House of Lords
Tuesday, 18th March 1997.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers--Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon.
London Underground: Privatisation Advisers
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean asked Her Majesty's Government:
-
How much Civil Service time was spent and what costs were incurred in developing the policy and preparing the statement on the privatisation of London Underground which was presented to Parliament on 25th February.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for his Answer, perhaps I may point out that the original Statement was made on 25th February, when there was not the slightest chance of implementing the proposals before the general election, and also that in another place on the same day his right honourable friend the Secretary of State said that he hoped that the decisions of electors in London would be influenced,
- "by our plans for London Underground".--[Official Report, Commons, 25/2/97; col. 164.]
Is the drawing up of the Conservative Party's manifesto not a most inappropriate use of politically neutral civil servants?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, that is nonsense. The duty of civil servants is to advise Ministers and to help to implement their policies. It is entirely appropriate that departmental civil servants working on London Underground matters should advise the Government on their intentions to produce a privatisation policy. A small group of civil servants already working within the department did just that. There is no question of impropriety. Indeed, I was pressed on a number of occasions by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen to reveal our intentions towards London Underground. When I came to the House and made a Statement, I was then criticised for making it. Noble Lords cannot have it both ways.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in view of the overwhelming success of every privatisation--a fact accepted by every country, including Russia and China, but not by the party opposite--would the Minister
give an undertaking that, when the Government are returned after the election, they will proceed with the privatisation of London Underground?
Viscount Goschen: Yes, my Lords, it is our firm intention to continue with this policy and it is my firm expectation that it will be opposed by the party opposite, just as they have opposed every privatisation so far, although they generally change their mind when it is shown to work.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does the Minister recall signing Questions of Procedure for Ministers? It is stated therein:
- "Ministers must not use public resources for party political purposes"?
Is this not a flagrant breach of that code of procedure?
Viscount Goschen: No, my Lords.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I believe it is appropriate on this occasion, since the Minister is soon to depart, and as this is the last transport Question of this Parliament, to say that throughout the time he has held his office he has been unfailingly courteous, and we appreciate that. There is nothing at all wrong with his courtesy; it is just his answers that are unacceptable. Does the Minister not recognise that there is a world of difference between making a statement several weeks in advance of the election and making one which is clearly stated to be part of the election manifesto and promise of his party? Does he not see that there is something slightly remiss in causing the Civil Service to help to develop the Tory Party manifesto?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, back in October my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said that we wanted to examine whether the benefits of privatisation, which has been shown to work with the heavy railway industry, could be applied to the London Underground. Subsequently civil servants, quite properly, took part in working up this policy to the point where it was possible to come before your Lordships' House with a Statement. There is nothing whatsoever wrong with that. The Government would never ask civil servants to do anything which was in any way political.
Lord Elton: My Lords, would my noble friend not suggest that the party opposite fears the results of this expenditure being very popular with the electorate? Is it not difficult to understand how it can object to this unless it thinks that the policy is right?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. It is also interesting that most of the recent questions with regard to London Underground have carefully steered away from the policy itself and concentrated on the issue of the three principal civil servants who helped with the drawing-up of the plans, matters concerning consultants, and so on. The fact is that every policy of privatisation with which we have
come forward has been opposed tooth and nail by members of the party opposite but they have come round to it. I am sure that they do not want to make the same mistake again.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, how is it that the noble Viscount finds difficulty in answering that part of my noble friend's Question that relates to the costs incurred by the Civil Service in view of the fact that, whenever the Government have a question put to them which they do not wish to answer, or are afraid to answer, it is their practice to be able to cost quite accurately the amount of time spent on answering a Parliamentary Question? Why can the noble Viscount not provide even an approximate figure--the House will always accept a degree of approximation--in answer to the Question raised by my noble friend?
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, when we consider Parliamentary Answers to Written Questions, we know that there are limits to the amount of money that can be spent on finding out the answers. The noble Lord will know that. Our policy is to examine the costs very closely. If we know that they will be above a certain amount, we would give the appropriate disproportionate cost answer. But that is a quite separate issue. Certainly, the work that has been taken forward on developing that policy was done by civil servants already in post, civil servants who are already considering London Underground matters--the privatisation, PFI, core funding or whatever. They do not log their time. So it is not possible for me, however much I should like to do so, to come forward with an answer to the noble Lord's question.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the duties of the Civil Service is to control public expenditure? If time is spent by civil servants on privatisation, whatever it may be, the cold fact of the matter is that whatever the cost has been to the Civil Service, the privatisation policy of this Government has resulted in a reverse of the £50 million per week spent by the taxpayer becoming now a receipt of £60 million a week to the Exchequer.
Viscount Goschen: My Lords, my noble friend's sentiment is quite right. That is why noble Lords opposite have stopped opposing some privatisations which they so bitterly opposed at the time. It is worth noting that £2.6 billion a year in taxes is now contributed by privatised companies which paid only £37 million a year when they were operating in the public sector.
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, I hope noble Lords will forgive me, but I note that we have a full quota of Questions today. I wonder whether the House might feel that the time has come to move on.
Industrial Tribunals: Members' Expenses
2.45 p.m.
Lord McCarthy asked Her Majesty's Government:
-
Whether the data which lay behind the recent statement of the Central Office of Industrial Tribunals to the effect that over half of the expenses claims by members of tribunals "are for less than £10 and a fifth for less than £5" include both travel and subsistence claims; and how far the levels of claims vary from region to region and by reference to whether members are employer or employee nominees.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Surely he must accept that it is not satisfactory. For example, we do not know the proportion between employer and employee representatives and we do not know what will be the consequences of those decisions. Will he accept that we are creating a situation in which side members and parties who are forced to travel more than 10 miles by train or 20 miles by coach will be out of pocket? On the noble and learned Lord's own estimates, that will have a disproportionate effect on people who live a long way from the tribunals and have to spend that money. Does he agree that there are better ways of saving the money, if it has to be saved, than the way advanced by the Government?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page