§ Motion made, and Question proposed That this House do now adjourn—Mr. Sainsbury.]
2.30 pm§ Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you advise me of the methods that can be used to ensure that Ministers' introductory speeches are shorter so that hon. Members from all parts of the country who represent areas with serious problems of solvent abuse and drug dependency can tell the House and the country about the problems and the methods taken to eradicate them?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong)As the hon. Gentleman knows, a number of means are available to hon. Members to express their views about the length of speeches. It is not a matter for me. I remind the House that any time taken on points of order is deducted from the Adjournment debate.
§ Mr. Willie W. Hamilton (Fife, Central)The urban aid programme was established in 1969 by the then Labour Government to support, with Government finance, community projects in areas of greatest social need. In Scotland, that meant mainly, although not exclusively, Glasgow. The programme is founded on the proposition that 75 per cent. Government grant should be given to projects and that 25 per cent. should be provided by local authorities working with voluntary bodies. It is generally agreed that the system has worked well, although modestly, for the past 15 years.
In 1983–84, the Government provision for that sphere of activity was £35 million. Yet a short time ago a sudden and unexpected decision was taken to cut that sum to £26. million in 1984–85—a reduction of 25 per cent. The immediate reaction of local authorities, voluntary organisations and everyone concerned with these matters was one of anger, frustration and disbelief. The Government have been ceaseless in their encouragement of voluntary organisations—laudable in itself, provided that those fine words are matched by adequate financial assistance.
In the light of what the Government have repeatedly said, the voluntary bodies had a right to expect that the financing of the programme by central Government would be sustained and, indeed, protected from inflation. At a meeting on 30 April organised by the voluntary bodies, it was said—and I do not think that the Minister will deny this—that in May 1983 the Scottish Office indicated that the urban aid cash limit for 1984–85 would be maintained in real terms. Therefore, many local authorities planned on the basis that the Government provision for 1984–85 would be about £37 million, in line with inflation.
The Scotsman newspaper said on 8 June:
The urban programme is needed to mitigate the effects of unemployment and poverty; it should be expanded rather than truncated.The cut in the Scottish programme is in marked contrast with the position in England and Wales. I have checked the official figures, which show that the provision for 1984–85 for England and Wales is £348 million —precisely the same figure as for 1983–84. Indeed, during the past few days it has been reported that Liverpool is to 1514 receive an additional £2.5, million under the recent agreement between that authority and the Secretary of State for the Environment. If Liverpool suffers from deprivation, so does Glasgow.In a report issued by the Scottish Office, "Public Expenditure 1986–87—A commentary on the Scotland programme", the Government provide an interesting table on page 52 showing that provision in the urban programme leaped from £24 million in 1982–83 to £35 million in election year. Cynics might say that that was part of election bribery. Now that the election is safely out of the way, the programme for 1984–85 has been cut, as I say, to under £27 million.
On page 56, the Government use the excuse for the reduction that in 1982–83 local authorities underspent by £8 million out of a total provision of £24 million, due partly, claim the Government, to the increasing reluctance of local authorities to embark on urban programmes in view of the resultant long-term revenue consequences.
The provision of £35 million in 1983–84, say the Government, will also be substantially underspent—all this from a Government who are constantly accusing local authorities of being wasteful and irresponsible spenders. Yet they use as an excuse for cutting the urban programme the allegation that local authorities have not been coming forward with programmes for urban aid. Local authorities are criticised by the Government when they allegedly underspend and are penalised when they overspend. They cannot win. Either way they are on the receiving end of the Government's miserliness.
Why did local authorities underspend in the last two years? It was not, in my view, or in theirs, solely because of fear of the revenue consequences, though that was an important factor. It was partly because, whatever the reasons, the Scottish Office takes so long to process applications for aid.
I gave the Minister prior notice of certain questions that I would be asking him. For example, what is the average time taken to process an application for urban aid, and what are the reasons for delays in processing? Are the delays due to a shortage of staff, incompetence, indifference, or a combination of all three?
The Scottish Council of Social Service points out that the Scottish Office has this year rejected all the 248 applications for new projects. At the meeting in April to which I referred, several speakers highlighted the dismay and frustration felt by voluntary groups which had had their applications rejected after months of careful and painstaking planning.
I am sure that the Minister has information about "Pathway", a projecct by an organisation called the Edinburgh university settlement. That project was designed to provide five to seven places for single homeless young women aged 16 to 21 for a stay of up to two years. That was a carefully researched and well documented programme constructed over two years, not by nitwits, halfwits or people who did not know what they were about. That project will be axed unless the Government change their view on these matters.
On 3 May the Kirkcaldy district council wrote to the Scottish Development Department expressing concern about the cuts. It received a reply dated 15 June, more than six weeks later. It told it nothing. Bearing in mind the content of the reply, the Minister could have replied the day after receiving the council's letter. That is a further 1515 sign of the languid incompetence of the Scottish Office in dealing with these matters. The Minister said that he had agreed to talk to the voluntary bodies and added:
a significant proportion of the most insubstantial £26.5 million committed for this year will be used to support voluntary initiatives.He commented that the local authorities had been provided with £25 million in 1983–84 and had underspent by £5 million, and that the resources available for 1984–85 reflected that trend. The Minister was saying that local authorities and voluntary bodies had no one to blame but themselves because they did not even spend the limited resources that the Government had already provided. If the local authorities and voluntary bodies decided to spend well over the £26.5 million, will the Minister say, "Because of the overspend we shall arrange for a supplementary Estimate to take care of the increased demand?" The magnitude and seriousness of the social and economic deprivation in all urban areas vastly exceeds the deprivation which existed in 1969 when the urban programme was born. However, in real terms the amount spent on it has been reduced since 1980–81 in real terms. At present, more than 1,100 urban programme projects are in operation in Scotland with several hundreds more in their planning and application stage. These projects cannot be turned on and off like a tap. They are often months if not years in preparation and when the projects are cut at short notice many complications arise.I shall give a few examples of the projects that are affected. They include the provision of day centres for the elderly, schemes to help children who are in trouble, local information centres and the establishment of community gardens in places such as Dundee. The Fife regional council in my constituency is in the process of submitting an application for urban aid to provide additional accommodation at the Woodlands nursery school at Methil to create a family centre that will offer a range of facilities for the parents of pre-school children, including creches, holiday play facilities, a toy library and a meeting place for young parents. That scheme will probably have to be scrapped if the money from the Government is not forthcoming.
People in deprived areas are getting a bad deal and the cuts that will result from the Government's proposals will confirm the feeling of hopelessness and anger that they rightly feel. Deprivation in Glasgow and other urban areas in Scotland is at least as great as that in any other part of the United Kingdom and the urban programme should reflect that brutal fact.
I can anticipate what the Minister will say—I hope that I am not being unduly pessimistic—and, without apology, I shall be controversial in the final two or three minutes of my speech. When I compare the urban aid programme in Scotland with provision for the police, for example, as shown on page 40 of the Scottish Office's comments on the public expenditure programme up to 1985–86, the conclusions to be drawn are an adequate commentary on the Government's priorities. In the past few years, the urban programme has been cut in real terms. Current and capital expenditure on the police in 1980–81 was £186 million, and in 1984–85 it is £285 million—an increse of more than 50 per cent. in real terms.
1516 When discussing provisions for housing, education, health and urban aid, the claim is always made—I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will say this—that there is a limit to what one can do with public money. I shall continue to repeat that, according to the Government's figures, projected defence expenditure in the Falklands Islands fortress folly has been as follows: 1983–84, £624 million; 1984–85, £684 million; and 1985–86, £552 million. That is at least £2,000 million in round terms to defend 1,200 folks 8,000 miles away—fewer than the numbers who live in hundreds of villages in Scotland. That is a measure of the Government's indefensible and obsene set of priorities.
We live in a deeply and bitterly divided society in which the gap between the rich and the poor — the Under-Secretary of State need not laugh at these comments, because they are accurate — has been deliberately and progressively widened in the past few years. We live in a society in which private affluence and public squalor are becoming more apparent daily.
The urban programme represents a brave attempt to give a little help to the disadvantaged, the poor, the unemployed, the old, the under-privileged and the other minority groups with no political clout such as homeless young people. The appeals made to the Government not only by me but by others outside are not widely extravagant. As the Government say that cuts have been made because of an underspend of existing provisions, I ask the Under-Secretary of State to give an undertaking that, if he finds that there is overwhelming evidence of a vast increase in the demand for urban aid programmes, the Secretary of State for Scotland will go the Treasury and ask for supplementary provision. That is not an extravagant proposition, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will give a sysmpathetic reply.
§ 2.48 pm.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Michael Ancram)I start—perhaps to the surprise of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) — by thanking him for raising an important subject. On listening to the early part of his speech, I thought that he was constructive and perceptive, but, as is so often the case, he ruined his speech at the end by dropping into his normal pattern of comparing like with unlike and drawing conclusions from comparisons that cannot be made. I do not want to fall into the trap of following him down the road of those miscomparisons, because the debate gives me the opportunity to make the Government's present position clear and to emphasise the extent of our commitment to the programme in recent years.
It might be helpful if I start by outlining briefly the current position on the urban programme in Scotland and how that has evolved. The concept of an urban programme to assist local authorities to tackle the problems of urban deprivation developed over the 1970s. In 1980, a review of the urban development programme was instituted in Scotland to consider its effectiveness in channelling resources into multiple-deprived areas in a co-ordinated and coherent way. In February 1981, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced that he had decided to continue the programme and to set criteria and priorities within which it was to operate.
The resources made available were to be concentrated on complementing —I underline that word—the local 1517 authority effort in the most severely deprived areas, and emphasis was put on the need to develop projects which formed part of comprehensive rehabilitation plans. The aim was to mobilise voluntary efforts and private sector resources as far as possible to assist local authorities in their tasks. Minor adjustments were made to the programme in 1982 but the focus of it remains broadly as it was set. I shall explain shortly how successful it has been.
In recognition of the importance of the problem, additional resources were provided over a number of years. As the hon. Member has said, for 1980–81 the resources made available, at £22.6 million, were double the provision in the previous year. In 1981–82 the provision was increased to over £26 million, and for 1982–83 to almost £33 million. Last year, as the hon. Member rightly said, there was a further increase to £35 million. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would privately admit— even if he would not do so publicly—that in relation to total public expenditure in Scotland those are very substantial sums.
Until very recently, however, the response from local authorities has been disappointing, despite the flexible approach adopted in administering the programme. Many extremely worthwhile projects have undoubtedly been supported. Some authorities, I fully recognise, have put commendable effort into developing defined policies and sponsoring well thought out and well targeted schemes.
Across the board, however, local authorities have not, historically, taken up the resources made available to them. There have been underspends against provision, and underspends of considerable magnitude, as the hon. Gentleman said—almost £4 million in both 1980–81 and 1981–82, over £8 million in 1982–83, and, from provisional returns for last year, well over £6 million in 1983–84. Clearly, that level of under-use could not be continued. My right hon. Friend and I would rightly have been criticised by hon. Members—and not least by the hon. Member — if resources made available to Parliament were not being used to the best effect, given the other legitimate public expenditure demands in Scotland.
It was in the face of that historic pattern of underspend that we took decisions last autumn about provisions for 1984–85. There was a limited response from local authorities, a history of underspend, uncertainty about whether the resources provided for 1983–84 would be fully taken up, and pressures elsewhere. They all had to be taken into account. Having taken them into account, provision was accordingly set at £26.5 million, still a very substantial amount of money, supporting almost 900 individual urban programme projects in this financial year. Many of our current critics, including the hon. Gentleman, seem conveniently to overlook that very important fact.
