| Previous Section | Home Page |
(i) 86 per cent. of the national grants and loans budgets are distributed between local offices on the basis of their 1989-90 budget allocations ;
(ii) 6 per cent. of the budgets is distributed on the basis of need as expressed by the offices' share of the national income support caseload ;
(iii) 8 per cent. of the budgets is distributed on the basis of demand as expressed by the offices' share of social fund expenditure and the estimated value of refusals on grounds of insufficient priority.
The details of each of the components in the allocation formula are spelt out in more detail below.
Distribution by 1989-90 allocation
4. This simply allocates 86 per cent. of the total budget on the basis of an office's actual allocation for 1989-90. It includes where appropriate the value of any additional allocation made to 106 offices in December 1989 -January 1990. The relatively high weighting given to this component ensures that the pace of change from one year to the next is contained.
Distribution by caseload
5. Caseload figures used were the average of income support caseloads at August and November 1989. Distribution was then made on the basis of an office's share of the national caseload for each of 4 client groups as follows :
P Pensioners
E Unemployed claimants paid through Unemployment Benefit Offices
Column 33
D Claimants (not pensioners) receiving a disability premium O Other income support claimantsSocial fund data were then used to weight the distribution in respect of the 4 client groups on the basis of their share of payments made in the period April to December 1989 (the latest available) as follows :
Community Care |Loans Grants per cent. |per cent. --------------------------------------------- P 20.4 |P 3.6 E 18.5 |E 36.5 D 15.2 |D 5.3 O 45.9 |O 54.6
For example, the 20.4 per cent. of the community care grant budget distributed by caseload in relation to pensioners was made according to the following formula :
proportion of budget to individual office=pensioner
caseload for the period in the individual office
national pensioner caseload for the period.
The same principle was then applied for the other client groups and for the loans budget.
Distribution by demand
6. This was distributed on a similar basis to the distribution by caseload, but the weightings took account of both the value of payments in the period April to December and the estimated value of refusals on grounds of insufficient priority for the 4 client groups in the same period. The weightings used were as follows :
- Community Care |Loans Grants per cent. |per cent. --------------------------------------------- P 20.3 |P 3.6 E 18.5 |E 36.4 D 15.2 |D 5.3 O 46.0 |O 54.6 (Does not sum to 100 per cent. due to rounding).
For example the 20.3 per cent. of the community care grant budget distributed by demand in relation to pensioners was made according to the following formula :
proportion of budget to individual office=value of awards and estimated value of refusals on insufficient priority grounds for pensioners for the period in the individual office national value of awards and estimated value of refusals on insufficient priority grounds for pensioners.
Adjustments to take account of changes to office catchment areas 7. Adjustments have been made where necessary to take account of office boundaries and hence to the sizes of the claimant populations served by those offices. If the change took place during the period covered by data on which the allocations are made adjustments have been based on the data for the period after the change. In other cases adjustments have been made simply by re-allocating budgets in proportion to the shifts in caseload population.
Allocations for
1990-91
|Loans |Grants
-------------------------------------------------
1. London (North) Region
1 Aylesbury |143,035|63,570
2 Banbury |94,459 |41,606
3 Barking |336,545|148,323
4 Barnet |108,611|50,409
5 Basildon |533,556|241,197
6 Bedford |259,397|115,761
7 Braintree |143,437|64,114
8 Bury St. Edmunds |160,629|72,066
9 Cambridge |272,770|125,442
10 Canning Town |273,643|113,112
11 Chelmsford |139,493|64,753
12 Clacton |115,841|51,368
13 Colchester |196,576|84,480
14 Cricklewood |261,005|111,566
15 Diss |36,445 |16,997
16 Dunstable |94,899 |42,297
17 Ealing DO |957,965|413,113
18 Edgware |172,564|74,153
19 Edmonton |254,432|112,130
20 Euston |272,237|125,384
21 Finsbury prk |535,198|228,214
22 Grays |247,906|109,433
23 Great Yarmouth |217,280|97,951
24 Hackney |674,492|279,522
25 Harlesden |456,034|195,341
26 Harlow |209,508|94,747
27 Harrow |205,940|89,709
28 Hemel Hempstead |121,382|56,446
29 Hendon |243,132|106,148
30 Hertford |119,982|54,454
31 High Wycombe |171,838|78,922
32 Highgate |429,221|197,251
