London Boroughs Grants Scheme (Hansard, 16 May 1991)

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Baroness Blatch):
My Lords, as I told the House on 5th March of this year, Her Majesty's Government agree that the operation of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme is unsatisfactory and consequently my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided to include it within the review of local government.

§ Baroness Ewart-Biggs
My Lords, I am happy that the review of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme will be included in the general local government 1745 review. But is the Minister aware that after the fiasco of the setting of this year's budget many voluntary organisations went under, had to curtail their operations or found it difficult to plan them? Is she further aware that if that happens again next year many workers in the voluntary sector will be seeking work elsewhere? Can she assure the House, first, that the views and proposals of those in the voluntary sector will be taken into account by the review body and, secondly, that the decisions made by the body will be introduced prior to the setting of the budget for next year?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, we are aware of the uncertainties that have been caused in the voluntary sector. We shall take all those issues into account in the local government review. I expect that the noble Baroness and many of her noble friends will submit their ideas about a way forward during the consultation stage.

§ Baroness Gardner of Parkes
My Lords, my husband served as a member of the body about which we are speaking. Is my noble friend aware that more than 1,000 sheets of paper had to be considered by its members when making the decision on the last occasion? Will my noble friend confirm that the new local government review could not promise anything to any particular organisation?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I accept the important point made by my noble friend. The question is not merely how the decisions should be arrived at in future but the way in which the body should work. The way in which it considers the grants leaves scope for improvement.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, will the noble Baroness ask the Minister for the Arts to request the Arts Council to prepare a report on the consequences of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme and the degree to which the Arts Council has had to step in to save London theatres from collapse? Such a report would inform us of the consequences of this ill thought out scheme.

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I assure the noble Lord that the Minister for the Arts is equally concerned about the way in which the body is working. He is submitting his ideas to the local government review body.

§ Lord Elton
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this is not the first—although it may be the worst—example of brinkmanship in budgeting by this body? Is she further aware that the consequences of that are totally shattering to the voluntary organisa-tions, in particular the paid staff who are affected by it? Does she agree that some other arrangement is urgently needed which does not depend on the agreement of a qualified majority but an absolute majority of authorities and which provides for the carrying forward at the same figure of the previous year's budget if no budget is arrived at, so there is no saving if no budget is made?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. We are talking about the mechanism, and I agree that self-discipline on the part of that body would not go amiss. Having a date by which a decision must be made would be a way forward; certainly beginning the work earlier in the year would also be a way forward.

§ Baroness Phillips
My Lords, is the Minister aware that, had the GLC not been abolished, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, would have had no reason to complain about 1,000 pieces of paper?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I believe that a reconstruction of the GLC is not the way forward. Any dissension among the boroughs under the present system does not compare with the dissatisfaction at a proliferation of expenditure by the GLC. The expenditure was simply levied on the local boroughs which had no option but to pay up.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, the Government's belated recognition that the system is inadequate is welcome. Would it not now be appropriate for them to express regret to London and to your Lordships' House for the way in which they resisted the cogent arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Birk and others during our debates on the abolition of the GLC? While I am pleased to know that the review is taking account of the inadequacy of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme, what will happen this year? Many of the bodies that have been deprived of funding are still in a desperate plight?

§ Baroness Blatch
My Lords, I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, because he and the noble Lords mentioned by him believe that the resurrection of the GLC, or London government, would be an answer. We do not believe that to be a way forward. However, there is considerable scope for improvement in the mechanism of reaching decisions.