HC Deb 29 March 1979 vol 965 cc277-82W
34. Mr. Willey

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will list those who responded to his invitation to respond to the consultative document on proposals for replacing section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966; and whether he will summarise the effect of these representations.

Mr. John

Yes.

The following made comments on the proposals in the consultative document.

Select Committee on Race Relations and Immigration.

Local authority interests:

Local authority associations:

  • Association of County Councils.
  • Association of District Councils.
  • London Boroughs Association.
  • Association of Metropolitan Authorities.
  • Council for the Principality.
  • Welsh Counties Committee.

Greater London Council.

Counties:

  • Berkshire.
  • Derbyshire.
  • Leicestershire.

Districts:

  • Bradford Metropolitan district council.
  • Leeds city council.
  • City of Liverpool.
  • City of Manchester.
  • Borough of Trafford.
  • Metropolitan borough of Wolverhampton.

London boroughs:

  • Brent.
  • Haringey
    • 278
  • Lambeth.
  • Lewisham.
  • Wandsworth.

Commission for Racial Equality.

Community Relations Councils.

  • Barking.
  • Bedford.
  • Bexley.
  • Birmingham.
  • Blackburn District.
  • Bolton.
  • Bristol.
  • Bury.
  • Calderdale.
  • Cambridge.
  • Camden.
  • Coventry.
  • Croydon.
  • Dudley.
  • Ealing.
  • Gloucester.
  • Greenwich.
  • Hackney.
  • Hillingdon.
  • Huddersfield.
  • Hyndburn and Rossendale.
  • Lambeth.
  • Leeds.
  • Leicester.
  • Lewisham.
  • Lothian.
  • Luton.
  • Medway and Gillingham.
  • Merseyside.
  • North Kirklees.
  • Nottingham.
  • Oldham.
  • Oxfordshire.
  • Peterborough.
  • Reading.
  • Redbridge.
  • Rochdale.
  • Rugby.
  • Sandwell.
  • Scunthorpe and district.
  • Sheffield.
  • Slough.
  • South Glamorgan.
  • Strathclyde.
  • Tameside.
  • Thamesdown.
  • Tyne and Wear.
  • Walsall.
  • Wandsworth.
  • Warwick.
  • Wellingborough.
  • Westminster.
  • Wolverhampton.
  • Wycombe.

Ethnic group organisations:

  • Afro/Asian/Caribbean standing committee on Merseyside.
  • The Black Forum, Brent.
  • British Association of Muslims.
  • Brixton Neighbourhood Community Association.
  • The Chinese Action Group, London NW1

Ethnic group organisations:

  • Confederation of Indian Organisations (UK).
  • Coventry United West Indian Cultural and Social Organisation.
  • East African Asian Association.
  • Federation of Bangladesh Associations UK.
  • Harlesden Community Project.
  • Indian Friends Association, Uxbridge, Middlesex.
  • Indian Overseas Congress (UK) Nottinghamshire.
  • The India Society of Sheffield.
  • Indian Welfare Association, Nottingham.
  • Jinnah advisory centre, Burnley.
  • Joint Committee of Self Help Groups, London W9.
  • Marcus Garvey Advice Centre, Wolverhampton.
  • The Medway Towns Gurudwara Sabha Ltd.
  • National Association for Asian Youth.
  • The National Council of Vanik Associations (UK).
  • National Federation of Self Help Organisations.
  • National Gipsy Education Council.
  • Oshwal Association of UK.
  • The Pakistan Association, Aylesbury.
  • The Pioneer Council.
  • The Runnymede Trust.
  • The Standing Conference of Asian Organisations in UK.
  • The Standing Conference of Pakistani Organisations in UK.
  • Union of Muslim Organisations of UK and Eire.
  • The UK Islamic Mission.

Educational organisations:

  • Association of Colleges for Further and Higher Education.
  • The Association for Educational Advance.
  • Association of Principals for Colleges.
  • Centre for information and advice on educational disadvantage.
  • English Home Tuition, Leicestershire.
  • The Institute of Careers Officers.
  • The Library Association.
  • The National Association of Head Teachers.
  • National Association for teaching English as a second language to adults.
  • National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education.
  • National Association for Multi-racial Education.
  • National Association for Multi-racial Education, Redbridge branch.
  • Neighbourhood English Classes, London NW5.
  • Scottish Secondary Teachers' Association.
  • Slough Association of Head Teachers (NAAT).
  • Society of Education Officers.
  • Universities Council for the Education of Teachers.
  • Workers Educational Association.