33 Hoxton |408,137|176,015
34 Ilford |398,428|176,681
35 Ipswich |286,297|125,972
36 King's Lynn |268,366|117,659
37 Leytonstone |338,046|148,618
38 Lowestoft |196,464|86,029
39 Luton |372,065|151,594
40 Milton Keynes |308,026|129,974
41 Neasden |414,406|174,463
42 Norwich Chantry |300,033|133,442
43 Norwich Mountergate |467,025|198,894
44 Oxford |463,537|199,419
45 Paddington |400,847|184,242
46 Peterborough |672,464|284,093
47 Plaistow |378,791|159,364
48 Poplar |412,155|163,661
49 Romford |229,504|104,684
50 Shoreditch |362,591|158,363
51 Southend |300,524|132,050
52 St Albans |128,804|59,965
53 Stepney |214,181|90,893
54 Stevenage |213,057|91,947
55 Stoke Newington |325,740|137,436
56 Thames North |21,663 |7,203
57 Tottenham |524,890|198,914
58 Uxbridge |263,780|116,413
59 Walthamstow |306,173|146,989
60 Watford |127,320|59,359
61 Wood Green |229,756|98,227
62 Woodgrange Park |616,125|258,911
Allocations for
1990-91
|Loans |Grants
-------------------------------------------------
2. London (South) Region
63 Aldershot |178,887|74,195
64 Andover |71,414 |32,763
65 Ashford |114,304|50,158
66 Balham |439,175|186,021
67 Basingstoke |90,736 |37,966
68 Battersea |445,474|200,065
69 Bexley |382,346|164,183
70 Bloomsbury |183,605|85,037
71 Bognor Regis |117,151|52,770
72 Bracknell |113,858|52,171
73 Brighton |405,670|170,685
74 Brixton |395,636|174,105
75 Bromley |168,474|76,424
76 Camberwell |428,082|200,938
77 Canterbury |136,144|63,403
78 Chatham |404,165|162,622
79 Chelsea |348,299|150,360
80 Chichester |65,797 |31,088
81 City (London) |101,379|45,897
82 Crawley |131,540|65,465
83 Croydon |405,634|162,169
84 Crystal Palace |411,931|184,624
85 Dartford |123,756|54,756
86 Dover |102,904|43,093
87 Eastbourne |174,820|79,517
88 Epsom |60,085 |27,086
89 Fareham |212,745|86,328
90 Folkestone |127,130|55,328
91 Gravesend |121,381|51,534
92 Greenwich Park |543,040|228,284
93 Guildford |129,498|59,391
94 Hastings |233,151|113,207
95 Havant |221,873|88,514
96 Hither Green |73,266 |32,100
97 Hounslow |400,588|171,874
98 Hove |173,687|82,647
99 Isle of Wight |233,831|100,865
100 Kennington Park |392,920|165,513
101 Kensington |207,091|89,444
102 Kingston |143,694|63,381
103 Lewes |110,718|49,701
104 Lewisham |578,812|243,943
105 Maidstone |164,592|71,760
106 Mitcham |135,644|61,585
107 New Forest |146,950|63,445
108 New Malden |78,558 |34,349
109 Newbury |85,820 |39,107
110 Orpington |94,885 |42,199
111 Oval |411,832|199,167
112 Peckham |373,719|150,368
113 Portsmouth North |192,992|82,902
114 Portsmouth South |200,435|75,035
115 Reading |389,218|162,972
116 Redhill |106,415|48,222
117 Sittingbourne |180,284|74,574
118 Slough |235,074|101,459
119 Southampton |511,747|211,718
120 Southwark |459,613|224,244
121 Streatham |372,453|132,927
122 Sutton |84,297 |37,484
123 Thames South |35,971 |14,209
124 Thanet |270,383|120,637
125 Tunbridge Wells |123,333|55,913
126 Twickenham |81,535 |37,520
127 Wandsworth |222,090|95,840
128 Westminster |159,594|71,926
129 Wimbledon |177,784|75,421
130 Winchester |99,984 |42,491
131 Woking |158,995|68,610
132 Woolwich |749,499|318,730
133 Worthing |163,899|74,707
Allocations for
1990-91
|Loans |Grants
-----------------------------------------------------------
3. Midlands region
134 Birmingham, Bradford Street |335,250|135,351
135 Birmingham, Edgbaston |625,148|266,869
136 Birmingham, Erdington |576,932|250,364
137 Birmingham, Handsworth |799,580|329,888
138 Birmingham, Ladywood |481,753|203,371
139 Birmingham, Northfield |571,223|237,978
140 Birmingham, Perry Barr |425,380|173,351
141 Birmingham, Ravenhurst |299,270|136,751
142 Birmingham, South Yardley |560,904|236,831
143 Birmingham, Sparkhill |230,820|96,834
144 Birmingham, Washwood Heath |496,594|219,871
145 Boston |131,208|58,093
146 Burton on Trent |128,828|57,409
147 Cannock |219,091|87,540
148 Chesterfield |440,639|187,762
149 Corby |189,377|78,868
150 Coventry, East |766,822|300,475
151 Coventry, West |488,648|195,622
152 Derby, Becket Street |243,130|107,559
153 Derby, Heritage Gate |142,506|61,336
154 Derby, London Road |345,640|142,485
155 Dudley, North |473,956|192,810
156 Dudley, South |216,456|96,559
157 Grantham |124,724|52,820
158 Hereford |217,681|98,940
159 Ilkeston |210,207|90,097
160 Kidderminster |256,545|100,098
161 Leamington |206,992|92,591
162 Leicester, Burleys Way |246,180|107,039
163 Leicester, Lower Hill Street |373,987|168,898
164 Leicester, Norton Street |422,097|185,193
165 Leicester, Yeoman Street |596,467|257,512
166 Lichfield |328,732|130,419
167 Lincoln, Newland |328,720|142,645
168 Lincoln, Orchard Street |384,204|175,940
169 Loughborough |185,298|80,819
170 Mansfield |391,307|180,253
171 Newcastle (Staffordshire) |249,611|102,861
172 Northampton |381,709|167,452
173 Nottingham, Castle Gate |349,577|153,998
