HL Deb 23 January 1969 vol 298 cc1095-114

6.35 p.m.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this short but significant Bill is to enable Government grant to be paid in aid of a special programme of local authority expenditure aimed at tackling the multiple problems of urban areas with acute social needs. This urban programme was first announced by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place on July 22 in a Statement repeated here by my noble friend Lord Stonham on the same day. The Government's preliminary study of these areas showed that although large and expanding programmes were having an impact on each of the main social services concerned, education, housing, health and welfare, there nevertheless still remained in a number of our cities and towns certain areas with special social needs.

What this Bill does is to provide for a new specific grant payable towards local authority expenditure approved for the purpose of the programme. As Clause 1 of the Bill puts it, grant is to be payable on expenditure which the Secretary of State thinks the local authority is required to incur because of special social need existing in an urban area. In effect, then, it is left to the Secretary of State to determine whether special social need exists in a particular case. This allows for considerable flexibility in determining where such special need exists, and in particular allows for the opinions of local authorities themselves to be taken into account in a particular case, rather than trying to go by a narrow definition in the Bill. But we can tell, from studies which have already been undertaken and from discussions with the local authorities so far, roughly what these areas are like. They are comparatively small and sometimes isolated pockets within local authority areas. They are the areas which were described in the Plowden Report on Primary Education as districts which have been scarcely touched by the advances made in more fortunate places". They usually show the signs of multiple deprivation, which may be marked, for example, by notable deficiencies in the physical environment, especially where housing is concerned; by overcrowding; by persistent unemployment; by a high proportion of children in trouble or in need of care; or by a combination of these and other factors. A substantial degree of immigrant settlement would also be an important factor, though not the only factor, in determining the existence of special social need.

By my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland are not thinking in terms of permanently designating specific geographical areas as areas of special social need. They want to take full advantage of the flexibility which this Bill offers, and the best way to do this seems to be to decide on broad criteria of need, to ask the local authorities who consider that needs of this kind exist within their areas to submit proposals designed to meet them, and then to decide in the light of both local and central knowledge what specific items of proposed expenditure should receive aid under this programme.

It should be clearly understood from the outset that this urban programme is not designed to relieve all the needs, or even all the acute needs, that exist in our cities and towns to-day. There are already substantial programmes of expenditure in the fields of all the great social services. Nor is it the only Government programme deliberately designed to give priority to certain special local needs. In the field of education, we have already had the £16 million school building programme which followed on the recommendations of the Plowden Committee; and in the field of housing the local authority house-building programme will continue to give priority to slum clearance and to eliminate shortages, especially in rented accommodation within conurbations and in the case of authorities with the biggest concentration of these problems.

This particular programme, which will have definite ceilings of expenditure limited to £20 million to £25 million in its first four years, is a co-ordinated attempt to identify the districts—possibly quite small districts—where social need exists in its acutest form, to inject special financial help through the local authorities and to try to bring them nearer to the general level of urban areas in this country. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said when moving the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, its intention is to arrest the downward spiral which affects these districts; to try to put a stop to the situation in which unmet needs create apathy and apathy gives rise to further needs which are not met. He also expressed the hope, which I should like to echo here, that under the programme, and in close partnership between central and local government, an attempt should be made to experiment and develop new kinds of projects which might be particularly effective in meeting special needs in particular districts.

Mention of the partnership between central and local government brings me to the financial principles underlying this short Bill. The discussions which have taken place between the Government and the local authority associations on this subject have centred on two main points. One, which is directly relevant to the Bill, concerns the relationship which the new specific grant under the Bill should bear to the rate support grant, and the other, which, though of great importance to the programme, does not directly affect the provisions of the Bill—because the Bill leaves it to the Home Secretary to prescribe—is the amount of grant which the Government would propose to pay in aid of local authority expenditure under the urban programme.

As was explained during the progress of this Bill through another place, its effect will be that the specific Government grant will in due course be taken into account under Section 1(2) of the Local Government Act 1966, for the purpose of estimating the proportion of the aggregate Exchequer grant which the Minister estimates will be allocated to grants in respect of specific services. I say "in due course" because the grant has not been taken into account during the rate support grant negotiations which have just ended and will therefore remain outside the rate support grant arrangements during the next following rate support grant period—that is to say, up to the end of the financial year 1970–71. Incidentally, because of this, expenditure on the programme for the next two years will be additional to the public expenditure limits placed by the Government upon local authority expenditure.

