HL Deb 28 July 1986 vol 479 cc556-9

2.50 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows: To ask Her Majesty's Government how many voluntary organisations failed to receive replace-ment funding following the abolition of the GLC and how many have been forced to close as a result.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, local authorities and voluntary organisations are under no obligation to report decisions on grants to Her Majesty's Government. I cannot therefore give precise figures. However, out of an estimated 2,500 groups funded by the Greater London Council, the London Voluntary Service Council has estimated that 44 organisations or projects have ceased in the Greater London area.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Would he not agree, however, that a serious number of organisations have ceased to give their services to the most vulnerable sections of the community in London? Is he aware that an even greater number of voluntary organisations are struggling to exist and are doubtful about their future funding? In view of the fact that the Minister stated in this House in May 1985 that a trust would be set up endowed with the proceeds of the sale of GLC assets, will the noble Lord say how much has been collected from the sale of those assets, how much will be put into the trust and when the voluntary organisations will be able to claim grants from that trust?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, as I sought to indicate in my original Answer, decisions on grants to voluntary bodies have been passed from the GLC to the boroughs. It is they who must justify those decisions. I am sure that some boroughs have taken decisions that I might not have taken, and indeed vice versa. Obviously, I can do nothing about that. As for the general scheme that has come to be known as the Richmond Scheme, I cannot fail to observe that there is no overall political control of that scheme and that the Alliance appears to be voting with the Labour party in this matter.

As regards the Trust for London, it is intended that the Government will be in a position to direct funds from the London Residuary Body during this financial year. I am afraid that I am not yet in a position to say anything as regards the sum of the funds.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, is the noble Lord not able to tell the House what funds have accrued from the sale of GLC assets?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, only a small amount of time has elapsed since the London Residuary Body was set up. Sales are proceeding. If I gave an answer today, I have no doubt that by next week the figure would be totally different.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, is it not a fact that funds remain available at this moment and that a meeting of the appeal committee of the London boroughs' grants sub-committee is to take place on 30th July? Is it not also a fact that with the Labour control that is being exercised, even under the chairmanship of an Alliance chairman, still very Left-wing bodies are being funded while some good causes are being refused? Will the noble Lord comment upon the grant that was refused to the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board—a scheme that was agreed with the trade unions and the Manpower Services Commission, that was previously funded by the GLC under the top-up scheme and that was recommended by the officers for a grant of £33,600? Will he comment on the fact that this was refused, whereas others—and I shall name them—

Noble Lords

Reading!

Baroness Gardner of Parkes:

—I have to look at this to be accurate, my Lords,—whereas others were passed? This is, I believe, very important.

Noble Lords

Too long!

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I should like, then, to come back on a second question. I was going to ask why such things were refused when the Lesbian Line and the Black Lesbian Gay Group are still being given their grant.

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I do not think that I can do better than refer her to the answer I gave to the supplementary question of the noble Baroness opposite. However, all these things will become much clearer. I was aware of the appeals meeting. I assume that this means (although I do not actually know) that there is still some money for future donations. I understand that the London Voluntary Service Council is shortly to publish some research on this very subject. This is perhaps an occasion when an earlier supplementary from the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie of Dundee, might be borne in mind.

Lord Graham of Edmonton

My Lords, does the noble Lord not recall that when these matters were before the House the Minister expressed every confidence that the bodies that deserved to be supported would be supported in the future? Reference has been made, apparently disparagingly, to Left-wing councils or Left-wing causes being detrimental. Should not the Minister know what is going on and be aware, in particular, that, if money is short, this means inevitably that councils will have to pick up the tab?

Can the Minister say what is the effect of the taper in these matters? Is it not a fact that the taper means that, the greater the shortfall, the greater the likelihood that the local authority will have to pay double—an increase of 50 per cent. and not 25 per cent. of the shortfall? Does the noble Lord not recognise that the House expects from him greater knowledge of what is going on?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that the taper does not make the slightest bit of difference for the simple reason that the precept, as stated during discussion of the Bill in this House and in another place, has been divided pro rata among the boroughs. As I said just now, although I am very interested to hear the views of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and of my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, the LVSC is shortly to publish some research on the subject. We shall then all be in a very much better position to make up our minds.

Lord Avebury

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in making grants to voluntary organisations for the purpose of small computer systems the GLC insisted that in every case they should buy IBM PCs, XTs and ATs, instead of compatibles that would have been available at 50 or 60 per cent. of the cost? Can the Minister say what body should be approached by a voluntary organisation which has a shortfall of funds, having received a grant from the GLC to buy IBM kit and wanting to take the sensible decision of buying some compatibles and keeping the money for something else?

Lord Skelmersdale

No, my Lords, I must confess that I was not aware of the GLC's policy on computers vis-à-vis the voluntary bodies to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has just referred. The correct avenue, in the case of a one-borough voluntary service, is the borough. If it spans more than one borough it is, of course, the Richmond Scheme.

Baroness David

My Lords, will the Minister urge his department to implement at once the Widdicombe recommendation published in a report recently that the 2p limit on Section 137 should be raised because the boroughs in the area of the old GLC and the districts in the area of the "met" counties are getting only half what they got under Section 137?

Lord Skelmersdale

No, my Lords, I do not think that I would, for the simple reason that the Widdicombe inquiry was a very comprehensive look at the financing arrangements of the whole of local government. I do not believe that particular bits of it which appeal to particular parties or individuals should be, as it were, plucked like plums out of a Christmas pudding.

Lord Taylor of Blackburn

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what progress has been made on the sale of County Hall? When the sale does take place, will the proceeds go into this fund?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, I do not think that that is relevant to this Question.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, may I press the Minister once more and ask this question? Will he not accept that voluntary organisations have to have some idea about their future planning? Although it takes a little time to get this organised, more and more of them will have to close their doors unless something is known of the future. Will the noble Lord give an assurance that he will do his best to ensure that the money which should revert to the London boroughs following the Law Lords' ruling in April on the forward funding is returned to them by the London Residuary Body as soon as possible?

Lord Skelmersdale

My Lords, in my limited experience of these matters both as an ex-small businessman, and an ex-chairman of a voluntary body, I know that the two groups are equally paranoid on the subject of future funding. There is nothing new in this. On the case to which the noble Baroness refers I know perfectly well that I am not in a position to give that kind of commitment this afternoon.

Forward to