard themselves as responsible for keeping control of the project." A Government who say that they are managing the public's financial affairs with scrupulous attention to detail should at least have found someone to take control of the project and brought it to a conclusion a little more quickly than the 14 years that seem to have been spent so far. That does not appear to be a success story. The 36th report is worrying. It refers to the problems being experienced by British universities. Last year we debated the special problems at Cardiff university and it is pleasing to see that it is making progress along the right lines. However, the report highlights a more general and worrying situation. It mentions the expenditure of £11.3 million extra, which is totally outside the conditions laid down for restructuring and retirement agreed with the universities. I am surprised that those matters were allowed to proceed in that open-ended way. The real problem was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), who said that expenditure and the provision of funds were nowhere near in line. The Public Accounts Committee makes the same point but in a different way. It says :

"The Funding Council pointed out that universities were to a greater or lesser extent in financial difficulties because they had not taken sufficient steps to bring their income and expenditure into balance."

It goes on to describe the conscious decision by some universities to use their reserves to ease a transitional period to a lower expenditure level. The report says :

"others had failed to note that by a commitment to broadly level funding in a block grant had been by reference to forecast inflation which might not match actual pay and price increases for particular universities."

If that is the case, it is the sort of managerial error that leads inevitably to deficits at the end of the financial year and certainly leads to deficits at the end of the second financial year to which the wrong forecast has been applied.

The Public Accounts Committee is, of course, aware of that. It says :

"We are concerned at the serious financial difficulties facing a number of universities and the extent to which they are operating at a deficit."

The Committee goes on to highlight a problem that it sees as more substantial than the generality--the problem faced by the University of London. The Committee tells us :

"We understand that financial forecasts indicate that mounting deficits could reach £46 million by July 1993."

Column 515

The Public accounts Committee is making us aware of that problem, which will require to be dealt with in the immediate future. It is outrageous that Britain's universities are being allowed to drift into this plight. The Public Accounts Committee can see it coming if the Government do not intervene to help, yet that seems to be the case. Although we can live with coming back to reports on the BBC licence fee saying, "The position has not changed very much since we last reported on the BBC licence fee in 1985", it would be a disgrace for which future generations would not forgive us if we had another report in four years' time on the funding of universities which said, "The position has continued to deteriorate precisely as we predicted four years ago and what has happened is the inevitable consequence of Government policy". That would not be acceptable. We have been alerted to a problem that is immediate. The Government have the chance--in fact more than the chance, the duty--to respond. The other report that fits into no other category than that of sheer negligence and which deals with a matter that was bitterly attacked by the Labour party at the time on financial grounds as well--and we were sneered at by the Government for doing so--is the 31st report, which deals with the dock labour compensation scheme. The key fact is that the House was told that the cost of redundancies for former registered dock workers who were being made redundant under the Dock Work Act 1989 would be about £25 million. The cost turned out to be £141 million--nearly six times the estimate notified to Parliament when the Bill was presented.

The Opposition told the Government at the time that they had got their sums wrong. We were sneered at by the Government who said, "That is just what the Opposition would say." The Government had their sums wrong, but they proceeded with the measure for ideological reasons. It is difficult now to defend the measure on the ground of protecting the public purse. Is £141 million value for money?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude) : Yes.

Mr. Brown : Really? I do not think so. If the Financial Secretary sits muttering that it is good value for money really, why does he not stand up and say, "All right, it is going to cost £141 million"? Why slip it in by saying that it would cost only £25 million, the estimate at that time?

The Chairman referred to the procurement of a new ship for St. Helena. I endorse everything that he said about that. It is not acceptable that one can use an Administration's advance payment as a guarantee to show that the yard is financially viable. Clearly that is nonsense. What is slightly more worrying and, again, so unfair to yards in England is that the Industry Department in Scotland was able to step in, to provide a guarantee and, in effect, to provide £11 million of public subsidy to finish the vessel, which finally cost £32 million. If the vessel had been procured in an English rather than a Scottish or Northern Irish yard, there would have been no agency of Government to step in, to offer the guarantee and to offer, in effect, a subsidy. The shipyards are supposed to be competing with each other on a level playing field, but that clearly is not so.

Column 516

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) referred to the report on the retail prices index. Although I disagree with his playing down of the significance of the RPI, his points about the report were fair and measured.