The general approach in the Local Government Act 1966 to specific revenue grants is to treat them as part of Exchequer contribution to the revenues of the local authorities as a whole, and the Government see no reason to depart from the general procedures in the case of this Bill. Perhaps most of these specific revenue grants have a similar object to this one, in that they were devised to deal with a situation where the incidence of expenditure is uneven over the country as a whole. The effect of the Bill therefore, is that the new grant, like all other specific revenue grants, will be deducted from the aggregate Exchequer grant before arriving at the rate support grant. So far as public expenditure limits upon local authority expenditure are concerned, we do not know what the position may be in 1971, but it is certainly the Government's intention that likely expenditure in the urban programme will be fully taken into account in calculating the forecasts of reasonable expenditure and the overall levels of grant.

As regards the rate of specific grant, which, under the Bill, is for the Home Secretary to decide, the Government, as was announced on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, have decided that, exceptionally, grant should be paid at the rate of 75 per cent. on all programme expenditure. The rate of 75 per cent. will also apply to the not dissimilar grants payable under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 towards the cost of staff employed by local authorities who have to make special provision for carrying out their functions because of the presence of immigrants whose language and customs diner from those of the rest of the community. In the case of Section 11, the new rate of grant will apply from April 1, 1169. In the case of the grant under this Bill, it will be possible under Clause 1 to pay specific grant at the new rate on account of expenditure incurred during the current financial year.

The local authority associations have reserved their position upon these financial points and they have urged in discussion with the appropriate authorities that, because of the strong national interest in the development of the urban programme, the grant should be a 100 per cent. The Home Secretary understands their views and in particular their anxiety on behalf of those authorities who may have to make an additional call on the rates to provide their 25 per cent. contribution, but he has taken the view that there is clearly a local as well as a national interest in the implementation of the urban programme and that the 25 per cent. share of expenditure which will be borne by the local authorities taking part in the programme is not disproportionate to the balance of national and local responsibilities. The rate of 75 per cent. is itself an exceptionally high rate, as noble Lords with local Government experience will agree, and clearly indicates the importance which the Government attach to the programme. Discussions with local authority associations will continue in order to sort out some of the technical problems that the establishment of the programme will undoubtedly present. One of the most important of these will be the extent to which it is going to be possible to achieve a more objective assessment of comparative social need to supplement the information that the Government already have or that can be put forward by local authorities themselves.

In the initial phase of the programme, as announced by Ministers on Tuesday of this week approval in principle has now been given to building projects totalling about £3½ million for the 34 local authorities selected on a pre-determined criteria as being those within whose areas special social need clearly exists. The full programme will provide aid to deal with a broad spectrum of social problems, but the schemes already approved in the first phase are mainly in the field of additional nursery school provision and child care, thus fulfilling the promise in the gracious Speech; for the Government take the view, which I am sure is shared by all noble Lords, that it is the pre-school child growing up in areas of acute social need who is in most urgent need of help at this stage—help which is essential if these young children are to have a reasonable start in life and which will have a permanent effect on their later development. Since the war, and in spite of the 1944 Education Act, nursery education has tended to be a Cinderella of the education services in this country. Every Government has agreed that it is desirable, but until now no resources have been allocated specifically to extend it. There are still some shortages both of capital for building and of teachers to staff the schools; but, despite this, the time has surely come to make a start, if only initially, in these areas of greatest need.

The Government are therefore happy to have been able to approve to date 138 projects for nursery education, totalling over £1⅓ million of expenditure; to provide an additional 191 nursery classes, including 21 new nursery schools. Altogether 5,250 additional full-time nursery school places will be provided by this means. The initial phase also provides for 32 new or extended day nurseries, to assist young children whose homes or family circumstances are such that they require day care; these, together with one or two other projects, will cost just over £1.4 million. In addition, £723,000 has been allotted to the approval of 22 children's homes to provide residential accommodation for children who have to be received into care by local authorities.

