§ Mr. Tom Cox (Tooting)I am one of the Members of Parliament for the London borough of Wandsworth, a council known in London and perhaps in other parts of the United Kingdom for having one of the lowest rates of council tax in the country. I intend to explain the price that the people of Wandsworth have had to pay for that low tax.
I live in the borough, whose local authority has two basic objectives—first, to keep its council tax as low as possible and, secondly, to get rid of as many of its local authority responsibilities as it can. In both objectives it has been helped in every possible way by the Government, who have worked hand in hand with it. Indeed, Wandsworth has been the testing ground for many Government policies, and no council has more willingly offered to try out any policy. The former Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, idolised the council, which indeed was her servant. Its attitude could be summed up in the phrase, "And what next, O leader?" Whatever Lady Thatcher wanted, it was more than willing to help her to test it out.
Wandsworth's reward was generous Government help with funding, which in the days of the poll tax allowed it to set no poll tax. We all know that unless revenue is coming in, the cost of services has to be found in some other way. Wandsworth's solution was the privatisation of some of the services formerly run by the council, cutting other services and closing things down. No council in the country has been more ruthless in doing that than Wandsworth, always with the full support of the Tory Government.
Let us look back over the years. The Tory council in Wandsworth came to power at about the same time as the Tory Government, since when its policies have hit people and the services that are now needed in the borough.
There are now two Wandsworths. The first consists of people who have moved into the borough and who often need very few council services. They say, "If my dustbins are emptied, the streets are kept reasonably clean and the street lights are working, that's it; I don't want or need anything else." The second is made up the people of all ages, from the youngest to the oldest, who need the services that local authorities used to provide, and many still do.
Since the Conservatives won control, the provision of services to meet real needs has declined. I have already referred to the Government's generous funding of Wandsworth council. The Government are still maintaining that funding, but the signs are that it will not continue indefinitely. We are facing what, by any standards, are the worst and most vicious cuts that we have ever seen in the London borough of Wandsworth.
From whatever direction one enters the borough, one sees signs that read, "Wandsworth the brighter borough". One would never see signs reading, "Wandsworth the caring borough," because the borough is most certainly not caring.
I sought this debate to highlight what is happening in the borough and how that will affect services and jobs. The policy now being followed is meant soleey to keep the council tax as low as possible and to get 1195 rid of any services that are currently being run by the local authority. That will be achieved by closing existing services and handing other services over to private contractors to run and to charge what they want. It might also be achieved simply by cutting grants.
No matter how hard organisations try, we know that in the present economic climate they will not be able to make up for the loss of funding that many organisations now receive from the council. I represent Tooting, which, with the other two parliamentary constituencies in the borough and every area and section of the borough, will be hit by those policies. People from all backgrounds running all kinds of services have tried to express their concerns. Someone sees those people, but, as I am told time and again, that person does not listen and most certainly does not care.
I quote from a letter that appeared in the local press. The local press has put the very deep concerns expressed by the people of Wandsworth on its pages week after week. The letter was sent by Jane Taylor, an executive committee member of Age Concern Wandsworth. It was published in a local paper on 13 October. It is headed:
Elderly had been robbed of rights.She writes:Age Concern Wandsworth is outraged at council plans to sell residential homes and close day centres.These plans will affect those most vulnerable, the very old and frail who are socially isolated.No discussion or consultation has been made with those who use these services and they have been given very little time, if any, to make their views known.When Community Care legislation encourages joint working practices with the health services and the 'independent sector', this council has decided to go it alone!The letter continues:We would hope that any arrangements to move older people from their home will be done with sensitivity and care.Undoubtedly, most of the residents will be devastated rot only from the physical moving, but, more importantly, by the psychological upheaval this will cause…Age Concern Wandsworth opposes the decision to close the day centres and luncheon clubs.As the only means of entertainment, in Wandsworth, for older people who are potentially socially isolated and vulnerable, we have been inundated by callers wishing to express their shock and outrage. Again, our concerns are that these decisions were made without discussions with health care workers and other professionals.No one can ask me, "Age Concern? Who is it? What does it know?" That letter sets the scene for the brutal, uncaring policies that will be followed by the London borough of Wandsworth. All hon. Members, no matter what party or what area of the country they represent, know that services are needed by people of all ages, but, under the policies that will be followed by that local authority, not one service in the borough will be unaffected.It is a matter not only of the services that will be affected but of the loss of jobs that will follow. We know that, whoever may take over those jobs, or what is left of them, will do so under new contracts and worse conditions than exist now. Wandsworth already has high unemployment. At the previous unemployment count for Greater London, Wandsworth was the eighth highest.
1196 I have spoken of the closures and cuts and how they will affect all areas of the borough, and there are plenty of them. Let us consider first the closure of the George Potter old people's home. There is absolute outrage in all sectors of the community at the closure of that home. The letter from the executive committee member of Age Concern referred to that home and the problems that the residents could face.
Day centres for the elderly—for example, the Shakespeare, the Queenstown, and the Penfold—in different areas of the borough of Wandsworth are to be closed. In my constituency, the Church lane day centre, which is very popular with local people and which is staffed by dedicated people who are well liked and respected by those who use it, is to close and become a centre for the frail elderly. However, no other provision is to be made in the area for people who now use it. No one in the borough of Wandsworth and no councillor or officer who works for the authority can say, "It's not needed; it's not popular with the local community." It is certainly used and it is very popular.
Longhedge, Holybourne and Park Lodge residential care homes are to be sold. Who will run them and be responsible for the care and living standards of their residents? As the letter from Age Concern— from which I have quoted already— says, there has been no consultation whatsoever with the people affected most directly by the sale of the homes: those who live in them.
Funding cuts will take place across the borough of Wandsworth. The Battersea arts centre, a well-known and respected arts centre, will lose £20,000 from its grant and Wandsworth youth advisory service will lose £22,000. At a time when most people would be looking to increase their involvement with young people, many of whom are out of work and are finding life very difficult, a service to which they relate and which relates to them is to have its funding cut by £22,000. The Garfield community centre will lose £4,700 and the Roehampton community council will lose £4,474.
All types of local groups will have their funding decreased. Many such groups have worked with the people of the borough for a very long time and have proved their worth within the community. One has to ask where the Minister and the people who run Wandsworth council expect those organisations to find other sources of funding when we all know how difficult it is to raise money.
Funding of the local citizens advice bureau will be cut, but I understand that no firm figure has been given yet. Funding of Battersea neighbourhood eye centre will be cut by £28,000. I could list many more local groups that will suffer similar funding reductions.
Balham family centre is located in my constituency. The centre, which has operated for a long time, is highly respected and its work has been quoted often in Government publications. That is a recognition of the skill and competence of those who run the centre and of how well they have performed their duties over the years.
1197 In a letter dated 24 November, Caroline Hartnell, the chairperson of the centre, says:
We understand from Jeff Turmath, our Wandsworth Council liaison officer, that it is proposed to reduce the Family Centre by 20 per cent. from April 1995– a reduction of around £18,000. We feel that a cut of this magnitude would have a very detrimental effect on the work we do".The centre provides a creche for 15 children aged 18 months to three years four mornings a week. It provides a latchkey project for 29 primary school children of working parents, a school drop-in club four days a week for 10 children aged eight to 13 and lunches for the centre's users and other local people.The letter from Caroline Hartnell continues:
If our grant is cut by 20 per cent., we will probably be forced to cut our lunch service as we would not want to cut any service provided specifically to children. However, we feel this would seriously detract from all the other work that we do. The lunches are used by many parents and children who use the centre. Many of these are one-parent, low-income families; some are living in bed and breakfast or temporary accommodation. We see the lunches as having two main functions, social and nutritional.There we have a very clear example of what effect the envisaged cuts of some £18,000 will have on the work done by the centre. What annoys me, and so many people who live in the borough, is that the council cannot say—dare not say—that its problem is that its council tax is so high that it cannot afford to give grants to local groups. It just cannot say that.The council now says that it will announce shortly that it will be losing money from the Government, and because it is totally committed to its low council tax, it will fight to the death to keep it. Anything that stands in the council's way in keeping the council tax low can simply go the wall.
