HC Deb 17 October 1991 vol 196 cc526-36

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

9.48 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes

I am particularly grateful, Mr. Speaker, that you have chosen for us this evening as one of the last debates of this Session of Parliament a debate on the future of the youth service in inner London. I welcome the opportunity to have this debate. It will be read and reported with great interest, and is of considerable importance. I welcome the Minister for Sport, who I hope may soon be called the Minister for sport and youth as one of the consequences of this debate. I did not know until I checked that he started his life in inner London, although he has gravitated a little further north since. His early political teeth were cut in inner London and around its edges. Therefore, I hope that he will have considerable sympathy with the issues that the debate will touch on.

I had considerable involvement in the youth service before I was fortunate enough to be elected to this place. In my time I have been a member of both uniformed and non-uniformed youth organisations, a worker in youth clubs, a youth leader in the Greenhouse Trust in Camberwell in the 1970s and 1980s, a member of the management committee of Cambridge university mission in Bermondsey—I have continued with that since my election here—a member throughout the whole of the 1980s of the Southwark area youth committee and, subsequently and most recently, the president of a youth centre on the Southwark-Lewisham boundary, the Silwood youth centre, in the middle of a large local authority estate. I also came here as the youngest Opposition Member of Parliament, so I thought that I had a particular duty to look after young people's interests.

The reason why the debate is timely, as I hope the Minister will agree, is that the youth service in inner London has suffered from a considerable structural change of late. Three subjects make up the background to the debate. The first is the abolition of the inner London education authority, which changed the basis of the arrangements for the inner London youth service. The second is the fact that we are nearly 10 years on from the presentation to Parliament of the Thompson report, which was commissioned in 1981 by the then Secretary of State for Education and Science to inquire into the future of the youth service. The third is that now is a time of hugely rising unemployment which, inevitably, raises questions about the appropriateness of and need for other non-employment youth provision.

With the abolition of ILEA, the responsibility for the youth service in London was transferred to the constituent local authorities. They have the same difficulty in exercising that responsibility as ILEA in theory had—that the youth service is not a statutory responsibility like education between the ages of five and 16. Therefore, local authorities have no obligation to fund a youth service. They have a responsibility to provide one, but not to provide the money for one. In a time of financial stringency, the non-statutory sector is inevitably badly affected.

In reality, there have been substantial cuts since the abolition of ILEA a year and a half ago. The youth service in London as a whole receives about £50 million. As a result of the cuts, Southwark has lost eight voluntary and eight full-time statutory youth service posts. We have had a cut of about 45 per cent., if not more. Hackney has also had a cut of about 25 per cent. Haringey, which I appreciate is just outside inner London, has had the worst cut in funding, of about 50 per cent. of its budget.

Therefore, each of the inner London boroughs and some of the boroughs around its edges has seen substantial reductions in the money available in real cash terms. Now about a couple of million pounds is available per borough, which is considerably less than one would have expected had the expenditure of the 1980s continued to progress naturally. The consequence is that this year resources are considerably stretched—indeed, overstretched. People are feeling the pinch in no uncertain way.

It is not as if the youth service is not being well used. Latest figures show that there are 500 youth clubs affiliated to the London Union of Youth Clubs, of which there are about 40,000 affiliated members of those clubs in inner London, with over 2,000 helpers and about 250 recognised voluntary or statutory clubs in the area. So there are many users and workers, and considerable funding.

There are peripheral activities—such as detached youth work which is not club-based but is conducted out and about on estates in boroughs such as mine and with which I shall deal later. Traditionally, there have also been the two components, the statutory and voluntary sectors, both of which have played a vital role and done a good job.

It is interesting to note from the statistics of the 1980s that, while the uniformed and traditional youth service has lost members—I have in mind official organisations such as the Scouts, Guides and Cadet Corps—YMCA-run clubs and others less traditional have increased their memberships. So it is not as if the youth service has not been appealing to, and receiving a response from, young people.

Much work has been done to encourage groups of young people who have not in the past used the youth service a great deal. That includes young members of the black and ethnic minorities and young people with handicaps and disabilities. Work has been done, as the Thompson report recommended, to encourage those groups into the youth service.