Furthermore local authorities will very shortly be asked to make proposals for further expenditure under the programme up to a limit of about £2 million. This will cover the same period of time as the £3 million approvals which have already been issued—that is to say, up to April 1970. Although the ceiling of expenditure is limited, it will enable authorities outside the original 34 to bid for the type of projects approved in the initial phase. We also hope to widen the scope of the programme to include such developments as family advice centres, play groups, language classes for immigrants and aid to voluntary bodies who run play groups or make other relevant contributions to the social needs of their areas. I should like here to underline the importance of considering family-centred projects on this next round, including family advice centres. Just as the Government are taking a new look at the social and educational needs of the under-fives in the first phase of the programme, the second phase will take a new look at the need to help families as a whole, the parents as well as the children.

In all, about £6 million will be approved by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland for the remainder of this financial year and for 1969–70. The remainder of the £20-£25 million programme will be kept for the two years following, and the study of its allocation has already begun. Here, as in the previous phase, we shall welcome the views of local authorities on what is best for their areas. But one thing we intend to study is the possibility of concentrating socially valuable projects upon a district of special social need—what one might call "multiple schemes for multiple needs." And I should just mention in this connection that, as reported recently in the Press, the Government are now actively considering community development projects to tackle poverty and deprivation in selected areas by new methods. Negotiations with the local authority associations and any necessary consultation with voluntary organisations on these proposals are not yet complete, so your Lordships will not expect me to go into detail; but I assure the House that as soon as they are complete a full Government statement will be made.

I should like to conclude by saying a word about the significance of the programme as I see it. Allowing for the limitations of size—and I have already indicated that it is not intended to solve all urban problems—I am sure that everyone concerned with the development of the social services will welcome this positive approach by the Government. Perhaps the warmest welcome will come from those—and there are some who sit in this House—who agree with the weight of opinion that has urged upon the Government, as the Plowden and Seebohm Committees and others have done, the urgent need to do something about the under-fives in socially deprived areas. Though the scope of the programme in its early stages may be limited, the Government's intention is that the programme should be a continuing one. My Lords, this is a Bill of great opportunity and social significance, and I commend it to the House as a measure designed to play its part in improving conditions for all our citizens alike who live in areas of special social need. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(Baroness Serota.)

6.53 p.m.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, the noble Baroness has rightly described this as a short but significant Bill. It is wholly concerned with money grants from the Exchequer. Therefore it is not surprising to find that Mr. Speaker has certified it as a Money Bill. This means that the Bill could be passed unamended over your Lordships' heads. I do not think that this will cause any anxiety to your Lordships, because I feel quite certain that this Bill will receive here the same unanimous assent that it received in another place. In Standing Committee in another place no Amendments to it were moved, and it went through all its stages unopposed. I feel sure it will meet with the same good fortune here, and I will delay the House only with just a few questions on which I think noble Lords will wish to be satisfied.

The noble Baroness, I know, has very near to her heart many of the causes which this Bill will advance. She always speaks persuasively when she moves the Second Reading of a Bill. On this occasion, particularly in sections where she was explaining the relation of this new grant to the rate-support grant, I thought she spoke like a financial wizard. That is intended as a compliment—it might be misinterpreted. I, for my part, am delighted that the Government are showing this further recognition of the fact that there are certain areas—it may even be certain neighbourhoods—which require special attention.

This new approach was started, I believe, when under the Conservative Government a special study was made of the needs of the North-East by Mr. Quintin Hogg, as he now is. That led to a reshaping of Government policies to give special aid to the social infrastructure, if I may use that word, of certain regions, and it has been considerably developed in the six or seven years since into a full-blown regional policy. This seems to me another aspect of that approach. Now, led by the Plowden Report, we are singling out particular neighbourhoods as areas where those who are living in them, or are being brought up in them, may not for environmental reasons have the same opportunities as the rest of their fellow citizens, and for that reason special financial assistance is required. I wish this Bill well, and I hope that the application and administration of it will go forward quickly.

I wonder whether the noble Baroness can give us any up-to-date information about a further circular which was foreshadowed in the debate in another place. The Government issued, on October 4, a circular which indicated that, in the chronological sense, first priority was to be given to nursery schools and classes, and day nurseries and children's homes. Ministers in another place expressed the hope that before Christmas they would be issuing a further circular to local authorities which, as I understood the matter, would enlarge the field that they would be prepared to consider for grant purposes next. It seems to me that it is very desirable that that circular should be issued as soon as possible. If it is not out yet, I take it as disappointing that now, four weeks after Christmas, the local authorities are still waiting for that further guidance.