Voluntary organisations:

  • Age Concern, Greater London.
  • Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants.
  • The London Voluntary Service Council.
    • 280
  • National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux.
  • The National Council of Social Service.
  • Newcastle upon Tyne Council for Voluntary Service.
  • Slough Council for Voluntary Service.
  • United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs.
  • Voluntary Action, Lewisham.

Trade Unions:

  • Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs.
  • National and Local Government Officers Association.
  • National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers.
  • National Union of Teachers.
  • Transport and General Workers Union.

Individuals:

  • Mr K M Dalal, Leicester.
  • Mrs D Davis, Leicestershire.
  • Mr Ravi Jain, member of the Advisory Council on Race Relations.
  • Miss Nancy Mallett, Hampshire.
  • Mr M A Malik, Calderdale.
  • Mr Harshad V Vyas, North-East London Polytechnic.

Others:

  • Association of Directors of Social Services.
  • Association of Nurse Administrators.
  • The British Association of Settlements and Social Action Centres.
  • British Association of Social Workers.
  • Central Birmingham Community Health Council.
  • Eton and Slough Liberal Association.
  • Home Office Advisory Council on race relations.
  • The Labour group, Reading borough council.
  • Leicester and district trades council.
  • National Association of Community Relations Councils.
  • Northamptonshire Branch of CYSA.
  • The Pilgrim Wesleyan Holiness Church.

The following is a summary of the comments.

1. Comments came from four broad groupings — local authorities, ethnic groups, professional bodies and voluntary organisations.

2. There was general agreement on the need to replace section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966.

3. Other features of the proposals appeared to give cause for concern, had not been fully understood or called for clarification. The two major areas of concern were the availability of resources, including the level of grant, and the control to be exercised over its administration.

Resources

4. The need for a significant level of additional resources if the proposed new grant was to be effective was overwhelmingly recognised. The Association of County Councils and the Association of District Councils felt strongly that the additional resources should not be found from within the existing level of rate support grant. There was a significant feeling among both local authorities and others that the level of grant should be raised above 75 per cent, to reduce the burden at local level. The imposition of cash limits, in place of the unlimited arrangement under section 11, was criticised on the ground that it would lead to arbitrary and often inadequate allocations between competing claims. Most commentators criticised as unrealistic the proposal that the new grant should be replaced over a fairly short period by main programme funding, and saw this as inhibiting local authorities from claiming the grant.

Government Control

5. The main comments related to the exercise of control over the use of the proposed grant. Here views were divided between the local authorities and other commentators.

6. The local authorities wanted a mini mum of central Government interference and disliked the proposals for cash limits, submission of progammes and comprehensive strategies to and, monitoring by, central Government. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the local authority association which took the most favourable view, recommended for further discussion that block allocations of grant for whole programmes for assisting with ethnic minorities should be made to individual authorities.

7. Comments from representatives of ethnic minorities were concerned that their best interests might not be served by the proposed system of control and administration. There was a strong feeling that the proposals did not go far enough where voluntary organisations were concerned, that consultations between local authorities and the ethnic minorities would not be adequate and that there were insufficient safeguards to ensure that expenditure of the new grant would be directed—and seen to be so directed—towards the areas of greatest need. Proposals were made for various systems of control including direct central Government supervision, monitoring by third parties, evaluation of results, greater public accountability and appeals tribunals for projects submitted but not funded. Other suggestions were made to assure voluntary bodies of greater support from the grant.

Machinery for Consultation

8. Commentators from both sides were concerned about consultation. Local authorities saw difficulty in obtaining a representative view through consultation, which could also be time-consuming Ethnic groups and voluntary organisations wanted greatly improved consultation to ensure that their view of needs influenced allocations of grant.

Relationship with Urban Programme

9. Among a number of subsidiary points raised in connection with the control and administration of the proposed grant, the one most often mentioned was the need to be clear about its relationship with the urban programme. There was general agreement that the proposed grant should not deprive ethnic groups of access to the benefits of the urban programme, but there was doubt about how claims eligible under both would be handled.

CRE Involvement

10. The Commission for Racial Equality made a particular plea that it should be closely involved in the national consultative machinery and the administration of the new grant.