There have been substantial cuts, but increasing numbers of users in some sectors, and the pressure on the remaining youth service has risen. I checked with the senior worker at the Cambridge university mission, the club of whose management committee I am a member, and his figures show that, in the summer months, in the nine-to-12 age group attendances rose from 30 to 40 per session to 70 or 80. That has happened in this last year. Many clubs are having difficulty finding accommodation for their users because other clubs have closed and summer projects and other programmes which were held in those other clubs no longer survive.

The demand is clearly there, and the service is valued, so we must see what we can do to meet the need that exists. There is in draft—I apologise for the final report not being available—a report compiled, I understand, by officers to the London Borough Grants Committee, which talks about Londonwide or cross-boundary provision in the area. That report gives cause for concern, and I trust that the Minister will bear in mind the views of officers about the present state of affairs, one and a half years after the abolition of the ILEA.

The officers make several points, the first being that disrupting existing patterns of revenue support to many Londonwide youth organisations has produced difficulties. My remarks in that context are about 12 authorities rather than just one. They say that there are far-reaching consequences, and that the present state of affairs is proving a disruptive experience.

Secondly, it is thought that the level and complexity of the support given by the ILEA, when it existed, was not fully appreciated. Much of the cross-borough work that was then done is no longer carried on. Obvious examples include the present lack of specialist facilities. I have been to Raven's Ait, the island in the Thames, that was used as a youth service facility. That is no longer available. Other facilities—for example, one in Kent called Marchants Hill —have gone, having been sold off.

Some provision for training of youth workers has been

lost. The youth service training unit which used to offer 100 courses is no longer available. It used to train people who could spare 10 or 15 hours a week in youth work. That type of back-up and central resource no longer exists.

Thirdly, there is concern about the partnership and understanding of what is needed among officers of local authorities. Many local authorities in inner London are putting adult education and youth service together, calling it community education, often with the consequence that the youth service does not appear to have its own structure or to contain people who really understand the service.

There appear to be some difficulties sorting out the finances and knowing what they will be. It is perhaps most worrying that there are also profoundly held views among the youth organisations that some boroughs are not committed to the youth service. It would be invidious to identify them, and I do not intend to do so, but if the role of education authorities is increasingly to monitor contract provision the chances of developing the youth service may be considerably reduced.

A year and a half after the abolition of ILEA, there are many questions about how the current structure is meeting inner London's needs. Certainly there is less in financial terms, and, by definition, there is less co-ordination—

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Nicholas Baker.]

Mr. Hughes

Clearly the situation is more complex, given the number of authorities, and people are concerned about the way in which things have turned out. I remind the Minister of three of the recommendations made by Thompson—two of them most pertinent to inner London.

First: The Youth Service has the duty to help all young people who have need of it. Secondly, recommendation 4 in chapter 6 says: There is special need for co-ordinated management in the inner cities. Lastly: The DES should make clear the policies which underlie planned expenditure on the Youth Service. There is not yet adequate co-ordination in the new inner London structure, and we do not yet have a secure enough funding base for a youth service that will do all that the Government, local government and the rest of us want. A document sent to me today by the London Federation of Boys Clubs says: We were told by senior politicians 'not to worry' only to be rewarded by a proliferation of separate educational bureaucracies, each with its own philosophy. All this may appear to be retrospective carping, but to put it simply, our clubs are struggling for survival and, as with the poll tax, the time for urgent evaluation is now. It is on behalf of the young people whom we serve that we speak with firmness and conviction on the issue of the transfer of education to the Inner London boroughs. It is our view that they do not have the resources to discharge effectively their statutory obligations whilst equally supporting a proper commitment to the voluntary sector. As a result, voluntary group and organisations, whose dedication and work for over a century has been the bedrock of any stable and civilised society, are now seriously at risk. We, therefore, urge Her Majesty's Government to review the current state of the youth service across the London area following the replacement of a unified education authority by a disparate group of local education authorities. The federation says that there has been not simply disruption but demoralisation too.

The hon. Members for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) and for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) have asked questions in the House about youth provision in Lambeth. That exemplifies the wider concern about centres closing down. Lord Scarman has added his voice to the concern about the importance of keeping facilities. Keeping those facilities is especially important when unemployment rises. Sadly, unemployment is now rising considerably.

