| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 1121
8.57 pmThe Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) : The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) has used some strong language, but I reject his allegations. The procedures that were adopted followed the disposal programme. I shall refer to the details later on, but four management-employee buy-outs have succeeded, and they have succeeded because they have won. The hon. Gentleman referred to a meeting that we had. I made the position clear at that time. He asked for a level playing field. Of course, preference is given to management-employee buy-outs in terms of the disposal programme.
The hon. Gentleman asked about letters that were received and considered by the Scottish Transport Group. No formal increased bid was received until about 10 am on 29 May. When we received that formal offer from the Scottish Transport Group we agreed that it would be right further to consider the position. I reported that decision to the hon. Gentleman and we discussed it on that occasion. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all bids received were fully and properly considered. I cannot go further than that. However, in view of the fact that the appeal period relating to the court action which was recently raised has not yet expired, there is not much further than I can say on that point.
Mr. McLeish : That simply is not good enough. I have the private and confidential letters, which I am quite willing to make available to Scottish Office civil servants and Ministers. It was quite clear, as early as 9 May, in the telephone conversation on 24 May, and then in letters on 24, 28 and 29 May that a bid--a higher bid--was being considered and that representatives were anxious to discuss further with the STG or the Scottish Office. Is the Minister telling me that he knew about those conversations prior to the telephone conversation that I had with him on the morning of 29 May?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I am not saying that. What I can give the hon. Gentleman is the chronology of events. The Department was aware that, on 24 May, Malcolm Roxburgh of the Scottish Transport Group received a phone call from Touche Ross that the MEBO would come up with a further sum. That was followed by a letter from Touche Ross on the same date, indicating a possible increase and a wish to discuss. However, I must stress that the letter which made a formal increased offer was the letter of 29 May, and the hon. Gentleman and myself discussed it on the programme. At the time, the Secretary of State was away. I went into the matter thoroughly and I believe that it was absolutely competent for the Secretary of State to consider the matter further in the light of the circumstances and the facts that the hon. Gentleman had put before me. It was absolutely right that he should follow the best legal advice. That has been done. The disposal programme has been followed and the winner was absolutely clear.
Mr. McLeish : I must again repeat that that simply does not square with the facts. Can the Minister answer the question that I asked? Did he see, was he aware of or was he informed about--any way that he would like to receive this question--the 9 May telephone conversation, the 24 May telephone conservation, the 24 May letter or the 28 May letter? Of course, he was eventually made aware of
Column 1122
the 29 May offer. Can he confirm whether he was informed about those previous contacts desperately seeking some discussion of a revised bid?Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a formal offer was made on 24 May. That is not the case. A formal offer was made on 29 May. The hon. Gentleman is asking what I knew. I knew very well on 29 May, because the hon. Gentleman had telephoned. I went into the matter very thoroughly. We came to no rushed decisions on the matter. Indeed, an announcement was about to be made that morning, and that announcement was postponed. The circumstances were gone into very thoroughly by all the Scottish Office lawyers and I am glad to say that it was absolutely clear at the end who the winner was.
I have listened very carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has been saying. He is concerned about the privatisation of the SBG, but most particularly concerned about the sale of Fife Scottish. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced on 10 June 1991 that he had granted consent to the Scottish Transport Group to sell that company to Stagecoach (Holdings) Ltd., which is based in Perth and owns and operates a number of bus companies in the United Kingdom and overseas. The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of questions relating to that consent, in view of his support for the unsuccessful bid made by the management and employees of the company. He has questioned whether the sale has been properly conducted.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the sale has been the subject of proceedings in the Court of Session. The management buy-out team submitted to the court a petition for judicial review seeking a reduction of the Secretary of State's consent. That petition was dismissed on 11 July. We have this week received the text of Lord Coulsfield's opinion, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that we have not yet had time to consider its terms in any detail. However my right hon. Friend welcomes Lord Coulsfield's decision. I understand that no appeal has been lodged against the court's judgment and that there is unlikely to be one. Nevertheless, the period for an appeal has not yet expired and, in those circumstances, it would be wrong for me to comment in detail on the circumstances of my right hon. Friend's decision.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central has criticised my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). I can say only that my hon. Friend made Ministers aware of his interests in all the dealings involving Stagecoach at the beginning of the privatisation programme. I cannot comment on the--
Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) rose --
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : On this point?
