XN000022-1996-10-30 — Page 19

- 2 -

The motion

Returning to the motion, its first part asks the Government to conduct an overall review of the existing trading funds. Members will be pleased to know that the Government agrees that it is important to review the operations, impact and achievements of the trading funds. They are, after all, an important plank in the Government's programme to improve public services under the Serving the Community banner. We are therefore engaged in an on-going programme of monitoring and review of the performance and cost effectiveness of the trading funds, working with their management teams to learn from and share experience as a way of securing continuous improvement. As part of this on-going review, we have instituted twice yearly meetings with each of the trading funds to review their performance.

I would now like to provide Members with an overview of the current performance of the funds. Our review

process covers!

fees and charges

service improvements

productivity improvements rate of return, and

accountability.

All of these issues have been raised in some form during the debate on the motion.

Fees and charges

I should first like to deal with the question of fees and charges.

There has been no change in the process for setting the fees and charges for any of the trading fund services. Specifically, where fees and charges are set by subsidiary legislation, they continue to be so set and subject to the negative vetting procedures provided under Cap.1. Indeed, Members have been diligent in the exercise of those powers and we have, at their request, provided additional detailed justification for our proposals in the process. Even then, not all proposed increases have found favour - I am of course referring to our earlier proposed increases in charges for sewage services. But this does serve to underline my point about the retention of the system's checks and balances even after a public service has been put on trading fund status.

For postal charges, we have given Members an assurance that we will only seek increases that are broadly in line with inflation, i.e. at worst a minimal increase in real terms but with potential for significant reductions in real terms.