Many of the services are, sadly, going to the wall, with all the effects that that will have on the very people who need and make use of them. I have touched on only a few items, but the list of cuts that hurt people and the local community goes on. All hon. Members know that our constituents go to district housing offices for a range of reasons. They may go to pay their rent, or if they have problems in their home. However, six offices are to be closed in the borough of Wandsworth.
Home help charges are to go up from £2.30 to £2.70 an hour. Forty pence may not sound like a great deal, but it is if one has a low income and needs a home help. Hon. Members know how valuable and vital home help services are to many of our constituents, wherever we may live or represent.
I shall give another example of the problem. Hundreds of properties in the borough are boarded up, and for one reason only—to be sold. The December issue of the council's newspaper contains photographs of council properties that are now being advertised for sale. Yet this is the borough that has one of the highest number of people living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation of the London boroughs. When people are put into such accommodation, someone has to pay for it—the rest of the community in the borough.
When people become homeless and need bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the one thing that Wandsworth council avoids at all costs is putting them into accommodation in the borough. It will house 1198 people anywhere it can, in any other London borough, rather than in those people's own borough. That policy has created problems for youngsters, who may have to travel a long distance back to the borough to attend their local schools. Those who are lucky enough to have a job, but who have to move into bed-and-breakfast accommodation outside the borough, have to cope with the problems of travelling and increased costs.
Such is the utter stupidity of Wandsworth's housing policy that people are put into bed-and-breakfast accommodation, at great cost to the community and with all the upheaval that that causes them, when there are hundreds of empty properties in the borough, waiting to be sold. So much for Wandsworth's claim to be "the brighter borough". For the vast majority of its residents, it most certainly has not lived up to that claim in 1994, nor will it in 1995.
I recently wrote to the Prime Minister to express my concern that the borough's policies would hurt not only the local community but the most vulnerable. He did not respond; he sent my letter to another Department. I received the usual reply, which stated:
We have total confidence in the policies followed by Wandsworth council.How out of touch can Ministers get? I quoted two letters, one from Age Concern and the other from the chairlady of the Balham family centre. Those organisations are held in great respect and are closely involved in providing services to the people of the borough. I have been told by Ministers, however, that they have total confidence in that borough's policies.I have already referred to the two Wandsworths that exist. The local people and I accept that the Conservative party controls the borough because it sets an extremely low council tax and has attracted new residents who have little need of council services. The Conservative party is aided and abetted in keeping control of the borough with Government help and its utter obsession with keeping its council tax as low as possible.
As the council prepares its budget for the coming year, we in the borough believe that it is engaged in the most ruthless attack against the services that people admire and want to use. We all know that people needing services and organisations losing funding cannot now turn from the council to other organisations. We all know that it is extremely difficult to obtain additional funding for other projects, let alone to try to maintain the sizeable sums that many organisations in the borough are shortly to lose.
Governments have responsibilities. They can put pressures on local councils. They can question what they do. Indeed, the Government do so repeatedly in their dealings with councils in which they do not have "total confidence". When it does not suit the Government to accept the policies of local authorities, they never cease to attack and to curb them. The Government cannot say that they do not have the necessary power or the responsibility.
I hope that the Minister and his Department will challenge what Wandsworth council proposes to do in the coming months. The other two Members who represent parts of the borough are the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), the Under-Secretary of State for Health, and the right hon. and learned Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor). I understand why the hon. 1199 Member for Battersea is not in his place: he is, after all, a Minister. I do not wish to attack other hon. Members. Where the right hon. and learned Gentleman is, only he would know.
The issues that I have raised affect the three constituencies in the borough. I beg the Minister not to say, "I have listened to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but we have confidence in the council." The lives of people of all ages are at risk because of the council's obsession with a low council tax. If not tonight, I beg the Minister to think about what I have said. I ask him to contact the various organisations that I have quoted and to listen to what they say. Let him hear whether they have any confidence in the Conservative-controlled borough of Wandsworth. I can tell him that he will not learn of any confidence as a result of any research with which he or his Department may wish to be involved. The organisations to which I have referred will express no confidence.
§ Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on securing the debate. I congratulate him also on the eloquent and passionate way in which he has exposed the problems that his constituents and others in the borough of Wandsworth are facing.