I shall not comment tonight on the cause of that; we have enough opportunities to do so—there have been some in the past day or two. Suffice it to say that, of the 25 constituencies with the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom, eight are in inner London. On a personal note, Southwark and Bermondsey, sadly, has the seventh highest level of them all. It is one of the few constituencies—there are, I think, only 10—in which unemployment stands at more than 20 per cent. Unemployment has also grown considerably over the past year—in a borough such as mine, it has grown by about 50 per cent.

I have inquired specifically for the number of unemployed people in the youngest category—the under-25s. In Southwark, for example, in July 1990 the number of people under 25 who had been unemployed for any length of time was nearly 3,000–2,965. It is worrying that by July 1991 that figure—for all categories of under–25s, from those unemployed for less than six months to those unemployed for more than two years—had risen to 4,732. In the past year, unemployment among the youngest groups in the employment categories has therefore increased by 60 per cent. If that pattern continues, the need for the youth service—perhaps an extended one—will be greater than ever.

Another cause for concern is the link—although it is not a particularly precise one—between crime and the lack of facilities for youth. Home Office Ministers have made a commitment—the Minister of State repeated it on television on Sunday—to consider seriously the causes of crime to ensure that the Government lead the way in dealing with rising crime. One in four crimes are committed by young people aged between 14 and 17. A further quarter of all crimes are committed by young people aged between 17 and 21. Therefore, there is a great social need if we are to deal with youth crime to ensure that young people are provided with an alternative constructive use of their time.

I am not seeking to argue that youth crime is worse now than it was a few years ago; in fact, the figures suggest that, happily, things are going in the right direction. However, the more unemployment there is among young people, the greater the number of crimes committed by them. Therefore, in times of high unemployment, we need particularly to provide alternative, constructive activities for young people. The evidence from the early 1980s, when unemployment was high, reinforces that argument. Hence the need to look specifically at the youth service and what it can do now.

Apparently, Home Office Ministers want to put something about this issue in the next Conservative election manifesto. I welcome that, and I hope that the Minister for Sport and his Department will ensure that youth services feature in that manifesto as well as in policy announced beforehand.

I agree with Ministers, and with the view expressed by the Archbishop of Canterbury today, that there is no justification for lawlessness at any age, no matter what social deprivation there may be. However, I know that idleness produces the temptation to behave lawlessly. I live in the middle of my inner-city constituency and, in common with many fellow constituents, I have suffered from such lawlessness on more than one occasion in the past.

We must seek to do positive things to provide the sort of youth service to deal with the problem of idleness. I have already mentioned the need to encourage the voluntary sector. One of the benefits of the youth service is that it provides outreach help for those who do not easily go into club-based buildings. I have a specific personal commitment to such work, as I have seen it in action to good effect in the estates of Southwark.

I know that tonight, on three estates in my constituency, a large number of young people will be just hanging around. It is far better when youth workers mix with those young people, as they can gradually gain their confidence and get them to do other things. That is far better than leaving those young people on the streets, where they can start using drugs and alcohol or become involved in other criminal activity.

I commend to the Minister a report published this summer that was commissioned by NACRO—the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—under the chairmanship of the Bishop of Birmingham, entitled "Preventing Youth Crime". That report harks back to the Thompson report and suggests that the youth service has particular advantages when dealing with problems associated with drugs and alcohol. It has a particular advantage when it comes to encouraging young people to participate in society.

On the other side of the coin, it is important to provide good sporting facilities, as they are a positive way to harness the energy of young people. However, the youth service can also provide the counselling, support and guidance that some young people may not otherwise experience—as well as, in some cases, a parental substitute.

I am sure that the Minister does not need persuading that there is plenty of evidence of how effective good youth work can be. The juvenile crime committee of NACRO proposed that play and youth provision should be made a statutory responsibility for local authorities. It said that there should be a joint circular giving guidance about appropriate levels of play and youth provision; that they should be better co-ordinated, and that there should be a clear lead agency.

Will the Minister then accept the following specific proposals? Just as the Secretary of State for Health said that, for particular reasons, a review of the health service in London is required, and has set up such a review, so it would be positive to commission a review on the youth service in inner London. I do not prejudge its outcome, and I ask the Minister not to do so either.

