Skip to main content

Urban Aid

Volume 174: debated on Monday 18 June 1990

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish figures showing total urban aid funding disbursed to new projects in the area of the Govan Initiative in 1988–89 and 1989–90; and how much of this went to projects submitted through the Govan Initiative.

There were 11 additional urban programme approvals in 1988–89 for the area of the Govan Initiative amounting to £1·340 million in total capital and annual running costs of which £1–311 million was for nine new projects. Three of this number, representing £0·264 million of the total, were submitted through the Govan Initiative.There were 11 additional urban programme approvals in 1989–90 for the area of the Govan Initiative amounting to £0·682 million in total capital and annual running costs of which £0·537 million was for six new projects. Four of this number, representing £0·490 million of the total, were sponsored by the Govan Initiative.The additional approvals in 1989–90 brought total approved expenditure for the Govan Initiative area for the year to £1·708 million on 28 projects.

To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, when considering urban aid allocations to economic initiatives in Strathclyde, he treates this aid as supplementary to the urban aid disbursed to non-initiative projects, and therefore not prejudicial to the non-initiative applicants.

In arriving at the dedicated urban programme budgets which have been offered for Castlemilk, Drumchapel and Easterhouse in Glasgow and for Ferguslie Park in Paisley, account was taken of each area's share of the worst deprivation, and its track record of success in securing urban programme resources.The budgets offered for Castlemilk and Ferguslie Park also took into account the fact that urban programme resources had been increased in order to allow additional priority to be given to urban partnerships areas without reducing the Government's commitment to other eligible areas. There is therefore no reason to believe that the provision of dedicated budgets should cause other areas to lose out.