My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the concerns expressed by many organisations who work with local people and see the impact of the cuts that are threatened. He has quoted the concerns of Age Concern, which is appalled by plans to close day centres and sell residential homes without consultation. He has quoted the sad histories of local community centres, including the Balham family centre in his constituency. Vital services are threatened by cuts. He has mentioned many other voluntary organisations, such as arts centres and youth services, which face the prospect of similar damaging cuts. That catalogue of misfortune suffered by the residents of Wandsworth is all the more extraordinary when viewed against the background of the vast sums of public money that have been, and continue to be, lavished on Wandsworth council by the Government.
Let me give some figures. In 1993–94, Wandsworth council received £33.8 million in transitional relief payments to reduce the cost of the council tax. That represented a staggering 25 per cent. of the total transitional relief subsidy made available to the whole of London. Wandsworth, one of 32 London boroughs, received 25 per cent. of the total relief made available in the capital—8 per cent. of the total relief made available to the whole country. Wandsworth does not contain 8 per cent. of the population of the country; it received, in 1993–94, 8 per cent. of the total money made available for transitional relief.
If that were not bad enough, the figures for the current year, 1994–95, are even starker. Although the sums are decreasing, because, as we all know, the transitional relief programme is decreasing, the £22 million that Wandsworth receives in the current year from the Government is no less than 44 per cent. of the total money made available by the Government to local authorities in London to reduce the council tax through transitional relief and about 17 per cent. of the total relief made available to local authorities throughout the country. Wandsworth does not contain 17 per cent. of the 1200 population of Britain, but it receives 17 per cent. of the total sums made available by the Government for council tax transitional relief in the current year.
Taking into account the estimated expenditure next year of a further £12.5 million, a grand total of almost £68 million will have been made available by central government to the London borough of Wandsworth in three years. Currently, the estimates that we can see show that there are approximately 17,000 council tax payers in the highest bands—bands F, G and H—in Wandsworth, who will each have received more than £1,000 in transitional relief in that period. I am talking not about council tax payers in the lower banded properties but about those in the highest banded properties. That is a measure of where that relief is going.
In addition to council tax relief, the Government spent in Wandsworth £26 million in standard spending assessment reduction grant in 1994–95 and will spend a further £21 million in 1995–96. We all know what that is about: a crude process of buying votes, by cushioning Wandsworth residents against the cost of the council tax, when the council had been able to create a position whereby it charged no poll tax at all. Instead of those vast sums of public money—£68 million in transitional relief alone in the three years 1993–94 to 1995–96—being used to help finance desperately needed services in Wandsworth or in the capital's areas of greatest deprivation, they have been used to keep a fundamentally rotten Tory regime in power in Wandsworth council, matching the similar largesse that has been offered by the Government to the similar regime in Westminster.
Let us examine some of the outcomes for Wandsworth residents resulting from that remarkable largesse. What has the borough achieved with its vast slush fund of Government grant? What records does it proudly hold? My hon. Friend the Member for Tooting rightly highlighted the unenviable record that Wandsworth has held for the past two years of having the largest number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast hotels of any London borough. Mercifully, the numbers are decreasing, but at one time a year and a half ago, there were more than 400 families in bed-and-breakfast hotels who had been placed there by Wandsworth council.
Bed and breakfast is symbolic of all that is wrong with current housing policy—unsuitable, cramped, often squalid and unsafe accommodation for homeless families who should be provided with secure, safe homes, and, to add insult to injury, at vast cost to the public.
Do not take my word for it. Let us read the words instead of Councillor Mark Simmonds, then the chair of the housing committee in Wandsworth, who, a year ago, wrote:
The cost to Wandsworth of the 1,300 or so temporary units of accommodation of all types is costing an average of £7,000 per family per year or £9m in total in 1993/94.What a record. What a waste of public money.One reason why Wandsworth has had so many homeless families in temporary accommodation is that, as my hon. Friend rightly highlighted, it has deliberately sold off large numbers of council homes, some to existing residents, some on the open market, but with an explicit aim of increasing the number of council leaseholders to match the number of council tenants by the end of the lifetime of the current council.