Secondly, will the Minister invite the leaders of inner London voluntary youth organisations and statutory bodies to meet him to discuss their concerns about the interlinking issues that are troubling them at this time? They could discuss the relationship between the statutory and voluntary sectors and the Government, the mechanisms for funding, whether it is now appropriate to impose a statutory responsibility on local authorities, and the lessons to be learned from the post-ILEA experience. Will the Minister convene such a meeting or a day conference chaired by him? I believe that he would find it helpful and timely and that people's response would be constructive.

Thirdly, will the Minister accept that, the better the youth service that we provide, the better the opportunity to educate our young people to be good citizens of tomorrow? Citizens charters are no good without good citizens. I was honoured to serve on your commission on citizenship, Mr. Speaker, which reported a year ago, and I know that you endorse the view that the teaching of good citizenship must begin early and be continued in and out of school. We specifically stated in our report that the youth service has a role to play in that job for our society.

Finally, it may be appropriate for the Minister—now that he has shifted Departments with his responsibilities —to persuade his colleagues that the Government should recognise a specific responsibility for the youth service that goes with his responsibility as Minister for Sport in the Department of Education and Science. That responsibility should be reflected in the Minister's title. A change of title may be tokenistic and superficial, but if it is a sign of a commitment to look seriously at the current crisis, which is resulting in reduced provision and great disadvantage, it would be to the credit of the Minister and the Government to respond now.

The matter is not theoretical. As we are discussing the matter here, on the streets of inner London tonight there are many young people who are either benefiting from the youth service or should be doing so but are not. I hope that soon many more young people will be able to benefit as well, and that the Minister will say that there are positive ways forward for this benighted service, which at the moment is going through a very hard time.

10.13 pm
The Minister for Sport (Mr. Robert Atkins)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on raising this topic. As I should have expected, he has raised it in terms that are worthy of merit and congratulations and has resisted the temptation to make partisan or political points. He has talked with great authority about matters with which he is familiar, both from his constituency experience and his activities relating to youth work.

The hon. Gentleman said that he had done a little homework on me. He is right to do so because I was born in London and I represented an inner city ward on the London borough of Haringey for nearly 10 years. Indeed, I was chairman of the then Hornsey youth council for many years and was actively involved in many youth activities until I joined the Young Conservatives, with all that that implies in a different context. From that point of view, I have some sympathy—albeit as one grows towards younger middle age, one notices that the problems of youth work and youth activities are confined to the arguments that one has within one's family with adolescent teenage children.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has raised the topic. The future of the youth service in inner London is an extremely important issue and I welcome the opportunity to discuss it in a relaxed environment. London has a long and honourable tradition of youth work and an equally strong tradition of partnership with the voluntary sector. There is a great variety of provision. The hon. Gentleman referred to the London Federation of Boys Clubs which, I know, is one of the most remarkable organisations in the context of boys' clubs organisations throughout the country. I spent some time in my younger days, and since doing my present job with its responsibility for sport and education, with the London federation and I defer to no one in my admiration and praise for what it does, especially in places such as Bermondsey. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised the topic of the London federation and I agree with him about what it does, especially in providing an impressive range of facilities and activities.

There is a tradition of effective youth work in some of the more deprived parts of the city. Youth clubs run by churches and other religious bodies have assisted in the spiritual and cultural development of young people. Historically, much of that work has been supported by the provision of grant aid and part-time staff by local authorities.

Specialist projects are another important form of provision. Work with groups of young people has been a characteristic of the youth service in London for many years. It includes work with girls and young women, inter-agency work with the young homeless, and counselling for young people. There is also some street work by detached youth workers which can often be—and in my experience really is—effective in reaching young people at risk. The hon. Gentleman reminded us of what is probably going on at this moment in his constituency and in other parts not only of London, but of our great cities and urban areas. The need for detached youth workers, who are often unfairly criticised for the work that they do, is enormous. I take this opportunity to add my support and admiration for the work that they do.

The Government have maintained their support for the youth service over recent years. Local authority expenditure has increased steadily to £192 million in 1988–89, regrettably the last year for which we have firm information on outturn expenditure. The Government's assumptions underlying the 1991–92 grant settlement allowed for local authority spending of almost £240 million in this financial year, a level that should allow spending to remain constant in real terms.

There are many instances of solid progress in recent years. The national debate on the aims and purposes of the youth service was a response to the growing recognition in the 1980s that the service needed to sharpen its cutting edge, to improve its planning and management, and to keep pace with the inevitably changing interests and attitudes of young people. Those are also matters for local and voluntary providers. The Government cannot run the local youth services. I suspect that they above all would not want the Government to dictate to them. However, the Government have established the National Youth Agency to provide a national focus for development. The agency will work both to support voluntary organisations and to maintain services, and it will provide a central focus on all aspects of youth work practice.

Representing an inner London seat, the hon. Gentleman is especially concerned—and rightly so in this context—about inner London. Some of the developments to which I have referred have had less impact in inner London than elsewhere. In many respects, the position in inner London is different from the national picture, not only as a result of reorganisation following the abolition of the Inner London education authority, but because of a traditionally high pattern of spending which is markedly above the national average.

It is worth illustrating the point by a comparison. In 1988–89, actual expenditure on the youth service in ILEA represented 224 per cent. of grant-related expenditure assessment for youth and related services, as opposed to a national average in England of 88 per cent. Net recurrent expenditure per secondary pupil was £341, compared with £65 nationally. In 1988–90 the number of secondary pupils per youth worker was 110, compared with a national average of 483. There are, of course, special problems in inner London, but those do not in themselves explain why ILEA expenditure per secondary pupil should have been five times as high as the national average.

The pattern of high spending under ILEA, together with the often poor financial information systems which the boroughs inherited from ILEA, have contributed to their financial problems. It would seem that most boroughs have reduced expenditure on the youth service, but the rate of reduction varies greatly between individual boroughs, and while some have managed the process of reorganisation in a properly managed way and by allowing adequate time for implementing planned changes, I regret to say that that is not true of all the boroughs.

However, it is nonsense—I do not necessarily apply the word to the hon. Gentleman—to suggest that inner London boroughs can no longer afford to maintain the youth service because of funding decisions by central Government. Inner London is generously treated. The amount of revenue support grant that inner London boroughs receive is determined by their standard spending assessments—the Government's view of the amount of revenue expenditure that it would be appropriate for the local authorities in question to incur to provide a standard level of service. The SSAs for inner London boroughs for all services were 23 per cent. higher than their SSAs for 1990–91, compared with a 19 per cent. increase in SSAs for England as a whole. The education component of the SSAs of inner London boroughs was 18 per cent. higher in 1991–92 than in 1990–91, compared with a 16 per cent. average increase for England as a whole. Those are substantial increases, well in excess of the rate of inflation.

Thus, inner London has benefited very substantially from the distribution of revenue support grant in the current year. Inner London boroughs are also getting a special inner London education grant—worth £70 million in 1991–92—to ease the transition from the ILEA's unreasonably excessive spending levels.

It was always clear that the inner London boroughs would need to get to grips with providing a more efficient service than the ILEA. But it does not follow that the Government are underfunding the inner London boroughs for their education functions. Indeed, a number of inner London boroughs are actually budgeting to spend less on education than the Government have allowed for, through SSAs and inner London education grant. So cuts in the youth service can hardly be laid at the Government's door.

Local authorities are, of course, themselves responsible for deciding both the precise level and the pattern of the great bulk of their expenditure: revenue support grant is after all a block grant. While the Government make certain assumptions about the pattern of local authorities' spending, essentially for the purposes of distributing RSG, it is local authorities who take the decisions and who are ultimately accountable for them to their electorates.

The hon. Member has referred to youth service cuts in Southwark. I am bound to point out that the borough's increase in education SSA this year was 20.6 per cent—well above the inner London average—and it also obtained £6.5 million in transfer grant. I understand that the borough may be budgeting to spend below the level of SSA and transfer grant.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the voluntary headquarters organisations. The funding of local youth organisations undertaking grass roots work is entirely a matter for the inner London boroughs. However, following the abolition of ILEA, the Government agreed to provide transitional funding to the headquarters of London-wide voluntary youth bodies for the three years up to 1992–93. This funding of £500,000 a year was made on an interim basis only to provide the headquarters with a breathing space during which they could establish links with the individual London boroughs.

