| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Michie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I shall adhere to what you say. Perhaps the Minister has got the message. I hope that he will carefully consider the matters that I have raised tonight.
8.31 pm
Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston): In the housing support grant order, as in the revenue support grant order, the city of Glasgow seems to have been singled out for vindictive treatment. How else can the Government explain a settlement that gives the least resources to the city with the greatest need? The hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) referred to Glasgow in the 1950s and 1960s. It was the highly selective policy of overspill of people and jobs to other parts of Scotland that caused many of the problems that the city faces today. Any money being spent in the city is a way of society repaying its debts.
I had hoped to speak in our earlier debate on the revenue support grant. Unfortunately, what should have been a debate lasting more than three hours became a debate that lasted just one hour and 20 minutes--wholly inadequate for such an important subject. Several of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members were unable to participate.
There is to be a massive cut of almost £30 million in capital funding for housing in Glasgow. That is an extremely serious blow to the city--even more so when taken with the revenue grant figure, because the capping level means that Glasgow has to make cuts of £68 million. If we deduct the £25 million that the city finds from various sources, that leaves £43 million to be found from cuts in services and increased charges--a cut of almost £1 million a week or £117,808.21 every day of the year. How can Glasgow tackle the evils of unemployment, poverty and poor housing with such a settlement?
Because of the housing capital cuts, 300 people could lose their jobs in the city's housing department. Already, 700 council employees have taken redundancy. With enforced compulsory redundancies, the figure for job losses could rise to 2,000. That shows the scale of the problem that the city faces.
The proposed council tax increase of 36 per cent. means that band D council tax payers will face an increase of £243--from £676 to £919. In addition, council house rents have had to be increased by an average of £3.94 a week. The combined rent and council tax increases will mean more and more misery for many citizens, especially those caught in the poverty trap whose income is just above the qualifying level to obtain any benefits.
As if the housing support grant order were not bad enough, Glasgow had the misfortune to suffer horrendous damage to its housing stock in the severe weather over the new year. I dealt with that matter fully in an Adjournment debate on 17 January. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Robertson), for meeting Glasgow Members of Parliament recently to discuss the severe weather problems and capital allocations. It was a much more constructive meeting than we had expected. Nevertheless, Glasgow is still faced with the same problem.
The latest figures for the cost of the winter emergency are £9.1 million for the reinstatement work in respect of the housing revenue account. To fund that, the council will have to delay capital expenditure of £2.3 million on heating, windows and roofing projects. Day-to-day repairs, at an estimated cost of £2.8 million, will be displaced by frost emergency work, resulting in an increase in outstanding repairs of 10,000. There will also
be a potential deficit in the housing revenue account for 1996-97 of £2.9 million. I understand that the Minister has now received the relevant information from Glasgow city council. I hope that he will soon be in a position to respond positively.
On the vexed question of housing support grant, has the Minister yet reconsidered the differences between the Government's capital receipts targets and the council's predicted outturn figures? I want to put the figures to him again. On right-to-buy sales, the Government expectation is an income of £20.872 million. The council prediction is £13.5 million. On stock transfers, the figures are£3.871 million and nothing, and on land sales they are£3 million and £500,000 respectively. That is a total Government expectation of £27.918 million against a council prediction of £14 million--a shortfall of almost£14 million.
As has already been said, the Government's receipts targets are based on a pattern of house sales and Scottish Homes stock transfer activity in 1994-95 rather than 1995-96, when there was a drop in the number of house sales inquiries and take-up and acceptance rates of 35 and 58 per cent. respectively. Most of the houses that people want to buy have already been bought, so the sales of council houses will slump in the coming year. Indeed, to be quite frank, in many cases the stock that is left is not worth buying. Scottish Homes in Glasgow does not expect to have any funding to effect further acquisitions.
A much more realistic target for the council would be a reduction of the receipts targets to £500,000 for land sales and stock transfers combined and to £13.5 million for the right to buy. In addition, there should be a commensurate increase in borrowing consent to ensure that the council is able to meet its legal commitments. Finally, by reducing borrowing consent there will be a serious risk to public-private partnerships such as the Glasgow energy and urban regeneration initiatives.
The Minister is insisting that the target for voluntary transfers--which are really compulsory transfers--of 1 per cent. of the total remaining housing stock must be reached in the next financial year. For Glasgow, that means that almost 1,100 houses must be transferred to new landlords--but who? Is there to be a return to Rachmanism, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) asked? Scottish Homes cannot fund housing associations to take on those houses, so who will be the landlords? The same applies to land sales. Will speculators move in and buy up land so that when the Glasgow Development Agency, Scottish Homes, Greater Glasgow health board or Glasgow city council want to buy the land back to develop it, they will have to pay extortionately high prices? That is not sense; it is nonsense and it is also counter-productive.
I appeal to the Secretary of State not simply to abandon local government but to show some compassion and concern for those who most need the essential services that local government provides. If the Secretary of State for Wales can find an additional £15 million to ensure that no council has to increase its council tax by more than 25 per cent., why cannot the Secretary of State for Scotland do the same?
Mr. Connarty:
I am interested in the points that my hon. Friend is developing. Glasgow will have a problem similar to that of other authorities that have built large
Mr. Marshall:
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. The money is there; what is not there is the will to make it available. If the Government can find£30 million for HCI, £69 million to cap water bills,£600 million to write off water quango debts and more than £1 billion for the waste of the rail privatisation shambles, they can find some money to help local authorities and to help the people of Scotland.
Mr. Raymond S. Robertson:
We have had a useful debate and in the short time that is left, I will try to respond to as many points as possible. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) questioned the validity of the report. The legal advice we have received is that the omission of Orkney is a technical error in the draft report which will be corrected when the report is finalised after the debate. The error does not affect the validity of the order.
The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) asked about hostel grants to Glasgow. The hostel grant covers the deficit between the cost of operating hostels and the income received. It can, and does, vary from year to year. In 1995-96, Glasgow received £125,000 and in 1996-97, it would have received £92,000, but the figure was reduced because of an overpayment in an earlier year. The subsidy system is based on making an estimate for the year ahead. If the deficit turns out to be less than estimated, the payment is adjusted in a later year's order. That is why the Glasgow grant is less next year; that is purely a technical effect of the system.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) asked about housing benefit in Glasgow. I understand that around 82 per cent. of Glasgow tenants are in receipt of housing benefit. Last year, £156 million was paid to Glasgow tenants in rent rebates. My hon. Friend also referred to Scottish Homes and the £8 million grant for ethnic housing in Glasgow. I understand what my hon. Friend was saying, but I point out that it is a matter for Scottish Homes and he should take it up with the chairman or the chief executive.
8.39 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |