| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Raymond S. Robertson): I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond to the debate and I congratulate the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan(Mr. Salmond) on securing it. Many points have been raised this morning and obviously I will not be able to refer to them in the short time available to me. However, I shall endeavour to address as many as I can, and I shall try to write to hon. Members regarding the issues that I do not cover.
I turn first to resources, as that subject has dominated the debate this morning. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan seemed to suggest that £4 billion in local authority housing debt could be spirited away if it were moved to different areas within the public sector.In addition, he suggested that, in his independent Scotland, £945 million would be available for new investment. He seems to forget that his great, independent Scotland would face a massive budget deficit. He did not say where the money would come from.
Last year, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade produced figures compiled by Government economists showing that the deficit would be £6.7 billion. Those findings were backed up by the independent Fraser of Allander Institute. The much-respected House of Commons Library said in 1993-94 that the deficit would be more than £7 billion. Scotland on Sunday--which is certainly no friend to the Government--predicted that the budget deficit would be £4.5 billion. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman is playing politics of the very worst kind: promising much and raising expectations, knowing all the while that he can never deliver.
Mr. Salmond:
There are mistakes in that calculation. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the equivalent figure for the whole of the United Kingdom is £53 billion under his Government. That is why we have seen 22 tax increases--which have occurred in Scotland also--in an attempt to redress the balance. Will the hon. Gentleman concede that all the spending commitments about which I have talked today and their revenue consequences are laid down in the budget plans produced by the SNP? If he wants to attack those figures, the documents are available. If he has not read them or does not understand them, he should admit that to the House.
Mr. Robertson:
I was being kind to the hon. Gentleman by not adding in his party's spending plans, which would take the budget deficit to £10 billion. The hon. Gentleman is asking us to believe that Government economists, the Fraser of Allander Institute, Scotland on Sunday and the House of Commons Library are wrong and that he is right. In so doing, he displays an arrogance on which the Scottish people will judge him.
Throughout his 11-minute speech, the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion) referred continually to lack of resources and the need for more money. However,he did not say how much the Labour party would spend
over and above what we are spending. I am prepared to give him a minute of my speaking time if he will come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House exactly how much a Labour Government would spend over and above the plans that I have announced.
Mr. McAllion:
The Government are currently spending £900 million subsidising failure and trapping people in poverty. If the hon. Gentleman were to listen to the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations and its very wise advice on how to make rents affordable for Scottish people, he would reduce the housing benefit budget--thereby releasing resources for investment in housing--and get people out of poverty, off benefit, back to work and paying taxes. In that way, he would create a virtuous circle instead of the circle of failure that his broken and useless policies have imposed on the Scottish people.
Mr. Robertson:
We have fantasy figures from the SNP and no figures from the Labour party. I contrast that approach with the Government's actions. We plan to make almost £2 billion available for housing in Scotland in the next three years. Spending by local authorities could amount to about £1 billion. In 1996-97, the gross capital provision for investment by local authorities and Scottish Homes will amount to nearly £680 million. That means that, since 1979, we have invested £6 billion in council housing and £2 billion in private sector housing by local authorities.
This year, we have maintained net borrowing provision at planned levels, and gross investment by local authorities in council housing is expected to amount to almost £350 million in 1996-97. Over the same period, the number of council houses has fallen by about 25 per cent.--which means that the debt to which the hon. Gentleman referred has increased by 60 per cent. That is unacceptable, and there is a pressing need to tackle council housing debt.
Like the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith(Mr. Chisholm), I am aware that most of the new authorities have made representations about the estimates that we are about to announce. I told the hon. Gentleman yesterday when we met to discuss the matter that, before making a final decision, I shall take on board all the representations from local authorities. If hon. Members wish to discuss the matter on behalf of, or in conjunction with, local authorities before a final decision is taken early next week, I shall be delighted to meet them.
Local authorities owe it to themselves and to their tenants to maximise receipts by every means at their disposal. I shall now take a few minutes of the time of the House to refer to the potential for generating receipts from the sale of housing stock to other landlords.
Mr. Welsh:
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Robertson:
With respect, I have only four minutes left in which to reply to the debate.
In the past, some hon. Members have questioned whether the £22 million included in the provisional estimates for stock transfers next year is achievable. That figure represents the sale of about 1 per cent. of the total local authority housing stock in Scotland--that must be achievable. I believe that orders of that magnitude can be
achieved, for example, through the sale of empty properties or through the transfer of a small number of houses to existing locally based housing associations.
I acknowledge that it may be difficult to achieve substantial large-scale stock transfers next year, but authorities should start to plan now for such transfers in 1997-98. As I have said on several occasions, I believe firmly that authorities should generate more resources for housing investment through selling stock to other landlords. I expect local authorities to take the steps necessary to maximise receipts.
The threat to increased investment in Scotland's housing comes not from Her Majesty's Government but from the ideology expressed by Opposition Members who believe that only councils should build houses and be landlords. That is a mentality from the past which does nothing to address the needs and the demands of social housing in Scotland as we approach the millennium.
I turn now to some points raised specifically in the debate. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan asked about the sale of the Scottish Homes loans portfolio.We shall shortly appoint advisers to examine the matter and we shall look closely at his idea for separate sales per country.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) inquired about anti-social tenants. I am on record as saying that the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, under the chairmanship of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), is examining the matter. I shall wait until it has reported to the Government and to the House before deciding on a course of action--it would be madness to try to duplicate that Select Committee's work. However, some of the powers that the hon. Gentleman suggested have not been requested by Labour-controlled councils. There is an immense area to explore, but I am willing to wait until the Select Committee has reported before deciding what, if any, legislation should be brought before the House.
Homelessness and rooflessness have been mentioned. Homelessness continues to be a national priority for local authorities and for Scottish Homes, which hopes to make about 2,400 homes available for homeless people this year. Helping rough sleepers remains a priority in the homelessness programme and I am sure that all hon. Members would agree that, before we bring forward any plans on rooflessness initiatives, we need to be properly informed, and that is why my predecessor commissioned a research report into what was happening. I expect to have the results of that this summer. I can tell the hon. Members for Banff and Buchan and for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) that I will consider carefully all the indications of that research, but I do not want to make policy without being properly informed, and that is what the research project will do.
Earlier this year, we consulted on the code of guidance on homelessness and asked for comments by 30 September from a wide range of bodies, including those representing the views of homeless people.
Mr. Salmond:
Will the Minister concede that such an initiative would require--
Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes):
I welcome this opportunity to raise in the House once again the all-important subject of engineering. I can vouch for the operation of the ballot in obtaining this slot for an Adjournment debate, having waited for months for my lucky day to arrive. No element of choice is involved.
In these days of political correctness, I must declare my interest in this subject. First, I am a founder member of the all-party engineering development group and, for the past four years, I have had the honour to be its chairman. Secondly, I am a parliamentary adviser to Seeboard,my local electricity company--now also a gas supplier--and to Chanel, an industry leader in fashion and fragrance. Both companies draw on engineering talent for their success and I accentuate that point because it shows the diversity of engineering operations in industry. Thirdly,I must declare my position as a business adviser to Lexion, which is a growing management consultancy deeply involved in improving the performance of many varied engineering companies in Britain and elsewhere.
I am not alone in my interest in this debate this morning, as you can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the number of colleagues who are here. I wish to record apologies from some of my hon. Friends who would have liked to have been here and from whom the House would have been interested to hear, but who have been kept away, mostly by service on Select Committees. I mention especially my right hon. Friend the Member for City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke) and my hon. Friends the Members for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), for Bolton, North-East(Mr. Thurnham) and for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce).
To put the debate in its proper context, I remind the House that engineering is Britain's biggest profession by a long chalk, and that it is the greatest contributor to Britain's gross national product. Engineering is one of our key national capabilities, as was so aptly pointed out by Dr. Alan Rudge at the launch of the new Engineering Council last month. He said:
I am glad to have this opportunity to add a parliamentary voice to that statement this morning.
I shall put in a word here about the new Engineering Council, to place it on record. It was launched in February with two specific aims--to unify the engineering profession and to establish a new, forward-looking relationship and partnership between the council and the 39 engineering institutions. At its launch, the council was described by the Deputy Prime Minister as a vital first step towards a stronger voice for engineering in Britain. That it is already happening.
It is crucial that the engineering profession is properly understood and respected, that the contribution of engineers is heard and that young people are attracted to a career based on engineering. I pay tribute to Sir John Fairclough, who launched and worked so hard to achieve
the initiative to unify the profession. I wish Dr. Alan Rudge very well as the first chairman of the new Engineering Council senate.
It is a happy coincidence, as my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy will know, that the debate coincides with SET 96, the third national festival of science, engineering and technology, which is taking place under the auspices of the Department of Trade and Industry all this week. The subtitle of SET 96 is "The Essence of Trade and Industry", which correctly positions our debate today.I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology on that initiative and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Energy will transmit those congratulations to him.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Science and Technology has shown a considerable grasp of the fast-changing issues and he has dispelled many ofthe fears of the prophets of doom about the move of the department to the DTI last summer. He has led the efforts to improve the integration of competition, innovation, technology, science and engineering, and continually drawn attention to the importance of training in primary science and mathematics as the cornerstone for competitiveness in SET-based industries.
SET 96 follows up the DTI's Action for Engineering campaign of last autumn and is a further step forward in the Government's activities to promote engineering in this country and abroad. It is due to be followed by the Year of Engineering Success--YES--which will run all through 1997 and is due to be launched in Parliament at the end of this year. It is a co-operative initiative by the engineering profession, employers, industry, business and the Government. It will mark and remind people of the vital role of engineering in our country's economic success in an increasingly competitive world, and of the contributionthat engineering makes to our lives at home, at work,in transportation, in health care, in communications, in leisure and, not least, in our future environment.
It is of long-term importance that better public awareness and appreciation must increase the interest of more able children in engineering and technical courses at school and in the pursuit of engineering studies in further education. I shall return to that subject in a moment.
It is no mistake that the name of the YES promotion spells "yes". The intention is that, by the end of 1997, when opinion-formers are asked if they think engineering is important to the economy, they will respond yes; when school children are asked if they are interested in a career in engineering, they will say yes; and when parents are asked if they would be pleased for a child to become an engineer or technician, they will say yes. The promotion must establish engineering as a preferred profession for young people and an exciting route for any ingenious and resourceful student with an eye to the future.
Much has already happened in previous years to advance our argument. The Royal Society of Arts, Manufacturers and Commerce continues to make a valuable input to developing new ideas and approaches. The society was the patron of Industry Year, ran a series of seminars on manufacturing and wealth creation in the economy, conducted an erudite and deep study of the workplace of tomorrow, and continues to contribute a series of lectures and other activities. The BBC, which is so often criticised in the House--and with some
justification--featured last winter a special television session celebrating engineers and their achievements, which was an immense success. The Engineering Training Authority continues to focus on the skills and training needs of engineering manufacturing industry. Year after year, the Engineering Employers Federation makes an important contribution to knowledge about engineering and the environment in which it operates.
Engineering institutions such as the Institution of Electrical Engineers are establishing engineering centres to provide local access to best practice, information and advice, and schemes such as the continuing performance project update and develop technical and non-technical skills. In addition to the many institutional programmes, the Engineering Council organises initiatives aimed at promoting engineering through, for example, Young Engineers for Britain--an annual competition that attracts entries from more than 1,200 budding inventors between the ages of 11 and 19. Women into Science and Engineering aims at attracting more women to engineering. The proportion of women engineering undergraduates has more than doubled during the period of that campaign, but remains at 15 per cent. The Environment Award encourages engineers to take account of environmental issues and to find solutions to environmental problems. Neighbourhood engineer schemes link professional engineers and technicians with local secondary schools. They support teachers and give pupils valuable insights into engineering as a career. The technology enhancement programme funded by the Gatsby Charitable Foundation aims at improving technology, science and mathematics teaching. There is also the DTI-inspired action for engineering programme, but the Government must continue to give even stronger support in informing British people of the vital role that engineering plays in our national life and well being.
11 am
"Engineering encompasses issues which impact upon every aspect of social and business life. Engineering is about innovation, wealth creation, quality of life and even national survival . . . it is also concerned with the effective management of Time, Money, Technology and People. In all of these aspects the Engineering Profession can make a contribution which deserves to be heard."
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |