House of Commons Hansard Debates for 12 Jun 1995

DUCHY OF LANCASTER

Research and Development

24. Mrs. Anne Campbell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what response he will make to the technology foresight panels' recommendations for additional spending on Government-funded research and development. [26055]

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. David Hunt): I have announced a technology foresight challenge fund, totalling £80 million, to which my Department will contribute half during the next three years.

Mrs. Campbell: Will the Chancellor confirm that his Government's "Forward Look" figures show that, between 1986 and projected spend in 1996, the Government will have taken almost £1 billion out of the science and technology budget? Are not the Government taking money out of science and technology in lorryloads and giving it back in jam jars?

Mr. Hunt: I do not accept that at all. The science budget, for which I am responsible, has increased by more than 30 per cent. in real terms in the past 16 years. As to the science and technology spend throughout Government, in all Departments, the hon. Lady will be aware of the effects of the review of defence spending and, indeed, the effects of the launch aid in the aerospace industry and several other factors.

The important thing is that the latest statistics, published in March, showed that more was being spent on research and development by industry, by universities and by Government.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in recognising the important impact of the technology foresight process, we should pay great tribute to Sir William Stewart, who retired last week as chief scientific adviser, who played an enormous part in making that such a great success in the wider sphere of Government scientific policy and was also a great pleasure to work with?

Mr. Hunt: I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the five years of distinguished service that Sir William Stewart gave as chief scientific adviser to the Government and as head of the Office of Science and Technology. His vision and leadership were instrumental in the successful establishment of the Office of Science and Technology and, with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in the publication of the White Paper, "Realising our Potential", which was so well received both within and outside the scientific community. I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend during his time in office.

Mr. Battle: May I make it clear that Labour welcomes technology foresight in principle and the reports so far? We would urge the Government to enhance and carry the process forward. I ask the Minister, when can we welcome a full debate on science in the Chamber in

Column 492

Government time to discuss the reports? When will the Government publish practical action plans to implement the proposals of the report? When will other Ministers in other Departments welcome the reports and their recommendations, so that they are not left on the shelf in the Office of Science and Technology and ignored by Ministers in other Departments, as has happened in the past?

Mr. Hunt: I start by welcoming the hon. Gentleman's acceptance of the technology foresight exercise. I pay tribute to the many people who have played a part in bringing about what I believe to be one of the most innovative programmes ever to have taken place in this country. Of course, he will know what my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have already said about carrying forward the technology foresight message. The Government recognise the importance of science, engineering and technology. That is reflected in our response to the whole technology foresight exercise.

Citizens Charter

25. Sir Thomas Arnold: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what further plans he has to make the citizens charter justiciable. [26056]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Office of Public Service and Science (Mr. John Horam): The citizens charter is continuing to raise the standard of public service. Although the charter as a whole is not legally enforceable, certain provisions in specific charters are backed by legislation.

Sir Thomas Arnold: Does my hon. Friend accept that to widen the areas where the charter would be legally enforceable need not be unduly onerous in public spending terms?

Mr. Horam: Yes, that is certainly true. It need not involve any further public expenditure. What I would be concerned about is losing flexibility. We have increased credibility for the particular charters and some legislative backing in, for example, the parents charter, of which my hon. Friend will be aware. We shall continue to evolve in that direction. He will notice that more and more adjudicators have been appointed--for example, for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise. They are bridging the gap between legal enforcement and strong voluntary enforcement.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Minister aware that he can shout and bawl as much as he likes about the values and virtues of the Government's citizens charter because in the background there is another citizen, the ex-Prime Minister Lady Thatcher, who has marked the Government's record and their own charter and does not think that it adds up to a row of beans?

Mr. Horam: I do not think that the House would readily agree that I was a shouter and a bawler.

Charter Mark

26. Mr. Fabricant: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what changes of service have been monitored in the public services since the introduction of the charter mark. [26058]

Column 493

Mr. Horam: There have been a large number of measurable improvements since the introduction of the charter mark. One charter mark winner that I visited recently, a housing benefits department, has increased customer satisfaction to 97 per cent., improved its productivity level and saved more than £2 million through improved fraud detection.

Mr. Fabricant: That is an encouraging answer. Is my hon. Friend aware that my constituents welcome the fact that when they telephone Government Departments, telephones are answered more quickly, they can find out the names of the people to whom they speak, and pamphlets are issued in English that they can understand? Does my hon. Friend agree that the constant carping and criticism from Labour Members implies that they have no desire to improve the standard of public services?

Mr. Horam: My hon. Friend is right. There has been a revolution in public services in terms of waiting times, politeness, openness and all those aspects, although I confess that we still have a little further to go in terms of plain English.

Mr. Winnick: Has the Minister given any consideration to having a negative charter mark for organisations which do not give any satisfaction? If so, what sort of negative charter mark should be given to the most discredited and unpopular Government since records began? Does the hon. Gentleman now regret joining the Tory party after so many years in the Labour party when his current party is going to lose the next election and he will certainly be out of a job?

Mr. Horam: I am delighted to be a member of an Administration who have the best economic performance that I can remember and who have improved public services beyond the imagination of the Opposition, rather than an Administration who let inflation rip and came to an end in the tragic farce of the winter of discontent.

Mr. Brandreth: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the growing popularity of the charter mark is shown by the fact that, last year, there were some 20,000 inquiries about it and some 500 firm applications? Is there scope for extending the charter mark system to organisations such as one in my constituency called the Blacon project, which is an outstanding community partnership between the local authority, the local community and the voluntary sector?

Mr. Horam: That is an interesting suggestion, which I shall consider.

Standards in Public Life

27. Mr. MacShane: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what steps he is taking to implement the Nolan

recommendations. [26059]

Mr. David Hunt: The Government welcome the broad thrust of the Nolan recommendations in so far as they affect the Government and we are now considering a detailed response.

Mr. MacShane: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the public concern that just four of the Conservative Members of Parliament chosen to serve on the proposed House of Commons Committee hold 23 paid directorships or consultancies between them? Is not that concern

Column 494

reflected in the Gallup opinion poll reported in The Daily Telegraph today, showing that nine out of 10 members of the public do not want Members of Parliament to take any outside payment of any sort?

As the Minister responsible for appointments to quangos, what will the right hon. Gentleman do now, before the Committee reports, to ensure that future quango appointments are not part of the Tory fund-raising operation?

Mr. Hunt: The Nolan report concluded that there was no substance to many of the allegations that have been thrown around. The hon. Gentleman should reflect on that. I hope that this House can now get on with setting up the relevant Committee to look into the way in which this House should respond to the Nolan recommendations.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is unsatisfactory for single organisations to write cheques for £4,000 apiece--cash for votes--for the election expenses of many of our political opponents? Does he further agree that it would make sense for Members of Parliament to judge their own conduct by what I call the local newspaper test--if they are doing something that they would not want reported in the local newspaper, either they should not do it or they should tell the local newspaper?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend raises some important points, which I hope Labour Members will consider carefully. I read some speculation somewhere that at a recent Labour party conference--which seemed to be an awful lot of something about nothing--Labour said that it was looking into its links with the trade unions. I hope that it does so and comes forward quickly with recommendations.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Given the huge public support for the Nolan recommendations--all the answers to all the questions showing eight or nine people out of 10 supporting them--does the right hon. Gentleman think that for the Government to propose for the implementing Committee a group of people who are not only not all senior Conservative Members of the House, but clearly have a vested interest in a result that will allow hon. Members to continue being sponsored from outside the House, exactly confirms the public prejudice that we are always trying to look after ourselves first and the public second?

Why did not the Government propose Members of Parliament with no outside interests, so that there could be a clearly impartial decision reflecting the view of the public that we need to sweep away the old order and bring in a far more free-from-interest order in accord with the public view of the day?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should read and reflect on the report in full. He would then realise that it states that many of the allegations that have been thrown around have been found to have no substance. It is a fundamental recommendation of the Nolan committee that Members of Parliament should be free to continue with outside interests. That was a specific recommendation. Of course the House must carefully consider the Nolan recommendations, but that is a matter for the House and not for me.

Column 495

Mr. Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible to ask the Nolan committee to look into the corruption and malpractice in so many Labour-run local authorities--in particular, the incompetence in the social services department in Islington when it was run by a lady who has now escaped to the Labour Benches, the employment of illegal immigrants in Hackney, and the employment of a teacher in Lambeth even though he is a trade union leader? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members will never be taken seriously until all of them give up every penny of trade union sponsorship both for themselves and for their constituency parties?

Mr. Hunt: My hon. Friend has issued an important challenge to Labour Members. I know that there is increasing concern about the way local government is being administered in certain parts of the country. My hon. Friend's voice will have been heard and the supportive reaction that he received noted. Indeed, the Nolan committee has already said that local government will be an area for further inquiry; no doubt my hon. Friend's remarks will be taken into account when it meets to consider taking further steps.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: In view of the comments made by the Chancellor's hon. Friends this afternoon, will he reconsider the Government's opposition to the proposal that the Nolan committee should look into party political funding? Would it not be helpful to everyone to have that inquiry brought forward and held as quickly as possible? The Minister is directly responsible for appointments to quangos and he has said this afternoon that he fully supports Nolan's recommendations on that issue. He also made that clear in a debate six weeks ago. What steps has he taken to implement the Nolan committee's recommendations about appointments to quangos? What is he doing about those who hold office on quangos who were not appointed on merit? Will he give an assurance, in the spirit of Nolan, that Ministers have stopped packing quangos with Tory nominees?