1201 I wonder why there is that particular target date. I wonder why the end of the lifetime of the current council is the target date for matching the number of leaseholders with council tenants. Could it be anything to do with the borough elections? Could it be anything to do with the election prospects of the current majority party in Wandsworth? One wonders, after hearing so much about the way in which the Tory administration in Westminster has behaved, whether similar motives are driving housing policy in the London borough of Wandsworth.
I have to tell the Tory leadership in Wandsworth that it will have difficulty in achieving its target for two simple reasons. First, market conditions will make it difficult to persuade people to buy homes, not least immediately following a Budget that has cut away the safety net of income support which used to be available to help middle to low-income households, who have bought their homes but are worried that they might run into financial difficulty.
With that safety net gone, with interest rates rising and with the cost of owner-occupation going up because of the withdrawal of MIRAS, prospective home owners and home owners are facing large increased costs next year as a direct result of Government policy. That will frustrate the hopes of the political leaders of the London borough of Wandsworth to secure a sizeable increase in the number of leaseholds.
Those political leaders have also got themselves to blame, not just the Government. Their own performance has aroused a certain amount of local hostility. Once again, do not take my word for it. Let us look at the report on service charges from the director of housing of the London borough of Wandsworth on 27 September this year. With admirable and remarkable tact, he writes:
Members will be aware that an increasing hostility is already being registered to the overall cost and method of provision of these services.Let me provide one example of why there is that hostility. In late April this year, I visited an elderly lady in Putney who had bought her maisonette in 1988. The right-to-buy offer, which she received from the London borough of Wandsworth—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) should stop laughing and listen, because he would then realise one of the sad human consequences of crass Tory policies.The right-to-buy offer that the lady received specified certain repair costs which she would be due to pay as a result of the repairs to the balconies of the block for which her contribution was assessed at £6,880. As anyone who knows the detailed provisions of right-to-buy legislation will understand, that estimate was covered by the five-year guarantee which safeguards those exercising the right to buy from charges in excess of the estimates over that period.
The lady concerned was told that the works were due to be completed in 1990–91, well within the five-year guarantee period. But, in the event, the works were not carried out in 1990 or in 1991. They were not completed until 1993, just after the five-year guarantee period had expired.
What then happened? Instead of receiving a bill for £6,880, for which the lady had made provision, the unfortunate leaseholder received a bill from the London 1202 borough of Wandsworth for £16,119. She received no apology or explanation. No reason whatever was given for that outrageous increase in costs—just a demand to pay. What an outrage.
Needless to say, when I was given details of that, I took up the matter, first, with the local Member of Parliament and, subsequently, with the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Sir P. Beresford) —a former leader of Wandsworth council with whom I happened to be discussing the matter. He kindly referred it to the council leader, who wrote to me on 25 July. He said that the
case is very well known locallyandhas occupied a very substantial amount of officer time over the past three years.We wish that the officers had been busy ensuring that the works had been carried out promptly, expeditiously and to budget, rather than pushing paper, as they obviously do a great deal. He continued:Regrettably, the Council's best efforts have not produced a course of action which would enable the service charge in question to be substantially reduced.There is no explanation of why not; it simply failed to do it. The council leader continued:Notwithstanding my above comments, I have asked the appropriate officers to look once again at this case. I will write again in due course.That is where the matter rests. Five months have passed and I have received no further communication from the leader of Wandsworth council. Nor has the lady concerned received any explanation of the council's outrageous behaviour. All she has received is one further communication increasing the sum demanded from her by the council from £16,119 to £16,674. If that is the way that Wandsworth treats its leaseholders, it is hardly surprising that its director of housing is reportingan increasing hostility…to the overall cost and method of provision of these services".I would use slightly more choice language.Of course, that is not the only example of Wandsworth's gross incompetence, maladministration and shameful failure to look after the interests of local people. Many hon. Members will have memories of other schemes that it has promoted in recent years. Those of us who pass Battersea power station will remember all the pledges given about the great planning scheme to transform it into an Alton Towers-type theme park. We remember that Baroness Thatcher heralded the proposal as a wonderful example of private enterprise and local government working hand-in-hand for the benefit of Britain. It did not turn out that way, did it?