The 7th report, which may be of even more significance, returns to an earlier theme and deals with the monitoring and control of charities. That is an important issue. I remember the previous report because it expressed substantial fears concerning fraud, abuse and maladministration. I clearly remember that it made the point that the Charity Commission did not even employ qualified accountants to look through the accounts of the charities that it was supposed to supervise. I wholeheartedly agree with the Chairman of the PAC that this is an important matter. Charities always lobby us before every Finance Bill seeking more tax reliefs and special privileges. The reputable charities that we all support and want to encourage advance good arguments for such special treatment. The European Commission, however, is examining the definition of charities and the privileges that that definition attracts. The United Kingdom should play a leading part in those discussions. Charities have for long had an established role in our society, which is why it saddens me to read in the 7th report that--at least by implication--although progress has been made, matters are not yet satisfactory. I believe that we could have made more progress more quickly.

The report does not bring in any new material ; it merely trawls over all that was known at the time of the last report and states that some, but not enough, progress has been made. The Commission is making it clear that in the absence of legislation, for instance, it cannot enforce accounting standards or annual returns from charities. The method of enforcing annual returns is to flag up the charities that have not made their returns and-- it is hoped--by exerting that moral pressure to persuade them to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) discussed the report dealing with homelessness, and it is worth repeating his point that the way to deal immediately with the problem is to allow local authorities control over their own capital receipts to use them as they see fit for local circumstances by providing for those who have nowhere to live. That common sense solution is vigorously resisted by the Conservative party, which makes great play of the 2.4 per cent. of local authority housing stock that remains empty. Surely, Conservative Members say, that should be used to house the homeless. But the report tells us that they should be asking about the 18 per cent. of central Government housing stock that remains empty. Why is it not being used for homeless people? According to the PAC, 31,000 Government residential properties stand empty. I know some homeless people who would welcome the opportunity to live in some of those properties--if they are anything like as good as I suspect they are. The Government must tell us precisely where these properties are and why it is necessary for 18 per cent. of them to remain empty. The PAC tells us that the Government cannot give us that information at the moment. Could that be due to a lack of willingness on their part? It is legitimate to suspect as much. I hope that the PAC will pursue the Government over this matter.

The report on the inner cities is the last to which I shall refer, although I found a number of others interesting, including the two that deal with the Inland Revenue. The

Column 517

report on inner cities tries to pull together the work being done by the city action teams, by the task forces of the Department of Trade and Industry, by the urban programme through the Department of the Environment and by the local authorities involved in that, and by the wretched urban development corporations. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West was absolutely right to say that all these institutions are divorced from the public life of the communities in which they try to intervene. The PAC makes a similar point in a different way, pointing out that too much time is spent on managing projects and not enough on encouraging the regeneration of the inner cities.

Inner cities suffer from the debilitating effects of high levels of long- term unemployment. As every hon. Member who represents such areas knows, within the depressing overall area there are specific estates with sustained bleak employment prospects. Those tend to be the estates that have high levels of long-term unemployment. It is not surprising that such estates are targeted by professional criminals and networks of petty criminals and hooligans. A fact often neglected by the Conservative party is that the main victims of the activities of such people are their fellow citizens on those estates.

The justice system has not responded adequately to the problem of crime, but the heart of the problem is not the failure of the justice system or the magistracy but the failure of Government to intervene with practical solutions to the problems of the long-term unemployed. I shall cite an example from my constituency. There is no point in the urban development corporation providing £40 million of public money to underpin the activities of a property speculator to build office blocks when the main residual problem is displaced semi-skilled manual workers who can no longer find employment in shipbuilding and heavy engineering. There is a demand for office blocks on Tyneside, but they will not be filled by those people. Market forces could deal with the demand without any intervention from the public purse. Such intervention should be for specific purposes but, as the Public Accounts Committee report shows, insufficient attention has been given to the precise objectives of such Government activities.

The debate has been dominated by Labour Members. In addition to those hon. Friends whom I have already congratulated, I commend the speeches of my hon. Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). Without exception, Labour contributions have been from senior and distinguished Members, which is in marked contrast to the contributions by Conservative Members. Apart from three Conservative Back Benchers, nobody on the Government side seemed to be interested in the work of the Committee. That includes those Members who have joined us to laugh at the Minister when he is winding up. It is even more disgraceful that the Liberal Democrats--[H on. Members :--"Where are they?"] I seem to have united the House. Liberal Democrats are constantly using material gleaned from the work of the Public Accounts Committee in their local election campaigns. However, when it comes to carrying out some work or attending the debate to offer some views they are not only not present in the Chamber but are not in the building.

The reports highlight a catalogue of negligence. We must take seriously the waste caused by underfunding and the failure of the Government to prevent serious fraud.

Next Section

Home Page