Mr. Hunt: I wish that the hon. Lady would read the Nolan report, as it clearly labels as untrue each and every one of the allegations that she has just made. The report says that there is no evidence of such packing. There is no evidence that people are appointed on anything other than merit. It is about time she reflected on the recommendations and words of the Nolan report, rather than trying to invent allegations which cannot be proved. We have put forward our policies very clearly. We have already laid out our response to the recommendations in the debate in this House. We are now preparing our detailed response, which will be published as soon as possible.

Market Testing

28. Mr. Duncan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what progress the Government are making with their market-testing programme. [26060]

Mr. Horam: As our announcement in January on the "Competing for Quality" programme showed, progress has been very good. By September 1994, £2 billion of activities had been looked at and annual savings of more than £400 million identified. New figures will be available shortly.

Mr. Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does it not contrast starkly with Labour party

Column 496

policy, which seems to be against such efficiency savings? Indeed, as a result, the Labour party seems to be in favour of inefficiency and therefore higher taxation. What savings does my hon. Friend estimate we are likely to make in the forthcoming year?

Mr. Horam: Until September, we are tackling a programme worth about £860 million. At the current rate of saving of about 20 per cent., that should yield--if my arithmetic is right--savings of about £170 million for the taxpayer.

Ms Walley: Will the Minister look at the way in which the issue is being raised in the health service? Will he look closely at the decision of an industrial tribunal in Birmingham today? The transfer of a particular contract from one part of the health service to another has been found to be unlawful in the European Court because of the rules on the transfer of undertakings. When will the Government recognise that the exercise does not take into account the long term but looks only at certain so-called efficiency savings without considering the total cost and the dismantling of organisations such as the national health service.

Mr. Horam: The programme does take account of the long term. Clearly, it is beginning to be a long-term factor. It started in the late 1980s and has carried on successfully over the years. If the hon. Lady would care to give me details of the specific example that she mentioned, I will certainly look into it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is there any reason why in-house bids should not be acceptable, particularly, for example, in the running of pension funds?

Mr. Horam: It is normal practice to accept in-house bids. Only in very rare circumstances, where expertise is not available in-house, are in- house bids not accepted. I assure my hon. Friend of that.

Government Policy

29. Mr. Mackinlay: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to what extent his Government responsibilities include overseeing and co- ordinating the presentation of Government policy. [26061]

Mr. David Hunt: I chair the relevant Cabinet Committee.

Mr. Mackinlay: Is it true that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has sent minutes to the Prime Minister and sought to counsel him about the political and electoral consequences of the enormous rate of negative equity, especially in the south-east of England? In making those representations, has the Chancellor also drawn to the Prime Minister's attention the human cost of the anxiety suffered by millions of people enduring negative equity and the consequences for enterprise because people cannot borrow to start new businesses? What do the Government intend to do about the problems of negative equity to lift the burden from the people who suffer it?

Mr. Hunt: As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary said earlier, the Government are responsible for a sustained period of non- inflationary growth and a background in economic statistics that we have not seen for many generations. Of course, we are aware of the difficulties faced by some individuals. My right hon.

Column 497

Friends have announced a series of measures designed to counteract that. The Government's sound policies take precedence over presentation. After last weekend, it is clear that, for Labour, presentation comes first.

Dr. Spink: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, in presenting Government policies, the Government seek to promote Britain in the best light and to promote pride in being British, rather than to sell Britain down the river as that lot over there on the Opposition Benches would, with minimum wages and the social chapter, which would destroy jobs?

Mr. Hunt: In the words of the deputy leader of the Labour party, any silly fool should know that that would

Column 498

be the consequence of the Labour party's policies, which my hon. Friend has just set out. Apparently, the Labour party last weekend decided to say anything about nothing and nothing about anything. The party without a leader is becoming the leader without a party.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In his reply to the hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman), the Parliamentary Secretary may have inadvertently misled the House when he said that in- house applications for tenders for services that were about to be privatised would normally be accepted. In fact, in many cases they are not even allowed to tender. In the case of the civil service pension scheme, which is of major importance, it appears that the President of the Board of Trade is not allowing any in-house tenders.

Column 497

Next Section (Debates)

Home Page