I recognise that the process of transition has inevitably brought particular pressure on the voluntary organisations. I also recognise the important role of the headquarters youth organisations in helping to channel funds from charitable trusts to local clubs and generally in supporting voluntary providers. And I welcome the work of the London Boroughs Grants Committee in supporting these organisations. We have received requests for the extension of the Department of Education and Science interim grants scheme. We shall consider these at the time of the Autumn Statement.

The hon. Member has understandably referred in some detail to crime prevention. I fully recognise that the youth service has an important contribution to make in helping to prevent youth crime, but it is not the only service involved with juvenile crime prevention and it is important to bear in mind that families and schools provide the first and most enduring form of crime prevention. But the youth service can certainly help by providing challenging activities to engage the energies of young people in constructive pursuits. Youth workers on the streets and housing estates play a particularly important part in helping to keep young people out of crime. The hon. Gentleman spoke from his own knowledge, understanding and perhaps involvement with some of those youth workers in his constituency and in many others. They are able to deal with young people on their own ground and there are many examples of successful initiatives in dealing with problems such as drug abuse. Alongside other professionals, and with local communities, youth workers can also devise programmes of social education which help to develop positive and constructive group interactions. Such programmes can be particularly effective where groups of young people are themselves involved in discussing and planning them.

I am aware that the recent NACRO report, "Preventing Youth Crime", has argued that the youth service should target its services to those areas where social problems are great and existing provision poor. It has also recommended that the youth service should be made a statutory requirement to protect local youth budgets at times of financial pressure. That is exactly what the hon. Gentleman referred to in what for an Opposition Member was a restrained speech.

Under the provisions of the 1944 Act as amended by section 120 of the Education Reform Act 1988, local education authorities are already under a duty to secure the social, physical and recreational training and leisure time activities of young people. I have to say that I do not think that it would be possible to prescribe specific functions or provision for a service as diverse and as complex as the youth service, and one that is voluntary and essentially local in nature. It is difficult to conceive how precise functions could be set for such a diverse service without impeding the essential flexibility that it requires to respond to local needs and to adjust provision to meet the changing needs and interests of young people. That flexibility may well be essential if the youth service is not to become trapped in forms of provision that may not keep pace with the changing interests and attitudes of young people over time.

I wish to make it clear in conclusion that the Government value and support the contribution that the youth service makes to the social education and the welfare of young people in inner London. We believe that inner London has benefited very substantially from the distribution of revenue support grant in the current year, but decisions on the policy and funding of local youth services are a matter for the London boroughs as they are for any other authorities.

Mr. Peter Bottomley (Eltham)

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Atkins

Time is short, but if the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey agrees, I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Simon Hughes

indicated assent.

Mr. Bottomley

I welcome my hon. Friend's positive response. Will he pay attention to the point about coming together, which I am sure will be welcomed in all London constituencies?

Mr. Atkins

I am coming to that.

As I have said, the policy and funding of local youth services are matters for London boroughs as they are for other authorities. It is for them to safeguard the future of their youth services by developing clear strategies for provision, including partnership with the voluntary sector, and by exercising sound management and good planning.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) reinforced the request by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey to consider a number of points, and I undertake to do that. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey was kind enough to indicate that he would not prejudge a review. I cannot prejudge what the considerations might be, but, in the light of the way in which the hon. Gentleman raised these matters and in view of the knowledge and expertise that he demonstrated, I undertake to consider the points that he raised.

There is much merit in drawing together the strands of the various inner London boroughs and their representatives in relation to youth matters. I shall also consider a review of the situation in inner London. I do not necessarily commit myself to that, but I will consider it deeply.

The hon. Gentleman has raised issues of interest and concern which merit consideration and I shall consider them, especially as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham, who also represents an inner London borough and knows inner London well, has made the same request.

I again congratulate the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey on the way in which he has raised these matters. He has done youth in London a service.

Mr. Simon Hughes

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. If he is able to reach a positive view and call in appropriate people, sooner rather than later would be appreciated, because I am conscious, as is the Minister, that the cycle of expenditure, the review and any other matters mean that both in Government and in local authorities people's minds will be on budgets in the next couple of months. Some discussion about financial security is of interest to all those concerned with the youth service. I am grateful to the House for allowing me to raise these matters and for the Minister's positive response. We look forward to further dialogue outside the Chamber.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o'clock.