What I and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) ask for is a fair deal for Newham from national resources. I emphasise fair, for my case is not special pleading or asking for special treatment for Newham. The truth is that Newham gets a raw deal, an unfair deal, from Government distribution of rate support grant and capital allocations. I shall demonstrate this. The bias against Newham is blatant and striking. So much so that to an impartial outsider it must look like discrimination — almost a vendetta against the borough. If the Government are acquitted of malice, it must he mismanagement or incompetence. Whatever the cause it should, in the name of equity, be rectified.
Under the old system of the urban programme, up until last year, there were eight partnerships selected for extra help, 23 programme authorities, and 16 other designated districts for a lower level of assistance. Newham was denied partnership status, even though the borough, on Government figures, suffered a higher level of deprivation than seven of the eight partnership authorities. How does one explain or justify that?
The partnership authorities in London received an extra £10 million per annum. So, over eight years, Newham was unjustly deprived of £80 million. That is a scandal.
Newham was also denied programme authority status, even though it was more deprived than all the 23 authorities which were granted it. How can we explain that? In London, programme authorities, such as Tory Wandsworth, which the Minister will know, received some £4 million to £5 million per annum extra, but Newham, as another designated district, was granted only about £500,000 a year. Where was the equity in that? When, previously, I made the case to the former Under-Secretary, the hon. member for Ealing Acton (Sir G. Young) he did not seek to justify the injustice. He agreed that I had made a valid case but, rather shamefacedly, said that the Government were unwilling to put more money into the urban programme to rectify the injustice. Next week's Budget will show that that money is available now.
In 1987–88, changes were made in the urban programme and all ODD authorities, including Newham, became programme authorities. Initial urban programme allocations for the coming year were announced on 9 February. Newham is to receive an extra £500,000, making £2·75 million. This slight improvement is welcome as far as it goes, but it is nowhere near enough. The announcement came in a written reply to the hon. Member for Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams), Why him? Possibly because "deprived" Kensington got an extra £600,000, compared to Newham's £500,000.
Even with this modest increase, Newham's £2·75 million compares, for example, with £11·75 million for Lambeth, £9·65 million for Islington, £4·5 million for Wandsworth — and so it goes on. All those are authorities less deprived than Newham, yet they are getting more money. Perhaps someone will explain. However, what I have mentioned so far is not the half of it. We have to consider the assaults on Newham's capital allocations, including its housing investment programme. In 1979–80, at September 1987 prices, the capital allocation for housing was £47,370,000. It was then continually slashed until in 1988–89, it is just over £17,026,000. In other words, it was cut by almost two thirds. The cumulative loss of HIP allocations over the nine years from 1979–80 has been a colossal £203,958,000. Is it any wonder that this has induced a horrendous housing crisis in the borough? By comparison, the cost of building a new home for each of the 572 families in bed and breakfast accommodation would be under £30 million. To this must be added the cumulative loss over the same period at 1987 prices, of £14,911,000 in education, nearly £13 million in social services, and more than £6 million in other services. Altogether, Newham has lost £237 million in capital allocation under the present Government, as well as being denied the £80 million that it should have received from partnership. It is impossible to bleed these enormous sums out of the borough without debilitating and damaging it, and that is why I am spotlighting its plight today.
A further cause of discrimination against the borough is the unfair basis of the Department of the Environment's grant-related expenditure assessment, which underestimates service needs in Newham in three ways. First, although it is difficult to imagine a borough more inner city than Newham, the Department persists in classifying it as outer London. As a result, the council loses GRE of more than £7 million. In theory that is partially offset by the borough's not having to pay inner London weighting to some staff, but in practice paying less makes it difficult to attract staff of the right calibre. The resulting shortage of qualified staff in some services is so acute that the only way to fill the posts is to adjust salary scales upwards. Therefore the council loses twice. The extra costs have to be paid, but there is no compensating rise in block grant. Secondly, the GRE does not adequately reflect the council's need to plan services for the growing population of very young and school-age children resulting from the borough's high birth rate. In addition, the equivalent of a new town is being built in the docklands area. The GRE assessment takes account only of these developments after the growth — including growth in population — has occurred. However, the council has to organise its services——social, educational and environmental—to meet the needs of the developments now, not in a few years' time.