Mr. Wilson : I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. This is interesting. He has said that his hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) made his interest known from the outset of the privatisation process. Does the Minister mean from the outset of the Bill's consideration by the House?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : He made his position absolutely clear to Ministers from the time at which he had an interest. We never had the slightest doubt about that point throughout the process--
Column 1123
Mr. Wilson rose --Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : No, I have made my position absolutely --
Mr. Wilson rose --
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : If the hon. Gentleman wants to table a written question, he may do so. I cannot give him the specific date. I have been aware of my hon. Friend's interest throughout the process.
Mr. McLeish : Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : No, I cannot-- [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North is an honourable man and the House should so regard him.
Mr. McLeish rose --
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : No, I have answered that point and want to go on to the next. The hon. Gentleman can come back later if he wants.
I cannot comment on the detail of the bids, which are commercially confidential, but I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion that there was anything improper about the conduct of the sale or about the way in which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State reached his decision. I believe that the work force have said that they will co-operate with the new owners, and I welcome that. I am sure that Fife Scottish will have a strong future as a bus company and will continue to serve the travelling public in Fife very well, as it has in the past.
Mr. McLeish rose --
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I should like to answer the hon. Gentleman on one point. He recently visited the Scottish Office with a deputation of employees from the bus company and handed in a petition, containing a considerable number of names. The petition suggested that the present arrangements that are operated by Fife regional council, by which pensioners and the disabled can travel free, will be ended by the sale of Fife Stagecoach. I am glad to confirm that that is not the case. Stagecoach proposes to run Fife Scottish as a bus operating company, providing timetabled services. Fife regional council's concessionary fare scheme will continue to apply to the service as before.
Although I cannot comment in detail on the sale, it may be helpful if I explain the background to the sales of the subsidiaries of the Scotish Bus Group.
Mr. McLeish : The Minister is going off the subject.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I am not off the subject ; I am on it. I must again repeat to the hon. Gentleman that we are within the time scale for an appeal, and if he-- [Interruption.] I must make it absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman that if those concerned wish to appeal, they have the right to do so, so I choose my words with great care.
Mr. McLeish rose --
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but reluctantly.
Mr. McLeish : The Minister can speak freely tonight because he knows that there is no cash available for any appeal in the Court of Session, which would cost
Column 1124
thousands of pounds. What we have heard tonight allays none of the fears that have been expressed in this House-- [Interruption.] I shall continue despite the involvement of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). None of our fears have been allayed, because the Minister has chosen to miss all the essential points. There was never any doubt about the legalities ; what we are talking about are the procedures involved. It is clear that the Minister was not aware--this information was not available to him through his civil servants or the STG- -that new bids, new telephone conversations and new letters were around and about. Will he confirm that he did not know until the 29th?Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : The hon. Gentleman must appreciate that he is raising a legal question about whether a properly constituted legal bid was submitted on an earlier date. All I can say to him is that I was absolutely certain in my own mind on the morning that we spoke together on the telephone that I was absolutely correct to consider that bid further, as was the Secretary of State. The fullest possible legal advice was taken and accepted by the Secretary of State before a final decision was arrived at. I think that that was correct.
The Transport (Scotland) Act 1989 provides the Secretary of State with power to draw up a disposal programme for the whole of the STG's undertaking with the exception of its shipping operations for which the Act makes provision for transfer to the ownership of the Secretary of State. That leaves the Scottish Bus Group which, before implementation of the disposal programme began, consisted of 10 separate bus subsidiaries.
The disposal programme was published on 6 February 1990 and copies have been made available in the House. Since it is however now some time since the disposal programme was published, I think it would be helpful if I were to refer to certain passages in it which set out the objectives of the programme.