Planning consent was given to Mr. John Broome, who said:
we always deliver what we promise on target".He predicted the opening of the new theme park at precisely 2.30 pm on 14 May 1990. The appointed hour came and went and, as we all know, Battersea power station remains empty, derelict and deteriorating. It is another monument to Wandsworth's crass incompetence and failure.I could quote countless other examples of failures by Wandsworth to meet the needs of its residents, of actions that damage the interests of local people and of policies that are damaging to the interests of its community but that it pursues for ideological and dogmatic reasons.
1203 The theme of this debate is the effect of Government policy on local services in Wandsworth. In fact, the relationship between Government policy and Wandsworth is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting rightly said, a two-way process. It is a symbiotic relationship in which each party appears to be feeding off each other's prejudices in an attempt to prove that it is the true heir of Baroness Thatcher—hence, returning to housing policy, the extraordinary events of the past year in policy towards the homeless.
Over the past 15 years, the Government have conducted two reviews of their policy on homelessness—the first after 1979, set up by the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) and the second after 1987, set up by the late Lord Ridley and completed by Mr. Patten, currently the Governor of Hong Kong. Both those reviews concluded that part III of the Housing Act 1985 was working reasonably well and that there was no need for change.
Then, for no apparent reason, a year ago the Government suddenly announced that it was time for a fundamental review and a fundamental change of policy. Was it merely a coincidence that that happened at the very moment when the chair of housing in Wandsworth was writing about the need for a radical overhaul of Government policy on homelessness? His paper set out certain objectives: first, that the local authority should provide only assessment and temporary accommodation; secondly, that a regenerated private market should provide longer-term housing with guarantees of benefit or rent and other encouragement needed in the early stages; thirdly, that housing associations should be progressively replaced by the private sector as developers, with financial incentives; and fourthly that long-term rents should move to equalise at a free market level.
Those of us who are rather familiar with those proposals will notice the parallel between the proposals from Wandsworth and the proposals that were published by the Government at the beginning of the year in a consultation paper on changes to the legislation governing homelessness. The Government proposed to end the obligation imposed on councils to secure permanent housing for homeless people. They proposed instead to place homeless families in private lettings. They have also—not in that paper but in their actions—given substantially reduced emphasis to the role of housing associations. They have cut £300 million off the sums available to the Housing Corporation in last year's budget and cut a further £340 million off the Housing Corporation's allocation in the latest budget.
The impact of Government policies on the residents of the London borough of Wandsworth are immensely damaging, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting has demonstrated. But equally damaging is the impact of the prejudices of the current political leadership of the London borough of Wandsworth .on the policies of the Government. Happily, we can look forward, on the night when Labour is poised for victory in Dudley, to a speedy end to both the Government and the malign influence of the Wandsworth Tories. Both will be consigned to the political dustbin before long.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Robert B. Jones)Tonight is a historic moment in terms of debates on the Consolidated 1204 Fund. Many hon. Members will miss them, having participated in them over the years at all sorts of hours of the day and night. I certainly remember initiating several such debates. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) on having had the fortune to secure a slot on this historic night. It is historic in another sense. It is the first time that the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Raynsford) and I have met across the Dispatch Box since my appointment and his and since we turned from our previous relationship as fellow members of the Select Committee on the Environment.
If I may put the debate in context, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has recently announced the provisional settlement for local authority expenditure for 1995—96. We have considered the demands which will be placed on local authorities, including Wandsworth, next year. We also have to be mindful of the interests of the economy as a whole, and in particular the Government's objective of reducing the public sector deficit. We have considered the level of inflation. It is the lowest it has been for more than a decade. We have also taken into account our policy that increases in pay and prices within the public sector must be met through greater efficiency and economy.
