---

9 Dec 1996 : Column 1

THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

OFFICIAL REPORT

IN THE FIFTH SESSION OF THE FIFTY-FIRST PARLIAMENT OF THE

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND [WHICH OPENED 27 APRIL 1992]

FORTY-FIFTH YEAR OF THE REIGN OF

HER MAJESTY QUEEN ELIZABETH II

SIXTH SERIES

VOLUME 287

FOURTH VOLUME OF SESSION 1996-97

House of Commons

Monday 9 December 1996

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Civil Service (Impartiality)

1. Mr. Barry Jones: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many statements he has made concerning the Government's policy in respect of impartiality in the home civil service.[6494]

The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I am always ready to confirm the Government's commitment to a politically impartial civil service. I did so at the Dispatch Box just four weeks ago and I do so again today.

Mr. Jones: Has not one of the principal victims of 17 years of Conservative Government been the home civil service? Have not the Government always attempted to bully and manipulate our civil service? Will the Deputy Prime Minister take this opportunity to tell the House that in no way has he ever tried to bully or manipulate the Cabinet Secretary?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I realise that the Labour party has been out of power for a long time, but it grossly

9 Dec 1996 : Column 2

underestimates the reserve and resilience of the British civil service if it thinks for one minute that it would be bullied or manipulated.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that although we are very fortunate in having an incomparable civil service in this country, nevertheless it has inflicted a number of wounds on itself in recent years by leaking?

The Deputy Prime Minister: The whole basis on which documents are now leaked is severely prejudicial to the good conduct of government in this country, and it is much to be deplored that it is encouraged and abetted ruthlessly and remorselessly by the Labour party.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is it not clear that the Government have been in office too long and that the widespread view, in all professions and at all levels, is that change is needed? Would that not also be a good signal and reassurance for the historical impartiality of the home civil service? The problem for the incoming Labour Government are the placemen and placewomen who have been put in charge of the quangos and who, overwhelmingly, are Tory friends and Tory plants.

The Deputy Prime Minister: If there were any validity in the idea that being in control for a long time demanded change, the first casualty would be Labour inner-city authorities, which have ruled their areas for much longer than we have ruled this country.

London Docklands

2. Sir Michael Neubert: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what was the purpose of his recent official visit to London docklands; and if he will make a statement.[6495]

The Deputy Prime Minister: I last visited London docklands at the end of September to open a new footbridge at West India quay. That marked another step forward in the regeneration of the docklands.

Sir Michael Neubert: My right hon. Friend may be assured that he will always be welcomed as the architect

9 Dec 1996 : Column 3

of London docklands development, for his part in the regeneration of east London and for redressing the imbalance between east London and traffic-congested Heathrow-dominated west London. Is he aware, however, that both the millennium project on the Greenwich peninsula and the proposed exhibition centre in the Royal docks will greatly benefit as potential sources of employment in the medium and long term from extra infrastructure, whether it be additional car parks to assist the river-road interface or an extra bridge crossing in the east of London? Will my right hon. Friend lend his good offices to progress in that direction?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I am extremely grateful for my hon. Friend's kind remarks. The regeneration of east London must be one of the largest and most successful regeneration projects anywhere in the world. The results are quite incredible. The number of people employed there has risen from 27,000 to 69,000; more than 170 km of new and improved roads have been built; there is 24 km of new railway; and there has been the creation of an inner-city airport. It is a remarkable tribute to the Government and was brought about and made possible only by removing the powers of inner London Labour authorities.

Mr. Spearing: I share the view of the hon. Member for Romford (Sir M. Neubert) in relation to transport infrastructure for public transport, particularly on the water, but I draw the Deputy Prime Minister's attention to Britannia village--the development opposite the exhibition centre at Victoria dock. Is he aware that of the 1,000 dwellings being constructed 75 per cent. are for sale and only 25 per cent. are for letting? The Deputy Prime Minister was responsible for setting up the London Docklands development corporation. In view of the fact that the land was publicly owned and many of the relatives and descendants of those who worked in the docks are having difficulty finding rented accommodation, would it not have been more to his credit and, indeed, that of the Government if the proportion were nearer 50 per cent?

The Deputy Prime Minister: No, it would not. Such was the saturation by publicly owned and let accommodation that anyone wishing to buy accommodation had to leave, thus impoverishing the area. That was one of the reasons for the area's decline. In the years since its establishment, the London Docklands development corporation has created a better balance--though by no means a majority balance--to encourage young people who want to buy their own homes to stay in the area where they were born rather than leaving for more prosperous areas.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: My right hon. Friend mentioned London docklands and reference was made earlier to the Greenwich millennium site. Will my right hon. Friend give careful attention to the river's potential for transport and leisure, which presents terrific opportunities from central London to the centre of the universe at Gravesend?

The Deputy Prime Minister: I assure my hon. Friend that those matters are never far from my mind, but I must also bear in mind the fact that many people prefer to use other forms of transport and have not yet come around to

9 Dec 1996 : Column 4

seeing river transport as their prime means of moving from one place to another. Such a change may be desirable, but this is a free society.

Mr. Beith: What does the Deputy Prime Minister think would happen to investment in docklands and in similar areas--and to the financial services industry, which is well established in docklands--if Britain were on the outside of a functioning single currency? Is Britain's participation still a serious option for the Conservative Government, given the reaction of Conservative Members to what the Prime Minister said on Sunday?

The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend set out the advantages and disadvantages extremely clearly, and he made his personal position and that of the Conservative Government clear. After the election, the House and the country will realise that we shall carry those policies forward.

Century Date Change (Computers)

3. Mr. David Atkinson: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the effect of the century date change on computer systems within the civil service.[6496]

The Paymaster General (Mr. David Willetts): The effect of the century date change on computers is potentially a very serious issue for Government Departments, which we must address swiftly and thoroughly. A report from all Departments detailing the scope of the problem for each of them should be received in January. Every Department should have a costed plan in place by October 1997, and should have ensured full compliance of its systems, including testing, by December 1998.

Mr. Atkinson: I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance. Does he agree that it will not be enough to ensure that the Government's own computer systems will be millennium compliant? What is he doing to ensure that systems in the private sector, with which the Government's systems are connected, are also safe? Will he give full support on Wednesday next week to my ten-minute Companies (Millennium Computer Compliance) Bill to ensure that all business computer systems will be safe in three years' time?

Mr. Willetts: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his efforts to improve understanding of this important issue. However, although the subjects to which he referred will be covered in our review to prepare for the year 2000, the Government do not believe that a new statutory requirement on businesses would be the right way forward.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Have provisional figures been put on the cost of the necessary changes to computers by the millennium? Have the Government any idea what the cost will be? If so, have they built those costs into the Red Book projections?

Mr. Willetts: Departments are assessing the costs of the so-called millennium bug, and we expect them to have

9 Dec 1996 : Column 5

a fully costed programme to deal with the problem by October 1997. We cannot include costs when we do not yet know exactly what they will be.

---