The disposal programme was prepared by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State after consultation with the Scottish Transport Group. The programme provides for the disposal of the subsidiaries and the arrangements to be made in preparation for the dissolution of the Scottish Transport Group. Section 2(1) of the Transport (Scotland) Act 1989 set out the main objective of the Secretary of State in preparing the disposal programme. That is the promotion of sustained and fair competition between the SBG companies and between them and other bus companies. That objective is being promoted primarily by offering the Scottish Bus Group for sale as 10 separate undertakings with a view to the establishment of independent companies operating within a competitive framework in the bus industry.
The general approach which the disposal programme requires STG to adopt is to offer the companies listed in the programme for sale on an individual basis. The disposals are required to be effected generally by means of sale and purchase agreements relating to shares in the subsidiaries disposed of. The programme does, however, provide for subsidiaries not disposed of in this way to be wound up prior to the dissolution of STG.
The appendix sets out in detail how the companies will be advertised for sale on a phased basis. They will be placed in the national trade press. All those conditions were followed and an information memorandum would be made available for a nominal charge to prospective purchasers who registered an interest in a company,
Column 1125
provided that STG is satisfied that the prospective purchaser has sufficient financial backing or the prospect of sufficient backing. Prospective purchasers will be invited to submit indicative bids and other relevant information and may be invited to have discussions. Sealed bids--Mr. McLeish : On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you make a judgment on the relevance of the wider implications of the matter to the specific issue of the sale of Fife Scottish to Stagecoach Holdings?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : I did not follow the hon. Gentleman. Is he complaining that the Minister is going into matters which are wider than those which he raised?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : That is not a matter for me. The debate on the motion for the Adjournment can be wide.
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : The hon. Gentleman assumes that there will be no appeal. I am not entitled to make any such assumption. I will proceed on that basis. He is unrealistic if he pursues the debate on any other basis.
Sealed bids will be required to be submitted to STG by a closing date. When seeking the Secretary of State's consent for a sale, details of all bids received for that company together with a statement of its reasons will have to be submitted. Following the Secretary of State's consent, arrangements will be made with the successful bidder for completion of the sale. Clearly, the disposal programme provides that discussions will take place as necessary between prospective purchasers and a negotiator acting on behalf of STG before the submission of sealed bids by purchasers.
STG reserves the right not to invite a formal bid from any prospective purchaser and is not required to give any reason for not inviting any such bid. STG is required to obtain the Secretary of State's consent before deciding not to invite any bid. STG is not obliged to recommend to the Secretary of State acceptance of the highest or any other bid for a particular undertaking. No disposal will take place until a management- employee team has had a reasonable time in which to lodge a bid.
Bidders are required to include all relevant information in their bids, including the following details : names of the principals involved ; details of the shareholding and financial structure proposed for the company or group of companies the basis for employee participation, and any limits on the transfer of shares ; a statement of their future intentions for the business ; the price being offered for the company ; and so on.
As I mentioned earlier, the legislation sets out the main objective in preparing the disposal programme as being the promotion of sustained and fair competition in the bus industry. It provides that no buyer of a bus company, including persons connected with that buyer, will be allowed to buy any other bus companies operating in contiguous areas, as defined in the programme. There is also an overall limit of two on the number of companies that one buyer can acquire. These restrictions apply to the nine area-based operating companies, but not to Scottish Citylink Coaches. In order to promote the competition
Column 1126
objective, STG is also required to make inquiries of intending bidders to establish what links they have or might intend to have with other companies in future.I am well aware that the hon. Gentleman sets high store by the provisions in the disposal programme concerning a preference for bids involving employee participation. The Secretary of State has a statutory obligation to have regard to the desirability of promoting the acquisition by the employees of a controlling interest in the companies to be sold. For that reason, preference is given to bids involving the acquisition of such a controlling interest. Such bids can take the form of a management-employee buy-out, MEBO, or an employee buy-out, EBO. In the case of MEBOs, at least 25 per cent. of the ordinary shares in the company should generally be owned by or on behalf of non-management employees to satisfy the requirement of adequate non-management employee share ownership. It is open to bidders to make whatever arrangements they consider appropriate to satisfy that requirement, and non-management employee share ownership could well be above that figure.
As a general principle, shares should be available to all management and non-management employees on equal terms. The shareholding arrangements could be by means of an employee share ownership plan ESOP, by arrangements for employees to buy shares, or both. Where a bid, which involves a controlling interest by employees along the lines that I have specified, is otherwise comparable with a third party bid, a price preference will be given to the bid involving employee ownership. Further passages in the disposal programme set out arrangements regarding pensions and travel concessions.
I stress that four of the sales so far have been to
management-employee buy-outs : Lowland Scottish, Scottish Citylink, Eastern Scottish and Kelvin Central Buses. Northern Scottish has been sold to Stagecoach. Midland Scottish was sold to GRT Holdings, and Strathtay Scottish to the Yorkshire Traction Company Ltd. Clansman Travel and Leisure Ltd. and Rapsons Coaches have jointly been awarded preferred bidder status in the sale of Highland Scottish. An important matter to which the disposal programme does not refer is the publication of sale proceeds. The position is that the total proceeds for the sale of all the SBG's subsidiaries and the prices obtained will be made public only after the privatisation process has been completed. Earlier publications of prices realised could prejudice the sale process.
The hon. Gentleman wanted a chronology of events and I shall give him that chronology as it is known to the Scottish Office. On 8 February 1991, the sale advertisement appeared, 11 information memoranda were issued and the indicative bids date specified. On 7 March 1991, indicative bids were due and five were received. In the week commencing 18 March 1991, the agreed purchasers were advised that 25 April would be the final bid date. On 25 April, five formal bids were received. The Stagecoach bid was the highest. On 8 May, the STG board considered the bids and recommended Stagecoach. On 9 May the STG requested the Secretary of State's consent to make the sale to Stagecoach. On 17 May--
Mr. McLeish : Will the Minister give way?
Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : No, just let me finish the chronology. The hon. Gentleman can intervene later.
Column 1127
Mr. McLeish : On that very point. After mentioning the board meeting on 8 May, the Minister moved to 9 May. Was the Scottish Office informed on 9 May of the telephone conversation held between the STG and Touche Ross about the interest of Fife Scottish in readjusting that bid?Lord James Douglas-Hamilton : To the best of my knowledge, I was not, but I shall have to check that from the papers.
On 17 May, there was a submission to Ministers. On 23 May, the Secretary of State made it clear that he was content and the letter of consent was issued to the STG. On 24 May Malcolm Roxburgh of the STG received a phone call from Touche Ross, as the hon. Gentleman staged, that the MEBO would come up with the further sum. That was followed up by a letter indicating that the increase was possible. The hon. Gentleman is putting a legal argument on whether that constituted a formal offer. It was not recognised as such and was not treated on that basis.
On 27 May Stagecoach signed a deposit agreement. On 28 May the deposit cheque was received by the STG's bank. On 29 May the Touche Ross letter was delivered, the hon. Gentleman telephoned me, and I called off the announcement which was due to be made two or, perhaps, three hours later that morning, in order to look thoroughly into all the circumstances because it was clear that a formal increased offer had been made.
On 25 May, the intended press announcement was cancelled. On 30 May, a letter from the Scottish Transport Group said that its board was still of the view that the sale to Stagecoach should go ahead. On 5 June, there was a submission to Ministers that recommended consent should be granted to Stagecoach. On 10 June, there was a press announcement and a new consent letter was issued. On 13 June, a petition for judicial review was advised and papers were received. On 14 June, a petition was heard in court and the MEBO failed to obtain interim interdict, but an order was made for a first hearing of the judicial review. The first hearing, on 3 July, was adjourned and on 10 and 11 July, the hearing continued and the petition was dismissed. The appeal period expires on 1 August. That is the chronology of events.
However disappointed the hon. Gentleman may be at the outcome, I have to tell him that the advice of the lawyers was followed to the letter, which we believe was absolutely right. If he has any grounds for questioning the judgment of Scottish Office lawyers and Ministers, the proper course is to resort to the courts. The hon. Member's MEBO has done that. If I had been in any doubt, the MEBO would have won. I was in no doubt, and the MEBO lost. That is the reality ; this is not a discretionary matter but a matter of fact. Four MEBOs have won and the final sale is now under consideration. In earlier discussions, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) said that we were merely paying lip service to the matter, but four of the MEBOs have won, which is a substantial number.
I cannot go further than I have gone tonight, as the matter could conceivably come up on appeal in court. Therefore, I have chosen my words with care.
Column 1128
9.22 pmMr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North) : My contribution will be brief, first because I do not want to interfere with the second Adjournment debate, to be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), and secondly, because the subject of this Adjournment debate has been set out not only ably but brilliantly by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish)--in contrast with the Minister's performance.
I say without malice that the speech that we have just heard from the Minister--if "speech" is not too strong a word--was a disgrace. I thought that the long passage that he blabbered out while reading from notes was particularly bad--it was clearly written about two years ago. The Minister did not even change the future tense into the past tense. I hope that the Hansard writers will do him no favours. He told us what was going to happen --it was an old speech written when the process was under way.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart) : My hon. Friend was quoting
Mr. Wilson : The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State says that his hon. Friend was quoting. In that case, we look forward to seeing several columns of quotations in Hansard tomorrow. The Minister's speech was a disgrace with no attempt to address the detailed points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central.
I wish to iterate some of the perspective on the matter. I spent many long hours in Committee listening to similar feats of eloquence from the Minister. No one doubts the Minister's good will or his integrity. We all knew that, at that time, the Minister was the front man for much darker forces. We did not know the entire details of how the privatisation of the Scottish Bus Group would work out, but we were certain that Stagecoach-- unloved, unwanted, but so
influential--would end up with two large slices of the action. That is what we knew from day one, and that is precisely what happened. It did not matter too much how that was to be achieved--it was part of the end goal and, by heavens, one way or another it would be achieved.
It is a dreadful story. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) is welcome to intervene if he understands the issue, but if he wants to sit there muttering, that is his hang-up. The case relating to Fife is a dreadful one and the Minister has conspicuously failed to answer the detailed questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central about the eight representations made between 9 and 29 May. Either those representations were not reported to the Scottish Office, or they were and they were ignored.
How is it that the central figure in the privatisation, Mr. Roxburgh, the solicitor acting for the Scottish Transport Group, could receive such communications from interested parties without responding to them? How could he still be acting within the terms set out for him by the Scottish Office? How could that happen? The Minister should consider the eight communications that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central has detailed. He should tell us what was done about each of them. He should tell us in what sense Mr. Roxburgh has been called to account for his actions, or lack of them, on the eight representations made between 9 and 29 May.
Column 1129
I want to consider the role of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), which has been an issue for a long time. I regret that the hon. Gentleman is not present. I have said most of what I am going to say tonight before, but I would be much happier saying it if the hon. Gentleman were here. It is remarkable that such a diligent director of Stagecoach has not made it his business to be in the House tonight.I remember the Committee stage of the Transport (Scotland) Bill very well, as does the Minister, I am sure. I remember particularly the performance of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, who was diligent in his attendance. However, the hon. Gentleman did not make many speeches in Committee, but, occasionally, he leapt into action. Anyone who studies the record of the Committee will find that the hon. Gentleman repeatedly intervened to represent the interests of Stagecoach.
On one occasion the hon. Member for Tayside, North nipped out of the Door to telephone the Stagecoach management. He then came back to refer to the interests of Stagecoach. Every time we drew attention to the hon. Gentleman's behaviour, he said, reasonably, that he was acting in his role as a constituency Member. Although Stagecoach is not based in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, he pointed out that some of his constituents worked for it. Those were the grounds on which we were led to believe that the hon. Gentleman took such an active interest in the proceedings in the good name of Stagecoach. The Committee stage ended in 14 February 1989. Imagine our surprise a few weeks later when we read a reference to the hon. Member for Tayside, North as a director of Stagecoach. Imagine our further interest when we read in the Register of Members' Interests that in April 1989, at most six weeks after the Committee stage and some three months before the Third Reading was completed, the hon. Member for Tayside, North- -
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : Order. If the hon. Gentleman is implying some impropriety on the part of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who is absent, he is not going about it in the correct way. There is a procedure laid down that he should follow. It is not the procedure that he is following tonight.
Mr. Wilson : I cannot imagine that by reading from the Register of Members' Interests I am attributing impropriety.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that the hon. Member for Tayside, North had expressed certain views in the proceedings on the Bill prior to the entry in the Register of Members' Interests. That carries serious implications, and the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) must not pursue them in the manner in which he has. He must raise them through the proper procedures laid down.
Mr. Wilson : I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will restrict myself to factual matters. I will not
Column 1130
speculate. The factual matter is that the Committee stage ended on 14 February 1989 and the Register of Members' Interests shows that, in April 1989, the hon. Member for Tayside, North--Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is either not listening or is disregarding what I said. The hon. Gentleman is now clearly suggesting some impropriety on the part of the hon. Member for Tayside, North.
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie (Glasgow, Pollok) : My hon. Friend is reading from--
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must not raise the point in that way. The appropriate way is to write to the Select Committee.
Mr. Wilson : It is difficult to question the Minister without referring to these matters.
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman is referring to the conduct of the hon. Member for Tayside, North. That is not a matter for the Minister, but a matter for the hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North wishes to refer to the conduct of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, he must not raise the matter in the House. He must write to the Select Committee.
Mr. Wilson : I am referring to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central. He has read reports in the press in which the hon. Member for Tayside, North claimed that he approached the Minister, using the word "we" in terms of Stagecoach, to raise certain concerns about the interests of Stagecoach with the Scottish Office. I ask the Minister directly : did the Scottish Office receive such representations from the hon. Member for Tayside, North?
Mr. Deputy Speaker : Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not persist in disregarding the advice of the Chair. My attention has been drawn to the relevant passage in "Erskine May". On page 389 it says :
"Where one Member makes an allegation against another Member, he is required to do so in writing to the Registrar, who refers the allegation to the Committee and informs the Member concerned." By implication, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North is making an allegation against the hon. Member for Tayside, North, who is not here tonight. He should instead follow the procedure that I have described.
Mr. Wilson : I shall leave this subject entirely. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central and I will write to the Select Committee on Members' Interests. I stress that I have made no allegations. The hon. Member in question was advised by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central of his intention to raise these matters on the Floor of the House tonight. I have asked the Minister a direct question, which is germane to the debate : did he receive the representations to which I referred? The whole business stinks to high heaven.
Column 1131
Housing (Glasgow)
9.32 pm
Mr. Michael J. Martin (Glasgow, Springburn) : I should like to convey through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, my thanks to Mr. Speaker for allowing me this second Adjournment debate, which was a pleasant surprise. I also thank the Minister, who is responsible for housing in Scotland, for giving me the opportunity to talk about a matter that is important to me. Like most Glaswegians of my generation, I was brought up in an old tenement building, in a room and kitchen with an outside toilet. Therefore, throughout my life in public office, I have always felt it important that people get a decent home and decent shelter.
Many of us in the city of Glasgow felt that, when everyone had a home with adequate rooms and a bathroom, all problems would be solved. However, we know from the housing situation not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom that people need more than that for their housing needs. I hope to highlight some of the problems that have arisen in my constituency. As the debate is about housing in Glasgow, the problems in my constituency are relevant to those in any Glasgow constituency. I am glad to see that, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Dunnachie) and for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster) are here. My hon. Friend knows a great deal about local authority housing. He is a former leader of the Renfrewshire district local authority.