I have no doubt that many authorities have scope to improve their efficiency. Wandsworth, the subject of tonight's debate, has been particularly innovative in this respect. Indeed, I believe that Wandsworth has made savings of some £15 million per annum from competitive tendering of its blue and white collar services. The hon. Member for Tooting said that there were two Wandsworths. I rather agree with him. There is the Wandsworth of Labour demonology, which we have heard about this evening, and the Wandsworth that has won four charter mark awards and is one of only five United Kingdom organisations awarded accreditation for achievements in energy efficiency by the Institute of Energy, an award which, as the Minister with responsibility for energy efficiency, I certainly applaud. It was also one of the first authorities to publish, in June 1994, its citizens charter performance indicators. Wandsworth was also quoted in a recent independent survey as the London borough offering the best overall telephone services.
To return to this year's local government settlement, the Government's view is that the appropriate level of revenue spending for local authorities in England for 1995–96 will be £43.511 billion. Central Government grant and income from non-domestic rates in support of that expenditure will be more than £34 billion. Those proposals, including provision for community care of £647 million and £50 million for reorganisation costs, provide for a 2.2 per cent. increase in local authority spending year on year, including the spending of police authorities.
Even leaving aside the increase in community care, those proposals amount to an increase in provision of just under 1 per cent. year on year. Of course this year's settlement is tough, but it is entirely consistent with our determination to maintain a firm grip on public spending.
Standard spending assessments were criticised. The indicators used to arrive at the SSA for Wandsworth are the same used for every authority. The fact that neighbouring authorities have higher SSAs than Wandsworth reflects the fact that their needs—as measured by SSA methodology—are perceived as greater.
1205 For 1995–96, we have brought our SSA indicators up to date. That has been particularly beneficial to authorities in inner London because the area cost adjustment for inner-London boroughs has increased. For the first time, we had access to detailed data from the new earnings survey, which enabled us to calculate actual relative wage rates. That data showed an increase in relative average wage rates paid in inner London but a decrease in outer London and in the rest of the south-east. As a consequence, Wandsworth's SSA will increase by 2 per cent. in 1995–96.
Wandsworth's provisional total standard spending assessment for 1995– 96 is a little over £240 million, which is £904 per head—an increase of 2 per cent. over last year and of £18 per head, using adjusted figures, comparing on a like-for-like basis. That increase is not as great as for the average inner-London authority, due mainly due to a small drop in population compared with an increase on average for other London authorities, and fairly static pupil numbers.
In 1994—95 there were significant changes to SSAs because of the incorporation of detailed data from the 1991 census. When we undertake reviews—the hon. Gentleman is familiar with them from our past work together—it is inevitable that changes will occur and that some authorities will lose. In the absence of any special measures, those authorities adversely affected by SSA reductions would have been forced either to make rapid cuts in their budgets or to levy large increases in council taxes. We introduced SSA reduction grant to recognise that such authorities will need time to adjust their spending.
As a result of last year's review of standard spending assessments, Wandsworth's SSA for this year was reduced by more than 10 per cent. That was due largely to the use of 1991 census data, which showed that social conditions in the borough had greatly improved since the last census in 1981—no doubt a result of the energy and effectiveness of the Conservative council. As a consequence of that reduction, Wandsworth received £26.4 million of SSA reduction grant. It will receive a further £21 million from a similar special grant in 1995–96, in respect of those same changes. That will protect council taxpayers from the immediate effects of the 1993 review.
It is clearly for local authorities to determine their spending priorities within the confines of capping. They should have regard to the most efficient and cost-effective way of providing services. If they feel that that is best achieved through partnership with the private sector, that choice is one that we have opened up but are not forcing them to take.
In the same way that local authorities all over the country have been reviewing their provision of care, so too has Wandsworth. That borough and others have done this in the light of the White Paper "Caring for People", which stressed the need for authorities to improve services by working closely with voluntary organisations, private homes and providers to devise imaginative and innovative packages of care for the benefit of care service users and their families.
Wandsworth has obviously taken the decision that it will best be able to maintain its services to the elderly in the area by contracting out this service. I understand that 1206 it has decided to invite offers from independent operators for the running of three old people's homes. It is for each social services committee to decide, in collaboration with other local agencies, on the most appropriate pattern of services to meet the social service care needs of the people in its area. I am sure that Wandsworth reached its decisions having carefully considered the best ways in which to provide services, taking due regard of the need to maximise efficiency.
There are, of course, many independent sector providers with a track record of offering high-quality residential care. It is right that Wandsworth council should seek to utilise further that expertise to the benefit of residents in the borough. Indeed, Quantum Care, which operates in my constituency, is investing in a considerable improvement of the homes in my area and the building of a new one. That must be to the benefit of the people of Hertfordshire. I am sure that it will be welcomed if those skills are also harnessed for the benefit of the people of Wandsworth.
§ Mr. RaynsfordThe Minister stressed that it was right for Wandsworth council to reach its decision on the most appropriate way forward. He will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) quoted Age Concern on the point that there had been a total lack of consultation with the organisations representing elderly people in the area and, by implication, with elderly people themselves. Does he really believe that that is an appropriate way in which to proceed?
§ Mr. JonesI am rather glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question. The hon. Member for Tooting did, indeed, say that there was no consultation, and the hon. Gentleman repeated that later. I have with me—I thought it worth while to study this—the document presented by the director of social services on residential care for elderly people in the borough. It sets out in considerable detail what consultation took place. I shall quote some of it. In the opening part of paragraph 37, the director says:
Full consultation will need to be undertaken with the existing residents and their families and the day centre users and, where appropriate, their carers. A letter has already gone to each resident and his/her next of kin informing them of these proposals.Paragraph 38 of the report details the fact that letters were sent to the residents of all four homes. Letters were sent to nominated relatives and friends. Letters were sent to day centre users. Letters were sent to relatives of users. A memorandum was sent to the purchasing social work teams telling them about the proposals. There were meetings for day centre users of George Potter house and meetings for residents of George Potter house and their relatives. There was a meeting for the users of Longhedge day centre. I do not want to quote the entire report because it goes on for several pages, describing in considerable detail precisely what consultation took place. It also describes the consultation with staff. Neither the hon. Member for Tooting nor the hon. Member for Greenwich can justify saying that there was no consultation.
§ Mr. JonesThe report was given to the social services committee on 16 November and to the establishment committee on 22 November.
1207 Wandsworth does not, of course, just get Government funding through the local authority finance settlement. It also receives other forms of Government support, such as £43 million of urban programme resources to date. That has resulted in, to name but two schemes, £400,000-worth of projects on and around the Doddington-Rolls estate and significant environmental improvements to the Tooting, Balham and Clapham junction shopping areas. There is £670,000 from the urban partnership programme for Battersea business 2000—a combination of an adult information technology training and employment guidance centre and a mini-technology park for 12 business units in the IT sector.
There are £2.9 million of single regeneration bid funds over the next three years for the Wandsworth partnership, which is an area-based initiative that focuses on Wandsworth town centre and aims to revitalise the area comprehensively over the next three years. Wandsworth benefits from two other single regeneration budget bids in which it is a partner. One is Wandle strategy, a targeted programme of site preparation and infrastructure improvements to bring forward for redevelopment existing key sites along the Wandle valley. Funding for that will £3.75 million over three years. "Unlocking the Economic Potential of Young People" aims at increasing the competitiveness of the local economy through raising the skill, achievement and qualifications of young people. Funding will be £5.64 million over three years.
1208 The Government have introduced a plan-led system to ensure that individual planning decisions are taken in line with relevant development plan policies. I am pleased that Wandsworth is making good progress with its own unitary development plan, which I understand is due to be adopted today. It will ensure that planning decisions are made on a rational and consistent basis, and help to reduce uncertainty and blight.
Government policy also requires planning applications to be handled efficiently and speedily. Wandsworth is one of the top performers in London in terms of its handling of planning applications: more than 70 per cent. have been decided within the eight-week target in recent months. That has contributed to the authority's being awarded a charter mark for the excellence of its overall delivery of planning services.
I have ranged quite widely in my speech, to give hon. Members an idea of the breadth of Government support for local authorities and the particular impact that it has had in Wandsworth. The proposals in the local government finance settlement represent a balanced and reasonable response to the conflict between the pressure to provide ever-more resources for local government and the need to control public spending. Local government will need to continue to respond imaginatively to the pressure that it faces, just as the private sector has. I am sure that many local authorities could learn from some of the approaches adopted by Wandsworth to ensure that services are provided as cost-effectively as possible.