174 Nottingham, David Lane |390,691|173,760
175 Nottingham, Shakespeare Street |501,296|217,668
176 Nottingham, Station Street |390,725|178,061
177 Nuneaton |291,826|118,819
178 Redditch |199,971|83,385
179 Rugby |120,130|53,449
180 Shrewsbury |309,767|135,679
181 Skegness |92,129 |41,524
182 Smethwick |520,889|216,838
183 Stafford |137,107|60,357
184 Stoke, North |436,633|202,155
185 Stoke, South |270,571|136,199
186 Sutton-in-Ashfield |196,191|84,702
187 Telford |464,842|198,959
188 Walsall, East |350,754|141,541
189 Walsall, West |466,648|205,599
190 Wellingborough |313,093|143,008
191 West Bromwich |585,650|248,315
192 Wolverhampton, North |739,143|302,661
193 Wolverhampton, South |604,938|254,817
194 Worcester |293,150|140,745
195 Worksop |250,038|106,190
Allocations for
1990-91
|Loans |Grants
-------------------------------------------------------
4. North East Region
196 Ashington |234,786 |99,347
197 Barnsley East |620,133 |255,731
198 Barnsley West |365,951 |145,800
199 Berwick-On-Tweed |28,264 |12,958
200 Bishop Auckland |421,175 |166,432
201 Blyth |232,230 |98,808
202 Bradford East |467,994 |201,271
203 Bradford South |438,044 |167,746
204 Bradford West |460,400 |192,187
205 Bridlington |115,977 |55,814
206 Castleford |198,774 |80,820
207 Chester-le-Street |212,177 |89,239
208 Darlington |473,149 |195,931
209 Dewsbury |343,528 |144,320
210 Doncaster East |369,040 |148,452
211 Doncaster West |565,027 |233,417
212 Durham |167,592 |70,520
213 Eston |332,612 |117,649
214 Gateshead |629,613 |255,508
215 Goole |120,821 |54,840
216 Grimsby |571,988 |229,233
217 Halifax |473,759 |206,594
218 Harrogate |152,310 |67,918
219 Hartlepool |374,552 |140,732
220 Hemsworth |170,781 |72,426
221 Hexham |53,338 |23,266
222 Houghton le Spring |175,439 |69,459
223 Huddersfield |435,664 |166,354
224 Hull East |739,627 |307,419
225 Hull West |587,794 |261,897
226 Jarrow |334,685 |143,382
227 Keighley |226,557 |88,936
228 Leeds East |616,755 |252,977
229 Leeds North |723,124 |306,815
230 Leeds North West |410,147 |172,485
231 Leeds South |257,377 |110,404
232 Leeds West |338,689 |148,522
233 Middlesbrough |1,026,303|425,264
234 Newcastle East |454,491 |182,511
235 Newcastle St. James |525,249 |215,269
236 Newcastle West |438,236 |175,608
237 North Shields |390,196 |150,718
238 Northallerton |91,357 |40,935
239 Peterlee |250,323 |92,217
240 Pontefract |201,917 |83,894
241 Redcar |311,270 |148,091
242 Rotherham North |175,258 |74,687
243 Rotherham South |564,677 |240,470
244 Scarborough |173,879 |73,487
245 Scunthorpe |387,991 |160,841
246 Seaham |83,609 |36,983
247 Sheffield North East |1,001,949|421,737
248 Sheffield North West |747,022 |307,967
249 Sheffield South East |492,593 |217,012
250 Sheffield South West |640,112 |279,536
251 Skipton |33,041 |15,239
252 South Shields |497,337 |189,676
253 Stanley |325,259 |132,229
254 Stockton |703,498 |291,002
255 Sunderland North |886,503 |347,239
256 Sunderland South |616,496 |257,864
257 Wakefield |373,674 |149,086
258 Wallsend |283,647 |119,726
259 Wath-On-Dearne |374,631 |138,894
260 York |352,256 |141,570
Allocations for
1990-91
|Loans |Grants
----------------------------------------------------
5. North West region
261 Accrington |204,623|93,480
262 Ashton-under-Lyne |277,604|123,720
263 Barrow In Furness |169,344|77,954
264 Birkenhead, North |666,601|272,998
265 Birkenhead, South |373,485|130,710
266 Blackburn |378,438|170,376
267 Blackpool, North |324,418|141,648
268 Blackpool, South |154,875|70,151
269 Bolton |627,695|258,347
270 Bootle |560,330|213,961
271 Burnley |409,019|183,285
272 Bury |363,527|161,759
273 Buxton |30,909 |14,765
274 Carlisle |194,182|87,281
275 Chester |252,427|102,669
276 Crewe |254,849|108,969
277 Crosby |407,998|167,601
278 Ellesmere Port |238,181|92,348
279 Farnworth |228,455|101,785
280 Hyde |349,041|138,223
281 Kendal |35,865 |16,218
282 Kirkby |714,315|280,876
283 Lancaster |361,004|145,709
284 Leigh |279,701|117,667
285 Liverpool, Belle Vale |432,800|164,778
286 Liverpool, Breckfield |707,347|261,170
287 Liverpool, City |437,022|167,649
288 Liverpool, Edge Hill |697,433|265,786
289 Liverpool, Garston |369,258|137,483
290 Liverpool, Huyton |740,200|269,777
291 Liverpool, Norris Green |336,992|125,114
292 Liverpool, Toxteth |822,747|335,043
293 Liverpool, West Derby |208,591|93,733
294 Macclesfield |93,947 |42,625
295 Manchester, Central |229,587|91,530
296 Manchester, Cheetham |401,293|170,787
297 Manchester, Chorlton |370,326|175,788
298 Manchester, Failsworth |483,861|185,628
299 Manchester, Longsight |465,942|208,763
300 Manchester, Openshaw |346,700|148,427
301 Manchester, Rusholme |583,071|252,027
302 Manchester, Wythenshawe |525,353|201,068
303 Middleton |262,766|129,129
304 Northwich |249,582|102,959
305 Oldham |465,958|200,449
306 Penrith |27,100 |12,467
307 Preston, North |352,949|136,007
308 Preston, South |251,721|108,335
309 Rochdale |355,345|149,074
310 Rossendale |124,502|54,800
311 Sale |341,567|145,619
312 Salford, North |477,736|176,463
313 Salford, South |266,863|112,616
314 Skelmersdale |401,292|168,253
315 Southport |132,172|58,017
316 St. Helens |621,769|240,523
317 Stockport, North |351,744|143,432
318 Stockport, South |334,290|143,903
319 Wallasey |436,925|176,081
320 Warrington |483,835|195,430
321 Whitehaven |117,164|48,365
322 Widnes |695,020|283,478
323 Wigan |568,224|247,273
324 Wilmslow |63,766 |29,744
325 Workington |160,510|71,327
Allocations for
1990-91
|Loans |Grants
--------------------------------------------------------
6. Scotland region
326 Aberdeen, North |389,836 |157,042
327 Aberdeen, South |303,003 |130,415
328 Airdrie |664,888 |270,611
329 Arbroath |167,484 |79,699
330 Ayr |763,604 |307,842
331 Bathgate |621,697 |230,488
332 Bellshill |497,399 |196,076
333 Campbeltown |42,656 |17,345
334 Clydebank |511,285 |194,248
335 Coatbridge |483,849 |193,985
336 Cowdenbeath |157,924 |71,563
337 Cumbernauld |484,608 |215,874
338 Dumbarton |471,984 |197,033
339 Dumfries |236,055 |102,314
340 Dundee, East |468,982 |194,877
341 Dundee, West |410,089 |160,963
342 Dunfermline |232,799 |100,062
343 East Kilbride |286,051 |125,844
344 Edinburgh, City |534,342 |228,824
345 Edinburgh, East |487,145 |207,923
346 Edinburgh, North |429,790 |173,655
347 Edinburgh, South |452,597 |184,293
348 Edinburgh, West |453,427 |185,682
349 Elgin |174,277 |72,784
350 Falkirk |632,230 |258,908
351 Fort William |79,063 |34,422
352 Galashiels |166,965 |78,833
353 Glasgow, Anniesland |777,527 |289,226
354 Glasgow, Bridgeton |470,674 |207,084
355 Glasgow, City |576,518 |251,010
356 Glasgow, Craigton |927,243 |352,205
357 Glasgow, Cranstonhill |102,093 |37,212
358 Glasgow, Lauriston |871,164 |399,624
359 Glasgow, Maryhill |722,959 |301,734
360 Glasgow, Parkhead |893,552 |368,635
361 Glasgow, Partick |410,354 |169,712
362 Glasgow, Provan |1,166,302|422,841
363 Glasgow, Rutherglen |1,091,995|429,900
364 Glasgow, South Side |886,036 |355,600
365 Glasgow, Springburn |1,021,888|385,773
366 Greenock |671,632 |268,914
367 Hamilton |1,086,857|448,077
368 Inverness |346,912 |155,765
369 Irvine |771,281 |324,492
370 Johnstone |344,543 |139,560
371 Kilmarnock |438,362 |172,231
372 Kirkcaldy |439,964 |178,730
373 Lerwick |23,403 |9,925
374 Leven |175,951 |66,652
375 Motherwell |669,430 |269,221
376 Oban |50,720 |22,057
377 Paisley |843,983 |327,572
378 Perth |216,259 |89,471
379 Peterhead |142,134 |65,022
380 Port Glasgow |412,960 |167,084
381 Stirling |419,371 |165,012
382 Stornoway |77,892 |37,676
383 Stranaer |98,957 |47,972
384 Wick |98,462 |43,692
Allocations for
1990-91
|Loans |Grants
-------------------------------------------------------
7. Wales and South West Region
385 Aberdare |292,246|126,417
386 Abertillery |122,815|50,443
387 Aberystwyth |101,119|44,424
388 Ammanford (Group) |86,211 |40,233
389 Anglesey |193,360|83,791
390 Bargoed |239,069|95,859
391 Barnstaple |180,870|83,396
392 Barry |220,434|85,681
393 Bath |205,626|90,208
394 Blackwood |145,959|60,105
395 Bournemouth |296,414|130,273
396 Bridgend |312,631|126,137
397 Bridgwater |148,426|58,337
398 Bristol Central |281,824|122,603
399 Bristol East |321,337|141,282
400 Bristol Horfield |174,421|72,675
401 Bristol South |435,683|176,408
402 Bristol West |131,417|57,358
403 Caernarfon |143,126|57,191
404 Caerphilly |353,475|149,789
405 Cardiff Central |311,244|131,546
406 Cardiff East |545,058|220,650
407 Cardiff West |404,017|171,803
408 Carmarthen |91,885 |34,671
409 Cheltenham |201,960|87,241
410 Chippenham |83,244 |41,227
411 Colwyn Bay |182,791|77,355
412 Cwmbran (Group) |355,308|146,890
413 Deeside |149,140|72,095
414 Devonport |366,311|156,290
415 Ebbw Vale (Group) |218,600|87,735
416 Exeter |448,559|197,972
417 Gloucester |379,535|161,600
418 Haverfordwest |194,187|85,873
419 Launceston |93,389 |40,319
420 Llanelli |248,524|101,093
421 Merthyr Tydfil |291,999|109,641
422 Morriston |333,615|146,482
423 Neath |170,133|70,510
424 Newport (Gwent) |718,053|289,714
425 Newtown (Group) |102,887|45,191
426 Pembroke Dock |125,391|52,778
427 Penzance |164,370|68,240
428 Plymouth |426,936|184,309
429 Pontypridd |238,395|107,241
430 Poole |239,791|105,215
431 Port Talbot |193,296|87,004
432 Porth |144,542|61,825
433 Porthmadog/Dolgellau |83,162 |33,952
434 Rhondda West |236,167|95,407
435 Rhyl |281,126|122,373
436 Salisbury |125,910|54,850
437 St. Austell |208,197|84,672
438 Stroud |122,800|53,074
439 Swansea |614,499|277,251
440 Swindon |257,626|110,045
441 Taunton |197,265|89,178
442 Torbay |419,229|182,774
443 Trowbridge |104,374|42,567
444 Truro |251,571|119,544
445 Weston-super-Mare |147,372|63,449
446 Weymouth |141,387|65,622
447 Wrexham (Group) |392,943|156,436
448 Yeovil |110,169|52,097
Column 41
Points of Order
4.14 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may have seen alarming reports in the press this weekend with headlines such as, "Ridley backs Third World aid to Soviets". Apparently the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is to press in the Cabinet for funds to be diverted from the world's poorest people to eastern Europe. If this is correct, Mr. Speaker, it is a most appalling suggestion. Britain is already--
Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not know whether the report is correct. What is the point of order for me?
Mrs. Clwyd : If the reports are correct, Mr. Speaker, it is an appalling suggestion. Britain is already one of the most miserly aid donors in western Europe. The value of official development assistance to the Third world has dropped by a quarter since 1979.
Mr. Speaker : Order. There is enormous pressure on time today because so many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate on the Budget. I cannot answer the questions which the hon. Lady has put to me. I have not received a request for a statement. I am sure that what she has said will have been heard. The Leader of the house is present.
Mrs. Clwyd : I am coming to the request that I have for you, Mr. Speaker.
Given the considerable influence of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry--
Mr. Speaker : Order. This is unfair on the hon. Lady's colleagues. She is raising matters which have nothing to do with me. I cannot entertain her point of order ; she has made her point.
Mrs. Clwyd : Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker : What is the point of order for me?
Column 42
Mrs. Clwyd : If you would allow me to finish, Mr. Speaker, I shall make that clear. I request a statement from the Government on what they intend to do in terms of the Third world budget.
Mr. Speaker : I am sure that that has been heard by those who are sitting on the Government Front Bench.
Mr. Tony Benn (Chesterfield) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to ask your advice on something that touches upon a constitutional matter.
Over the weekend we heard that the Archbishop of Canterbury had announced his retirement. A new appointment would usually fall to be made by the Prime Minister under the procedures laid down. However, the House has an interest in this matter, which I have expressed both to you, Mr. Speaker, and in other ways. What I want to know simply is this : is it in order for a Member of Parliament to put a question to the Prime Minister on a matter that falls within the prerogative? Also, is it in order for me to raise this matter in the Adjournment debate tomorrow? If hon. Members were excluded from raising questions, not about the name but about the procedure, it would neutralise us and prevent us from raising matters of legitimate concern to the community.
Mr. Speaker : Order. I do not think that it is our practice to ask questions of the Prime Minister on the royal prerogative, but I am sure that, with a certain amount of sophistication, the right hon. Gentleman might make his point during the Adjournment motion tomorrow.
Mr. Benn : Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate your answer, but I had hoped that you would not feel it necessary to give an immediate decision. If the Prime Minister cannot be questioned on the exercise of powers that are entrusted to her by virtue of the fact that she is Prime Minister, this House is paralysed and cannot pursue matters that can be answered only by the Prime Minister under the arrangements governing relations with the Church of England.
Mr. Speaker : Order. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to table a question, he should go to the Table Office where advice on this matter will be given to him.
Column 43
Safety in Children's Playgrounds
4.16 pm
Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West) : I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to lay down safety standards for equipment, layout and surfaces in children's playgrounds. I introduced a Bill during the last Session that, because of lack of parliamentary time, was not successful. I wish to explain why I now wish to introduce this similar, although not identical, Bill. Anyone who has been to a children's playground or has taken a child to one knows why the Bill is necessary. For example, most playgrounds have hard surfaces underneath the swings. The latest statistics available from the Department of Trade and Industry show that 70,000 children were taken to hospital because of accidents in playgrounds, 30,000 of them with swings.
To show how serious some accidents can be I wish to highlight one that happened in Northern Ireland. In August 1989, a nine-year-old boy fell off a swing in Hillhall. He did not deserve to fall on to a concrete kerb. He need not have broken his arm and severed two arteries. He does not deserve the fact that he may never fully regain the use of that arm. He did not deserve the fact that Lisburn council waited until after that tragedy to pledge that money was no object in keeping children safe. The question for the House is how many children's playgrounds are in that state of disrepair.
My Bill last Session resulted in one piece of good fortune for me and my children. After the playground in London to which I take my daughters had appeared several times on television--when the broken kerbs, the uneven concrete and the lumps of metal sticking out of the ground were highlighted --the local authority magically discovered that it needed to put down safer surfacing. I am grateful for that, but I should also be grateful if local authorities would think about how many more playgrounds need safer surfacing.
It is difficult to get a ten-minute Bill through Parliament, but, having had the temperature of debate raised not only by my Bill last Session but by the many people who have campaigned throughout the country wanting to know what would happen to their children's playgrounds, local authorities decided to revise their policies and to lay down safer surfacing, provide new equipment and generally uprate their playgrounds. Progress has been slow. I regret that some local authorities have even run away from the problem. They have been able to do so because some scientific data are misleading. One report produced by Karen King and David Ball, who worked for the Greater London council scientific services and now are in business on their own, have suggested that safer surfacing is not as good as it should be and that its safety cannot be measured. The data used by
Column 44
those people are not only sometimes out of date, but many are foreign, and so cannot be checked. Advice on safer surfacing and other safety matters is best left to the British experts. In this area, as in so many, British industry and British experts lead. Clearly, safer surfacing can make a dramatic impact on preventing accidents in children's playgrounds.The Bill that I introduced last year had other effects. The Government have decided that a new code of guidance shall be introduced, and I am grateful to the Minister for Sport who will introduce it later this year. Once again, local authorities will have it brought to their attention that they need to do something about children's playgrounds. It is important that they should look at the good work done by our experts.
Last year's Bill was comprehensive. It would have changed children's playgrounds completely in about five years. Within that time, local authorities would have had to fit new safer surfacing and equipment. This Bill is much less draconian. Some people may worry about the expenditure ramifications, but local authorities will not need to spend more money than necessary. However, they must ensure that they buy the right equipment.
The main effect of last year's Bill was that, in revising their policy, many local authorities spent a great deal of money on new equipment and safe surfacing and thereby stretched the capacity of British industry. Some imports do not comply with the relevant British standards. In this Bill I am asking the House to approve that all equipment sold for use in public playgrounds should conform with British standard 5696, part 2, and the fitting advice in part 3. Where that British standard does not apply, the equipment should comply with the relevant standards laid down by DIN or other British standards. That would help and guide local authorities which are not entirely clear what they should buy. The legislation would help to prevent needless injury to many children in our playgrounds. We cannot run away from the problem, or pretend that children's playgrounds are supervised, as some local authorities contend. The time is right, the technology and the information are there, so we should act now. I commend my Bill to the House. It is needed now and will stop many children being injured in playgrounds.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Paul Boateng, Mr. James Cran, Mr. Michael Jack, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. Ian Taylor, Mr. Matthew Taylor and Mr. Patrick Thompson.
Safety in Children's Playgrounds
Mr. Robert G. Hughes accordingly presented a Bill to lay down safety standards for equipment, layout and surfaces in children's playgrounds : And the same was read the First time ; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 May and to be printed. [Bill 110.]
Column 45
Orders of the Day
WAYS AND MEANS
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [20 March].
Amendment of the Law
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance ; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide--
(a) for zero-rating or exempting any supply ;
(b) for refunding any amount of tax ;
(c) for varying the rate of that tax otherwise than in relation to all supplies and importations ; or
(d) for relief other than relief applying to goods of whatever description or services of whatever description.-- [Mr. Major.] Question again proposed.
Budget Resolutions and Economic
Situation
[Relevant documents : European Community Document No. 9487/89 on the Annual Economic Report 1989-90 and the un-numbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by HM Treasury on 31st January 1990 on the final version of the Report as adopted by the Council.]
Mr. Speaker : Before the House resumes the Budget debate, I must point out that resolution 26 on page 3421 of the Order Paper contains an error which occurred in production. The word "unquoted" in paragraphs (a) and (b) should be omitted. The resolution will be duly moved in the correct form.
As I said earlier, in view of the pressure on time, I propose to put a limit on speeches between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock this evening, and I hope that that limit will be borne in mind by the hon. Members on the Front Benches as well as by Privy Councillors.
4.25 pm
The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Howard) : The last seven years have seen unprecedented growth in employment and the longest and largest continuous fall in unemployment since the war. That is the reality of the economic performance of this Government. It is a record which the economic strategy set out in the Budget is designed to sustain and reinforce.
The scale of what has been achieved is far too often taken for granted. In fact, our record on jobs is unequalled in Europe, and the envy of much of the world. There are now 27 million jobs in the United Kingdom--more than ever before--3.4 million more than in 1983. Jobs have grown three times faster than the European average--faster than in France, faster than in Germany, faster even than in Japan. We have seen unemployment falling steadily for 43 months running. At 1.6 million, it is now half what it was in 1986. Our unemployment rate of 5.6 per cent. is a full three percentage points below the European Community average. Long-term unemployment has been falling even faster than the total number of unemployed which is down 780,000 since 1986.
Column 46
Some hon. Members may recall that, in the general election of 1987, the Opposition promised a reduction in unemployment of 1 million within two years. We did it in less than two-- with the very economic policies which the Opposition opposed and vowed to overturn. Where would those 3.4 million extra jobs be now if the Opposition had had its way and pursued its policies of high spending and high taxation? The Budget statement continues to give the first priority to the control of inflation, because nothing is more calculated to undermine competitiveness and sap industrial and business confidence. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made it clear last Tuesday that we cannot afford to take risks with inflation. Of course, no one--neither the small business nor the home owner--likes high interest rates.Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough) : Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman not missing out a fundamental point? When the Government came to power, unemployment was just over a million. It went up rapidly--at an unprecedented rate--to just short of three million. A decrease from that figure is bringing down unemployment which this Government caused.
Mr. Howard : The hon. Gentleman is leaving out the fundamental issue --the fact that there are one and a half million more jobs now than there were in 1979. That is a fundamental fact that the hon. Gentleman would do well to recall.
Neither new businesses nor home owners like high interest rates, but it would be wrong to relax the tight monetary and fiscal framework at this point or to reduce interest rates prematurely. If we can get inflation under control, the prospect is for renewed economic growth, increased business confidence and more jobs. But that means maintaining interest rates at high levels for as long as necessary.
What happens to jobs in the short term depends on those who are negotiating pay settlements. If unions seek, and managements concede, pay increases which are not warranted by the competitive position of their firms, or the local labour markets in which they operate, the result will be higher production costs, declining competitiveness, and ultimately job losses.
One of the most important factors in the unprecedented growth in employment over the last seven years has been the enthusiasm of investors in other countries to put their money into British businesses. That is one of the most significant differences between the economic record of this Government and the record of the last Labour Government, and one of the most influential factors in bringing about that change has been the transformation in British industrial relations since 1979.
No one can dispute the extent of that transformation, because it is a matter of record. In the 1970s, this country lost, on average, some 13 million working days a year through strikes. The average through the last four years has been just over a quarter of that figure. In each of the last two years, the number of strikes--at 675 in 1989 and 781 in 1988--has been the lowest since 1935, and the number of strikes in January this year was the lowest January figure for over 60 years and the lowest figure for any month since September 1934. There is one comparison which, better than any other, sums up the contrast between Labour's strike record and
Column 47
the position today. In only two months of Labour's winter of discontent--January and February 1979--this country lost 5.4 million working days because of strikes. In those two months alone, more working days were lost than in the whole of 1988 or in the whole of 1989.Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) : If the number of strikes is lower than ever before, and if unemployment is going down, with the result that the economic situation is so much better, why are the Government in such an economic mess?
Mr. Howard : I am sure that the whole House will welcome the voice of the ghost of the winter of discontent. What that voice uttered was wholly misconceived and wholly mistaken.
The lesson of the 1970s was clear : strikes destroy jobs. Britain's reputation for strikes, overmanning and restrictive practices exported job after British job to other countries. Since 1979, that trend has been decisively reversed.
I do not claim that the transformation of industrial relations is the result of our trade union legislation alone. What I do claim is that this transformation would never have been possible without our trade union legislation. It would never have been possible if trade union law had remained as it was in 1979, with virtually unlimited immunity for organising strikes, protection for the flying picket and power for union leaders to order their members to strike without a ballot and under threat of fines and expulsion from their union if they disobeyed.
It is all the more remarkable, therefore, that the Opposition are now committed to repealing the legislation of the last 10 years and returning, in all essential respects, to the legislation which gave this country the reputation for the worst industrial relations in the western world. They are committed to a massive extension of the scope for lawful strikes. They are committed to legislation which would once again put trade unions above the law.
I have several times challenged the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair) to spell out the details of his proposals for trade union legislation. I do so again now. If it is made impossible for an employer to get a court order to stop an unlawful strike, what sanction would there be against a union which failed to hold a strike ballot? If trade unions have absolute protection against the possibility of sequestration, what action could a court take if a union refused to pay a fine or damages?
Mr. Frank Haynes (Ashfield) : The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just referred to an important point. He infrequently attends the proceedings in Standing Committee on the Employment Bill. He is therefore unaware that some of his hon. Friends have said in Committee that it is right and proper to stage a dispute if life and limb are at stake. How can one hold a ballot when life and limb are at stake? Action has to be taken immediately. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree with what his hon. Friends have said?
Mr. Howard : Even the hon. Member for Ashfield (Mr. Haynes) cannot think that the measures to which I refer, and the questions that I put to the hon. Member for Sedgefield--his party's principal employment spokesman- -apply to disputes involving danger to life and limb. The
Column 48
disputes about which the hon. Member for Sedgefield has consistently failed to answer germane questions are those that lay at the heart of our dismal performance throughout the 1970s. The hon. Member for Sedgefield knows that a court that cannot enforce its own orders is just like a talking shop. He knows that laws that cannot be enforced are not worth the paper on which they are written. Nothing more clearly illustrates the Labour party's failure to learn the lessons of the past, or its determination to return to the policies that crippled our economy in the 1970s.Within the overall economic framework of the Budget are a number of specific measures to promote enterprise and remove barriers to the effective matching of people with jobs. With my particular responsibilities for small firms, I know that there will be a widespread welcome for the exemption from value added tax of bad debts, for the raising of the VAT threshold to the maximum permitted by the European Community and for the simplification of the rules for VAT registration. Those are the unglamorous bits of the Budget to the general public, but they are worth around £200 million to business in a full year, and will save small firms countless hours in dealing with red tape and bureaucracy.
The Budget changes to corporation tax will also give a fillip to small and medium-sized businesses that are growing. Some 20,000 companies will benefit, and as a result many smaller companies will be able to retain more profits for investment. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, those changes mean that we will have the most favourable structure of corporation tax rates for small companies in the European Community.
It is no accident that the first thing that visitors from eastern Europe want to know is how we have been so successful in promoting enterprise and stimulating the growth of small firms. In 1989, the number of new small firms registering for VAT was 80,000--virtually the same number as for the whole of the five years from 1974 to 1979.
The measure to exempt from tax the value of workplace nurseries and playgroups has been widely welcomed. Since I assumed my present office, I have probably been questioned and lobbied more on that issue than on any other. The change will encourage employers to set up nurseries and help to remove what is sometimes a daunting obstacle for those mothers who wish to go out to work. However, it is important that employers should continue to examine other ways of helping women who want to come back to work--through more part-time work, more job sharing, special arrangements for school holidays and similar measures. Current projections suggest that 90 per cent. of the growth in the labour force during the 1990s will be among women. That means that employers must find ways of encouraging those women who wish to do so to return to work. I am confident that the Budget measures will give an important boost to that process.
There are also important measures in the Budget to encourage share ownership. I take particular pleasure in the part played by the privatisation of the water industry in bringing the number of individual shareholders to 11 million--that is, one in four of the adult population. Since 1979, 29 major businesses and about 800,000 jobs have been returned to the private sector. That is good for the productivity and efficiency of those companies, and it is good for the competitiveness of the economy as a whole. It is also to the benefit of the employees of those
Column 49
companies, many of whom have bought shares in the companies concerned. That has increased their involvement in those companies, and given them a direct stake in their productivity and profitability. The measures in the Budget to give roll-over relief from capital gains tax for sales of shares in employee share ownership plans will give a further boost to that process. Finally, let me deal with training. No one in the House would seriously dispute that our continuing economic success also depends on developing a work force that is second to none in its skills and competence. If we are to compete with the best in the world, industry must strive for the best : in quality, in innovation, in customer care and in its willingness to adapt to changing demands and new technology. That means more and better training : above all, it means more people being ready to train to higher levels of skill, and to continue upgrading their skills throughout their working lives. The Labour party delights in constantly diminishing what the people of this country have already achieved in raising their skill levels. It likes nothing better than to exaggerate the gaps between our performance and those of our European neighbours. We shall no doubt hear more of it today from the hon. Member for Sedgefield. However, we lag behind our international competitors in some areas of education and training largely because of the policies promoted by the Labour party during the 1960s and 1970s. It was its policies which reduced standards in education and sought to bring everyone down to the same level of mediocrity ; it reinforced trade union restrictive practices in training and it raised levies on the best companies to subsidise the worst. Several generations of people leaving school and entering the work force were damaged by those policies. We are all still living with the consequences.In the past 10 years, we have begun to put right the mistakes of the previous 20. We have carried through a fundamental reform in education designed to raise basic standards and to prepare school leavers better for the demands of working life. We have swept away the training levies and the training bureaucracies. We have reduced the power of the trade unions to maintain restrictive practices. We have put the emphasis in education and training back where it should be--on standards, achievement and excellence.
The results speak for themselves. We now have record numbers of young people staying on in full-time further education beyond 16 ; more students than ever before in higher education--more than 1 million in 1989--and a higher proportion of young people with degrees than in France, West Germany or Japan. In addition, more than 400,000 16 and 17-year-old school leavers are receiving training each year under the youth training scheme with the opportunity to acquire recognised qualifications, and a further 420,000 unemployed adults are training each year under employment training gaining new skills to help them get back to work.
Perhaps the best news is that employers themselves are responding to the demands for skilled labour in the economy. Our latest figures show that, in 1987, employers' investment in training was at a record £18 billion ; and employers trained 70 per cent. more employees in 1989 than in 1984. The benefits to the economy are to be seen in the fact that, despite an unprecedented period of economic growth, reported skill shortages in 1989 were running at about half the level of the last comparable period in 1973.
Column 50
For the future, we are setting up training and enterprise councils in every part of the country--possibly the most important change in the way in which training is planned and delivered for nearly 30 years. The councils will be led by senior business leaders with responsibility for developing training and small business support in their local areas. They will have substantial resources from Government at their disposal, but their prime task will be to mobilise employers in tackling their own skill needs.My right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the Budget that, for the next five years, company donations to the councils would qualify for tax relief. That is a major vote of confidence in training and enterprise councils and a measure of their central importance in the Government's strategy for raising skill levels.
Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that, despite the complaints from Opposition Members, industry and commerce spend £15 billion a year on training their work forces, which is approximately five times as much as the Government do, and that what was announced in the Budget, which he has reinforced today, will encourage futher training and answer many of the complaints that we hear from the Opposition? Will he confirm that Britain is taking positive steps towards improving the quality and strength of our work force?
| Next Section
| Home Page |