Next, am I right in thinking that any grants under this Bill, in the current financial year and in the next financial year at any rate, will be new money? Will it be additional money made available by the Exchequer, and not money found by reducing other grants that would otherwise be made to these or other local authorities? I confess that until the noble Baroness spoke I was quite certain that the answer to that was, "Yes". But I was not at all sure that I followed all her exposition with my intellect, and so I still venture to ask that question. If I may put it in other words: Is this a distribution of money, or is it a redistribution?

My third question, to which I greatly hope the noble Baroness will be able to give me an affirmative answer, is this. Are the Government satisfied that subsection (1) of Clause 1 of the Bill is drawn widely enough to permit local authorities to use grant money under the Bill for assisting voluntary organisations that are engaged in meeting special social needs, instead of the local authorities spending all the grant money themselves? As we know, this is a four-year programme, dealing with extra expenditure of about £5 million or £6 million a year, and that extra expenditure is to attract 75 per cent. grant. Frankly, these amounts of £5 million or £6 million a year will not go very far if they are all to be spent on new local authority enter- prises. They will be able to benefit a great many more people in social need if they are used, in part at any rate, as financial support to enable voluntary bodies to extend the size of their existing efforts. From my study of the matter I feel virtually sure that that is what the Government intend. All I am asking here is for an assurance that there is nothing in subsection (1) of Clause 1 which will restrict the local authority from using this Government money in aid of voluntary efforts.

My fourth question is whether the financial need of the local authority concerned is to be taken into account. I am given to understand that the richest of the London boroughs may qualify for grant. That may be right, but it will mean so much less for helping far more impoverished authorities to cope with social need in their areas; and my fear is that some areas may lose grant which, on grounds of human compassion, they deserve to have for some of their people's needs, through the limited amount of money being in part distributed to other local authorities which are commonly regarded as affluent.

My next question—I am coming to the end of them—is this. Will each local authority be able to determine its own priorities under this grant scheme? Of course, they will have to attend to what Ministers have said in Government circulars, but when a local authority puts up its proposals to the Government, indicating in those proposals what are the most urgent steps to take in the opinion of the local authority, will the Government then be prepared to accept that authority's judgment on priorities? I would submit that the scheme will never work smoothly if the Government reserve the liberty to say, "No—these proposals that you have put up are not the most urgent measures to take; we will not grant-aid these; we know your area better than you do; you have your priorities wrong; Whitehall knows best." If that policy were adopted in any Department, it would gravely impair the smooth and successful working of this scheme.

Lastly, my Lords, as it is no secret that most of the areas which the Bill is designed to benefit are areas where large Commonwealth immigration has accentuated social need which was there already, may be for many years before —Notting Hill is a clear example of that which presents itself to my mind—are the Government satisfied that if some £19 million of Government grant over four years (that is, 75 per cent. of £25 million or so) was enough at the time when the Government announced this policy some six months ago, it will still be enough to meet the much bigger needs of 1972, the end of the four-year period, by which time, under present Government policies, another 200,000 immigrants will have arrived in this country and, in accordance with all our expectation, will themselves largely concentrate in the type of area to be delineated here as "an area of social need"?

My Lords, I think the Bill is a good idea. I think it is overdue. Actually, I see nothing whatever in the Bill that limits expenditure to the figures mentioned in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum. Indeed, I wonder whether there has ever been an important financial Bill so vaguely drawn as this, giving such unfettered discretion to a Minister. I sympathise with what the noble Baroness said about flexibility, but this is a question of Parliamentary control. Subsection (1) of Clause 1 says: The Secretary of State may out of moneys provided by Parliament pay grants, of such amounts as he may with the consent of the Treasury determine, to local authorities who in his opinion are required in the exercise of any of their functions to incur expenditure by reason of the existence in any urban area of special social need. Subsection (2) says: Grants under this section may be paid at such times, subject to such conditions and on account of such expenditure … as the Secretary of State may determine. I am astonished that this was considered good and precise enough in another place, but, my Lords, that is their business rather than ours—more's the pity! Parliamentary control over expenditure does not seem to me to be quite what it was when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury.