Since provision for 1984–85 was set, it has emerged that local authorities have failed to spend more than £3 million of capital programmed for expenditure in 1983–84, the bulk of which will now have to be carried into this financial year. At the beginning of this calendar year, the number of applications received by the Department rose sharply. The upsurge of interest should be welcomed and I am fully aware of the effort put, particularly by voluntary and community groups, into developing projects over many months. The slippage of more than £3 million, which was not notified to my officials in time for any sensible remedial action to be taken, and previously 1518 approved new projects have, however, absorbed the bulk of the resources which would have been available for additional approvals in 1984–85. It was for that reason that consideration of new projects was suspended, although extensions to existing projects and supplementary capital allocations are still being approved whenever possible.
The hon. Gentleman made comparisons with England and Wales, but I do not think that such comparisons are particularly meaningful or helpful. As I am sure he appreciates, the urban programme in Scotland is run entirely independently and is focused on the particular needs of Scotland. The direction and procedures of the programme, especially in view of the related contribution to urban renewal by the Scottish Development Agency, are different from those in England, which makes it an arid comparison.
Against this background, I am taking stock of the urban programme in Scotland. I am not yet in a position to say whether there will be scope for additional new project approvals in 1984–85. The Department is still awaiting further information from local authorities about their projected capital spends when we shall be better able to judge the level of commitments. I hope to be in a position to make an announcement about this shortly. Nor can I yet give any commitment about resources for 1985–86. The needs of the urban programme will be considered along with other programmes when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State makes decisions about public expenditure generally later this year.
I am, however, taking the opportunity to assess the relevance of the criteria and priorities of the programme in relation to the problems that they are designed to tackle. I have noted the points made by the hon. Member and I am grateful to him and for the comments and suggestions that have been made to me. I have met and shall be having further meetings with a number of individual local authorities and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. I have invited the Scottish Council of Social Services to organise a small deputation to discuss the interests of the voluntary sector in the urban programme.
In view of the time, I should at this stage answer the specific question that the hon. Gentleman asked and of which he gave me notice. We do not have statistics to show the average time taken to process applications but it is the aim of the urban renewal unit to give the local authority a decision within two months of receipt of the application if the proposal is well thought out, meets the urban programme criteria and is well presented in terms of information required. Some applications take less time, but a longer time is inevitable if an application requires further discussion or correspondence to clarify or justify the project or if it is unusually complex or original and thus requires especially careful appraisal. The time required locally, before a project is submitted to the Department for consideration is not a matter for me, but clearly it will vary widely according to the experience of the sponsors, the support and guidance needed by voluntary or community groups, the time needed to generate appropriate supporting material and the local authority's own internal appraisal procedures and committee cycles. Processing time will clearly vary according to the type of application, but I repeat that we aim to complete consideration and processing within two months of receipt.
I know that the effect of the current suspension on voluntary groups is a matter of concern for a number of groups and hon. Members, and I have been pleased at the 1519 increasing number of projects from voluntary and community groups to the extent that 30 per cent. of the funds allocated in 1983–84 — a total of £9 million—relate to local initiatives. While this is encouraging, it is worth noting that the bulk of the effort has come from local groups, whereas I might have expected greater involvement of the larger national voluntary bodies in stimulating initiatives. This is a point which I shall raise with the SCSS when I see it next month because there is clearly still scope in many areas for authorities to make 1520 greater efforts to maximise local community input and indeed private sector input to initiatives to tackle urban deprivation.
I hope that in the time left to me to reply to the debate I have made it clear that in the light of the historic underspend, which was a great waste of resources at a time when it was especially important that they be properly spent, it was right for the Government to take that decision and for consideration of applications to be suspended.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Three o'clock.