Thirdly, and very important, the GRE makes no allowance for homelessness. This is putting Newham on the rack. Because of the cut in the HIP allocation which stops building, and the sales of council houses which reduces relets — that is as a direct result of the Government's policy—the numbers of homeless people are rocketing faster in Newham than in any other London borough, at a huge cost to the council. There is a statutory obligation to house homeless families. The costs involved are probably the least controllable part of the council's budget, because the council cannot control the numbers presenting themselves as homeless. Yet the Government provide no extra grant to cope with the crisis. The actual costs of homelessness to Newham since 1983–84 have been as follows: in 1983–84, £52,000; in 1984–85, £138,000; in 1985–86, £605,000; in 1986–87, £1,900,000; and in 1987–88, £5,400,000. Those prodigious sums reflect the increasing demand for accommodation and the increasing prices charged by hotels. Although the Government caused the crisis, they do not pay a penny towards it through grant.
It is estimated that in 1988–89, homelessness costs will approach £8 million. All this week councillors agonised and wrestled with the problem of closing a budget gap of that size. To maintain a relatively low rate increase, they had to make painful decisions to close libraries, old people's day centres and youth centres—basically to pay for the cost of homelessness. By the end of this year we shall have paid out £16 million on homelessness, yet have nothing to show for it.
After the general election Ministers started to talk of the need to do something about the inner cities. They suddenly seemed to have realised there was a crisis. One wondered what they had been doing for their previous eight years in office. What are they going to do? Is there a policy? If so, nobody knows what it is. We had been expecting a White Paper, but all we had was a vacuous press conference last Monday, which announced nothing new. Certainly so far it has been a cashless crusade. There has been no new money; on the contrary, for the previous eight years money was drained out of the inner cities. One thing is sure. Any policy initiatives can succeed only if they work with the local people and their elected local authorities, rather than seeking to bypass, usurp, and undermine them. Those elected councillors in Newham are a responsible group of men and women of integrity, dedicated to doing an honest job for their area and its people, as any Minister who has visited them will testify.
When the Audit Commission investigated London local government last year it had no criticism of Newham. The council has indulged in no extravance and no excesses of creative accounting to spend "funny money". In the run-up to the last election certain newspapers set up and staffed special desks to collect damaging stories about Labour councils, but they could discover nothing derogatory about Newham. Newham comprises about half of London's traditional east end; its position is pivotal. It will he impossible to regenerate London's inner city without regenerating Newham and tackling its problems. Those problems, not of its making, are of a severity found in few other parts of the country, and can be approached only by a combination of local and central Government actions, and that is what I ask for.
In reminding the House of the profile of the borough, I do not want it to sound like an unremitting tale of woe. The area has many strengths—first and foremost the people, who have many qualities including resilience. Newham is well placed to make the necessary changes. What it needs is the essential pump-priming expenditure to kick-start its regeneration. Special Government money and assistance has been given to the London Docklands development corporation to spend in docklands, but the worst urban problems in Newham are found outside that area. Only 6 per cent. of the borough's population live in docklands, and there is an urgent need for resources for the 94 per cent. who live in other parts of the borough. At the moment, according to the Department of the Environment's analysis, Newham is the second most deprived of all the 365 local authorities in England and Wales. Moreover, its problems have worsened drastically since the 1981 census. Unemployment is now 50 per cent. higher and homelessness has more then doubled.
Much of Newham was built in the latter part of the 19th century as cheap homes were provided for workers employed in the docks and in rapidly developing industries. That Victorian urban expansion has left us with an inheritance of environmental and physical problems. Much of this cramped housing, built a century or more ago, is badly in need of repair. The post-war rebuilding of Newham has added problems of high density high-rise estates. We have 112 tower blocks, some of them of the Ronan Point type, nine of which have had to be evacuated because they are unsafe. That is why the borough has voids—it is not a question of mismanagement. Unless extra resources are spent on maintaining the housing stock in the borough it will decay further and the housing crisis will continue to worsen. In whose interest can that be? Currently Newham has more than 46,923 unsatisfactory dwellings, 8,146 households without a bath and 5,290 households lacking an inside toilet. Each of those figures is the highest for any borough in London. It gives me no pleasure to report that the condition of Newham's housing is the worst in London. Most of that dereliction is in the private sector, in houses built before the first world war. Without resources it will deteriorate further, and the downward spiral of inner city decay, from which Newham desperately wants to escape, will continue.
Let us look briefly at education. Many of the schools were built before the first world war. The Department of Education's analysis shows that Newham has the highest level of educational need of all 96 education authorities in England and Wales, but that its expenditure per pupil is lower than that of similar education authorities. In 1987–88 Newham spent £27 per head in its primary schools compared with an average of £32 for outer London boroughs. In secondary schools, Newham spent £54 compared with an average of £68. We know that educational attainment is largely determined by social background. It is not surprising, therefore, that Newham has the lowest proportion of pupils achieving five or more O-levels/CSEs and that only two other education authorities in the whole country send fewer pupils on to higher education.