I think the noble Baroness will agree that the questions I have asked are relevant questions, and if there are any of them which she would prefer not to answer on the spur of the moment but to reply to on Third Reading, then of course I shall entirely understand. But all the time we are considering a Bill like this I have a disturbing belief that the worst tightness affecting all this acutely needed social work is, in the last resort, not money but sufficient qualified people to carry on and extend the work. That is why we so badly need, through the voluntary associations, to call forth the help of all sorts of selfless people of good will. I hope noble Lords in all parts of the House will be prepared to join with me in expressing gratitude and admiration to all these men and women, white and coloured, paid and unpaid, trained and untrained, who are so manfully grappling with the pressing needs of people in these difficult neighbourhoods, and who would never think of going on strike, working to rule or sitting down in protest so long as there was work to be clone and services to be given to their fellow men.

7.7 p.m.

LORD ABERDARE

My Lords, I do not wish to detain your Lordships long, but I could not allow this occasion to pass without expressing a warm welcome to an admittedly fairly small but significant beginning in the provision of additional nursery schools and classes. In fact, I was extremely pleasantly pleased, if I caught the noble Baroness's financial wizardry aright, to hear her say that 191 new nursery schools and classes were to be provided under this initial programme. That is a significantly better performance even than was forecast in another place where I think the figure was thought to be something like 150.

This is certainly not the time, though it could be the place, to argue in detail the case in favour of increased nursery education. In any event, it hardly needs much arguing, particularly in present company. The only difference between us might lie in the difference in priority that we think it should be given. After all, the Report of the Plowden Committee made a very convincing case for pre-school education, particularly in the areas where, as the Committee put it: the jobs people do and the status they hold owe little to education". It is worth reminding ourselves that, according to their survey, 29 per cent. of all our homes had five books or less. In such circumstances, it surely might well be too late to wait until a child is five before introducing him or her to the use of the mind and the imagination.

But, of course, the value of nursery education is not confined to children in deprived areas. It can be of immense value to all sorts of children—in fact, in every case where a mother does not have the time or the inclination to play with the child; and with children of this age playing matters just as much as learning. The busy housewife, as well as the working mother, is quite likely to neglect her children through no fault of her own, and special difficulties arise when a family is living high up in a modern block of flats. Certainly, too, I would stress, as did my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the value of pre-school education in areas where many immigrants live, not only from the point of view of teaching them English at any early age but also from the point of view of integrating young immigrant children into the local community.

Moreover, it often happens, particularly in the case of voluntarily run play groups, where the mothers play a considerable part in the running of the groups, that by the same process the parents, as well as the children, get to know each other. And it can all take place in an atmosphere where both have the same sympathetic interests. In fact I think it is an arguable proposition that money might well be more usefully and better spent at the bottom end of the educational ladder than at the top. After all, if we could implant in children at an early enough age an interest in learning and an enjoyment of school, we should be giving them a desire to educate themselves which would never leave them; and a person willing and keen to learn poses no problem at later stages of education.

My Lords, although of course I welcome the Bill, it only touches the fringes of the problem. Even in the areas of special social need the finance available does not go very far. But at least I am happy to know the number of schemes that have been approved. I understand that in the Inner London Education Area some two-thirds of the schemes put forward have been accepted. This is a very satisfactory result, and I was particularly happy to know that the choice had been wisely made and that those schemes which were most economical were chosen, in preference to those which were expensive; in other words, that fewer new nursery schools were approved but that schemes making use of existing rooms, and places where huts could be provided, were chosen.

On the theme of the best use of the money available, I should like to follow what was said by my noble friend Lord Brooke about the use of the voluntary societies. I believe I am right in saying that the annual cost of maintaining a child in a local authority nursery school or class is £150 per annum, and in a day nursery £250. Yet some of the voluntary play groups, which in the work they do do not differ substantially from the nursery classes, manage to make provision on a half-day basis for under £50 per annum per child. Admittedly in some of these voluntary groups the standards are not so high and the buildings are often makeshift, rather than purpose-built schools. And those in charge may not always be fully qualified teachers, although the children are always supervised by a fully qualified teacher; and, as I mentioned earlier, mothers may well play a big part in the play groups.

But while such groups may be of considerably lower standards, they have positive advantages not only in the saving of money, both capital and income, and in the conservation of scarce teacher resources—and we should not forget that the Plowden Committee recommended that one qualified teacher should be in charge of 60 children with nursery assistants to every 10 children underneath her—but also in the use of mothers, the involvement of mothers, with great benefits both for the mothers and the children. In fact, I believe that the Preschool Play Group Association have started to run courses for mothers which have proved extremely popular and have been of real benefit in helping mothers to understand their own and other people's children.

Certainly the Inner London Education Authority have recognised the value of voluntary effort. They recently made a grant to the "Save the Children" Fund for starting another nine play groups in new housing estates. This is where I hope that the Government will follow up what was said by my noble friend. He referred to this second circular which we have been promised. In another place it was stated that it would bring the local authorities into discussions on matters of family advice centres and assistance for play groups. The noble Baroness repeated that this was intended. I hope that this circular will specifically mention local voluntary organisations and will encourage local authorities to get in touch with them to see whether they can put up schemes that would make full use of voluntary effort. I presume that under the Local Government Act 1948 it is open to local authorities to help these voluntary societies; but I imagine that the authorities' natural instinct when bidding for scarce funds is to give priority to their own projects and that the local voluntary effort might suffer. So I am hoping that the Government will urge upon the local authorities the need to take into account the assistance that could be given to them in this field by local voluntary organisations.

My Lords I welcome the Bill and I urge that, side by side with the statutory provisions, financial support may be made available in suitable cases for voluntary assistance.

7.17 p.m.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I am sure that the House would not wish to be detained at this late hour with a long and detailed reply to the points made by both noble Lords who have spoken. Nevertheless, we would all wish to thank them warmly for their contributions. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, as in the past, has made the case for nursery school education, and we are all glad that he finds pleasure in this Bill and in the extension of nursery education even on a limited scale. I should particularly like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, who has done a very heavy stint on the Front Bench to-day—first on a very big Bill of national importance and then on this small Bill which some of us regard as of equal national importance. He asked me some eight questions. I will try to answer them this evening briefly, but I shall also read his remarks carefully in Hansard tomorrow. If I find any point that I have omitted to answer I will do so in writing.

First, both he and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked when the next circular is coming. I understand that it is in draft and has been fully discussed with the local authorities. This is quite a time-consuming process. I have already indicated that it is the Government's wish that this programme should be a joint operation between central and local government, and therefore a considerable amount of preliminary discussion has preceded the issue of the circular. I understand that the circular is to be available within the nest fortnight. It will indicate to local authorities the kind of projects which the Government are willing to consider favourably for the next phase of the programme.

My Lords, the next question that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, asked was whether this was new money. I can assure him that, certainly for the next two years, this money is additional to the rate support grant. The House of Commons was told in a Statement by my right honourable friend on July 22 that the cost of the programme has been set against the general economies made in the course of the normal processes of managing Government expenditure programmes. If I were speaking personally, I would say that I wish they could do it more often for purposes of this kind.

The third question was raised by both noble Lords. Would these monies be available to assist voluntary organisations working in local authority areas? I will write to both noble Lords about this point. I am sure that they are eligible for these monies; but I am not quite certain—I should like to be accurate here—whether the grant is made to the local authority who will then assist the voluntary organisations within their areas, or whether the grant will be made to the voluntary organisations direct.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, I think that I can assist the noble Baroness. I am virtually certain, from debates in another place, that these grants will be made to local authorities and cannot be made direct to the voluntary organisations. I want to be completely assured that the wording of Clause 1 is such that it will not be ultra vires for local authorities to pass on some part of the grant to voluntary organisations.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor. He has saved my writing a letter, because I can in fact give him that particular assurance. There is no question whatever that voluntary organisations will be eligible to receive funds from this programme via the local authorities in schemes which have been approved on the basis which I have already indicated.

The next question I was asked related to who would determine the priorities: would central Government be telling local authorities their business or would local authorities be free to decide what particular kind of schemes were needed in their neighbourhoods? This, as I have already said, will be an operation conducted on a partnership arrangement between central Government and local government. The Government will indicate, as they have already done in the first circular, the kind of project which they think will meet needs in particular areas. It will be for local authorities, on the basis of their local knowledge of their areas and the services in the areas and the unmet needs within the areas, to submit projects to the Home Office which will then be the subject of discussion, decision and eventually allocation.

I think that in all fairness one should say that one of the difficulties is that the tools and techniques of social planning to-day have not reached the stage where there is a wide acceptance of it or indeed where we even have widely practised techniques for systematic assessment of multiple social needs. This is one of the areas in which work is being done with a view to seeing whether we can more effectively measure comparative social needs as between different areas. As noble Lords may be aware, in certain parts of the country a considerable amount of work in this field is already done in connection with the Plowden educational priority areas and the criteria on which certain areas have been selected. We have a great deal more knowledge to gain in this sphere, and I think that one of the questions in the mind of the noble Lord when he asked this particular question relates to who is to decide which need is greater. This will be a question for discussion, for assessment and for, as I have already indicated, a better development of our tools of measurement, which is something which can come only by experience. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, that it is uppermost in the mind of the Government and is at present the subject of discussion with different local authorities, some of whom have already developed certain techniques in this particular field.

LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR

My Lords, although what the noble Baroness has said is very valuable and important, it does not quite cover the point I was asking. What I had in mind was this. Once it has been accepted by everybody that a certain area is an area of social need and the local authority concerned may have put up to the Government, say, a nursery school project as being, after careful consideration, the most urgent priority need in its area, I am anxious that the Government will not then say, "Oh, you know nothing about it. We know your area better than you do. What you need is a day nursery project." Because in that way I do not think there will be sufficient good will generated between local authorities and Government Departments to ensure the smooth administration of these grants.

BARONESS SEROTA

My Lords, the noble Lord is aware, as I am, that he is touching on what is perhaps one of the most delicate areas of concern in the relationships between local government and central Government. My answer to him—and I hope that he will accept it—is that it is for the local authority to submit schemes, as I have said, on the basis of its local knowledge of local needs and the people in the area and their unmet needs. Ultimately it will be for the Home Office, or in the case of nursery schools the Department of Education, to decide, in co-operation and in collaboration with local authorities, which are the schemes which will be eligible for grant under this programme. I do not know whether that satisfies the noble Lord. I can only assure him that it is the wish, and indeed the intention, of the Government that this programme should go forward on the basis of a partnership. That undertaking and assurance has in fact been given to the local authorities in the many discussions. This is the only way in which we can see this as being a successful programme.

The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asked whether, in view of the increasing number of immigrants in certain parts of the country, the Government took the view that this programme was going to be sufficient, particularly in the period after 1970. I have already indicated that this urban aid programme is not confined solely to areas of acute social need that have within them a concentration of immigrant population. It is designed to assist citizens of this country of all kinds, be they immigrants from the Commonwealth or not. I have also indicated that the Government intend this to be an ongoing programme, eventually to become part of the rate-support grant programme, and in this sense it will be a matter that will be kept under continuing consideration and continuous review so that proper and adequate arrangements can be made for its continuation into the next period.

My Lords, all of us would join with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, in paying tribute to the people who are involved in the services that are the subject of our concern tonight. Of course it is true that the quality of these services is determined by the quality of those who serve in them, be they voluntary or professional paid staff. I was a little concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, in his desire—quite a proper desire, and one that we all share—to praise the continuing efforts of staff in difficult circumstances may perhaps have given the impression that the buildings were not important. Of course staff are more important than buildings but, for example, for the teachers in some of these socially deprived areas perhaps the greatest help that one could give them would be to provide better buildings. It is not the determining factor but it would give them better tools with which they can do a better job. We shall all, I think, agree that better facilities will help the staff to do a better job.

My Lords, I hope that I have answered all the questions raised. If not, I will, as I have already indicated, write to both the noble Lords concerned. I think that we all take great pleasure in joining together to steer this very modest Bill through your Lordships' House, and after some of the mammoth Bills with which we had to struggle in the last Session one takes even greater pleasure in it. I did not think that there could be such a thing as a two-clause Bill, after the long days and nights spent dealing with the Town and Country Planning Bill, in which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor played such a valuable part. I would simply once again commend the Bill to the House.

On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

House adjourned at half past seven o'clock.