Both Glasgow district councillors and officials take pride in trying to give a good service to council tenants. When I was a Glasgow district councillor, I found that the local ward councillor could solve tenants' minor problems by making representations to the housing manager. If there was any difficulty with the housing manager, the local ward councillor could ask to see the convener of housing. If there was any difficulty with him, the local ward councillor could appeal to the leader of the group or to the committee. However, problems that could be solved in that way when I was a councillor cannot be dealt with in the same way by the present councillors. They are experiencing great difficulties, due to the fact that the Government are starving local authorities, particularly the housing authorities, of the money they need.
The houses in Broomknowes road in my constituency were built in the inter- war period. It is referred to as intermediate housing. They are grey sandstone buildings. Although they are old, they are in better condition than some of the houses that were built in the 1960s. I have spoken to a tenant who lives in Broomknowes road who went to live there when she was a young girl. She is now in her fifties. The standard in those tenements is so high that they are a credit to the local authority and to the people who live there.
Only one thing is needed. The windows are deteriorating. Consequently, those properties are not properly draught-proofed. Ten or 15 years ago, the Minister knows that the local authority could have said, "Let's get this through the budget. It's a 50-year-old property. The people who live there are good tenants. We want to encourage them to continue what they have been
Column 1132
doing, in some cases for generations." The Minister's aim must surely be to provide decent housing. If tenants take a pride in their properties, they ought to be encouraged.The people who live in Broomknowes road cannot get double-glazed windows for their properties, even though that is a standard provision in other houses. They need double-glazed windows because their houses are on a main road, with heavy buses passing by. The houses ought to be insulated against noise as well as against cold in winter.
Mr. Gordon McMaster (Paisley, South) : Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a false economy, and that it is to be found in Glasgow and elsewhere? As the Government have starved housing authorities of the necessary funds, replacement windows cannot be provided for tenants. Windows just have to be patched up. Over 15 years, that is a false economy. It would be cheaper to replace the windows than have to keep patching them up. However, that option is not available to housing authorities. They do not have the funds for that purpose.
Mr. Martin : My hon. Friend is correct. One of my constituents in that area told me that the council could carry out only minor repairs to a window sash. One part of the window was repaired. The tradesman went away and did not return until weeks later to repair another part of the same window. Someone has to pay that tradesman. His wages come from public funds. If the work were properly carried out, morale in the area would be raised. A problem that could have been solved easily in a councillor's surgery has led to the tenants' association making representations to the community council and to the community council holding a public meeting.
When I travelled from Westminster to Glasgow to speak there, members of the regional council were present to support the district councillors. The local housing manager was also there. The starvation of funds has led to the involvement of Uncle Tom Cobley and all in a problem that should be easily resolved. I think that the people of Broomknowes road are entitled to a better deal.
I had not intended to refer again to the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). In various housing debates, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman has refered to the big, empty, soulless housing units that Labour-controlled authorities had built on the outskirts of Glasgow. I assume that he was referring to Drumchapel, Easterhouse, Castlemilk and Priesthill.
If the hon. and learned Gentleman had been brought up in the tenements in which I was brought up, he would know that, in the 1950s, people told lies to get into housing in those areas. So high were family standards then that brothers and sisters who slept in the same room never saw each other unclothed. On winter nights, boys would have to be dressed if one of their sisters wanted to wash at the sink. When the Drumchapel and Easterhouse accommodation became available, a mother and father could have their own room, and brothers and sisters could live separately in a flat with a bath. It was like winning the pools.
If the hon. Members who talk of soulless communities knew anything about housing in Glasgow, they would appreciate that such peripheral schemes gave those in the city centre a breathing space. Those schemes were similar to the current "merchant city" scheme. That scheme would not have been possible if people had not been rehoused away from the centre of the city. Not every peripheral
| Next Section
| Home Page |