Despite this, in the past two years Newham has been forced to reduce the capitation grant by 10 per cent. In 1987–88 it cut its low level of expnditure on education by 5 per cent. or £4,183,000, lost 122 teachers, and cut back on school repairs and maintenance. This week it was forced to shut centres for the unemployed, cut back on educational equipment and furniture, reduce grants to voluntary groups, increase the price of school meals, reduce the budget of the careers service, charge for the teaching of mother tongue languages, and much more of the same. What other advanced country in the world would allow that to happen?
Newham's economy has taken a battering. From industrial restructuring and the early years of Government monetarism, the decade to 1981 saw a reduction of 25,000 jobs in dock work, manufacturing and transport. The closure of the docks and their related industry has had a devastating effect on the borough.
In October 1987, 14,638 people were registered unemployed, nearly one in five males being jobless. The damage that this does, the financial problems that it causes, the family break-up, the health and psychological problems, cannot be overestimated. Forty-three per cent. have been unemployed for more than a year, more than 26 per cent. for more than two years. Many of those in work earn low pay. Of Newham's women who have jobs, only 42 per cent. work full time. Many combine work with child care. Their low earnings are a cause of poverty, particularly among single parent families or where the woman is the only member of the household with a job. The prevalence of low paid, low skilled work and large scale unemployment has brought a rising tide of poverty locally. Financial hardship is squeezing more and more families into multiple debt and dependence on benefit. Currently more than 32,000 people claim benefit in Newham.
New jobs will be created in docklands, but, because of a skills mismatch there is a danger that many of these could go to outsiders and the development pass local people by. I am activating myself now to see that all those concerned — the LDDC, the developers, the incoming firms, Manpower Services Commission, the industrial training boards and others — agree to specific target numbers of jobs for local people and to ensure that the appropriate training and education is available and that the mechanism is put in place to see that local people get a fair share of the jobs.
Newham's people belong to many races and cultures. About a third come from ethnic minorities, and in some wards the figure is more than 50 per cent. Often they suffer twice, enduring the problems of others plus racial discrimination, resulting in high unemployment among ethnic minority youth. The languages of Urdu, Punjabi, Gujerati, Bengali, Hindi, Tamil and Malayalam are in common use. Many groups have their own specific needs, and the diversity of population means that Newham's community as a whole has a much greater range of needs, aspirations and outlooks, so the task of fulfilling those is more complex and expensive than in other localities. Central Government should make greater financial recognition of that.
As might be imagined, Newham social services carry a heavier burden than many other areas. Yet, despite that, Newham has the lowest expenditure per capita on social services of all comparable authorities. Is that not astonishing? It has the worst problems and the least money. It actually spends 16 per cent. less than its grant-related expenditure. In terms of social need, Newham can be compared only with the 13 inner -London authorities, plus Brent and Haringey. Of those, Newham is the second most deprived. Hackney having the unenviable distinction of being first. On social services expenditure per capita we are 16th — bottom; on social and community worker staff employed per 1,000 of the population we are again 16th—bottom; on the provision of day nursery places per 1,000 for the under-fives we are again 16th—bottom; on the provision of meals-on-wheels we are again 16th—bottom; on telephones for the elderly, we are also bottom. Any further reduction in provision can be regarded only with horror. The hard-working social services staff in the borough are so over-stretched that it is amazing we have not had one of those disasters that hit the headlines.
To sum up, the general picture is of an area which, historically, has served London and the country well in both war and peace, but which has been hit hard by industrial and social changes. It is beset by multiple problems, not of its own making, yet still has many strengths and much potential — the classic inner-city syndrome. What is to be done? The situation is getting worse, not better. Sometimes I am tempted to despair, but then I remember this time last year, when parliamentary debate and ministerial visits resulted in an increase of £7 million in the absurd expenditure limit for Newham that was then being proposed by the Government. So, by campaigning constructively, we were able to soften the blow and lessen the cuts last year.
Are the Government serious about wanting to improve the lot of the inner cities? If so, they cannot ignore so strategically important an area as Newham. They must approach it in partnership, in every sense of that word. If they do, they will find an elected council with no ideological block against co-operating pragmatically with central Government in improving the environment, the economy and the prospects of the local community. I propose that the Government send a senior Minister, either the Secretary of State for the Environment, or his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, to spend at least a day meeting the civic leadership and the council's officials in Newham. They can look at the books, put all the cards on the table and work out a mutually agreed, fair deal for Newham, not a continuation of the present malaise, which is only storing up problems for the future.
I put that forward in a constructive spirit and hope for a constructive reply.