HC Deb 01 July 2002 vol 388 cc55-66

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

5.36 pm
Mr. Stephen Pound (Ealing, North)

I regret that the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell) was not in his place. The speed of our proceedings has been such that we have not so much debated as waved at legislation as it passed by. I understand why the hon. Gentleman was not present.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the subject of tonight's debate. I cannot believe that many hon. Members who are present are not as exercised as I am by the increase in complaints from their constituents that fall within the broad ambit of antisocial behaviour. Clearly, it is not a new problem. I believe that some Sumerian clay tablets were recently unearthed and that they were translated to reveal the statement: "The youth of today have no control and are causing mayhem on the streets." That was a few thousand years ago. However, we clearly have a problem and we need to deal with it.

We owe it our constituents and the wider electorate to be thoughtful about antisocial behaviour. Simply saying that people should be locked up and swept off the streets is not good enough. We lock up more people than any other European country and we owe it to our electorate to examine the causes a little more deeply. I should like to narrow the focus slightly to concentrate on teenagers and young people, and my area of north-west London.

When people complain about the antisocial behaviour of teenagers and young people, they must accept that the young people responsible for graffiti, vandalism, noise nuisance and all the other problems that worry us have not leapt on to the streets fully formed in their feral shape; they have a background. I understand that some, who have all the advantages in life and could be described as "A Clockwork Orange" generation, will still commit the foulest antisocial activities with no possible excuse, but we castigate and criticise many people who have been victims and are often the product of unfortunate and unhappy backgrounds.

Tonight, I want to concentrate particularly on looked-after children—children who were until recently described as being in care. Until 1934—certainly within living memory—in my constituency, there was a huge building, which is now Hanwell community centre, into which were swept any young boys and girls who happened to be found wandering the streets of an evening. Charlie Chaplin was one famous example. He was found on the streets of Southwark and ended up in Hanwell, which I would say was a step upwards, although he did not see it that way. These young children were trained, in the case of girls, to be downstairs maids or between-stairs maids, and, in the case of boys, to be buglers or carpenters.

We have moved on a bit from the idea of warehousing young people, and from the old idea of the children's home, and the reason that I am raising this matter tonight is that we are in transition. We have a lot of very needy young people, and we have a range of responses to their needs. We must be absolutely sure that we are proceeding sensibly and logically towards meeting their needs and the needs of the communities in which they live.

In my area of north-west London, we had a commercial organisation that placed vulnerable young children on behalf of a number of other London boroughs. I want to ask the Minister whether she would be prepared to examine the issue of cross-borough placements in this context, from the point of view of both inspection and monitoring. There is a temptation for boroughs to place young people in other boroughs, and for the old principle of "out of sight, out of mind" to apply.

An additional problem, which I shall come to in a moment, is the definition of the term "hostel". In these circumstances, we are talking about small, residential units above shops. They are not hostels. In planning law, the definition of a hostel includes shared provision for cooking and eating. A group of small units does not constitute a hostel; therefore there can be no licence. There can, therefore, be no local authority locus, so when the local people turn to the council for assistance, the council is unable to help because the premises in question are not a licensed hostel.

People turn to the local councillors in these circumstances, but, in many cases, they are unable to respond to their needs. Had this taken place in Victorian times, when Mr. Bumble strolled the streets, those people would at least have had a figure to go to. Now they have my colleagues, Councillors Richard Porter, Fred Varley and Shital Manro, who are just as responsive as Mr. Bumble and far more approachable than he ever was. They are, however, unable to assist.

It is appropriate that we are considering the issue of vulnerable, fragile young people—whose needs must be considered at the same time as those of the community in which they live—at this time, because this is foster care fortnight. I would like to pay tribute to the Fostering Network for providing the lapel badges that I see many right hon. and hon. Members wearing, and for its work in raising the profile of fostering. We know that it needs 8,000 more foster carers, and that there are 45,000 children being fostered on any one day in this country.

If those children are not fostered, they end up in the sort of accommodation that I have described. The commercial organisation to which I referred earlier is now working in partnership with the local authority. It has agreed to reduce the number of young people placed in the hostel, and I hope that the partnership between the organisation and the local authority will continue, to the benefit of all the young people concerned.

I am also optimistic about the general thrust of Government policy in this direction, which is considering in depth the needs of young people in parallel with the needs of the local community. This issue is not capable of resolution by a simple sweep of the kind that we find described in the red-top tabloids; it is one that we have to address in some detail. I would particularly like to share with the Minister some of the developments in Ealing's children's services, and, in all honesty, to pay tribute to the Government's impressive programme of reform for better futures for vulnerable children and looked-after children in our society.

The House does not hear often enough of the advantages and the benefits of the innovative national quality protects programme or of the significant extra resources for children's services, which we would all agree have made a real change in the lives of children and their families. That work, as we know, links in with the Government's wider programme of commitment to education and social inclusion through education and training. It also aims to do that most marvellous and most noble of things—break the cycle of poverty and exclusion that has marginalised so many people in our society.

Twenty years ago, when I was first elected a councillor, a 16-year-old woman came to see me with a baby in her arms. She had a terrible housing problem, which I was able to address, as we had council housing in those dim and distant days. Sixteen years later, that baby, grown to maturity, came to my surgery with her baby in her arms, but I was unable to assist. That is the cycle of deprivation that we must address, because it leads to exclusion and marginalisation. I pay particular tribute to the Government for their work on that.

It is not necessary, I would have thought, to state that the provision of a stable, loving and secure home for children with substitute families, should no parental family exist, is the clearest way to ensure that they have the opportunity for a positive future or that successful outcomes in terms of education, health and career opportunities as well as emotional stability with such a family base to return to is more likely to succeed.

I am delighted to tell the Minister that 80 per cent. of Ealing's looked-after children are now placed with substitute families—a very significant increase over the past three years. That is the result not just of extremely hard work by people such as Judith Finlay and Professor Norman Tutt OBE, director of housing and social services in Ealing, but of the active and ongoing publicity campaigns and outreach work with local communities to recruit local carers and reduce the number of children placed outside the borough, thereby obviating precisely the cross-borough placement problem to which I referred.

I am also delighted to share with the Minister the fact that foster carers are actively sought and recruited in Ealing. We do not wait for them to come to us; we go out and find them. We value the important and challenging work that they do. Each year, I am honoured to attend the foster carers' awards dinner and ceremony, which celebrates their important contribution to our local community and rewards their achievements with certificates for one, 10, 20 and, in one case that I recall, 30 years of service to vulnerable children.

We celebrate a special award for the outstanding contribution from an individual carer, nominated by the children themselves, in recognition of Ealing's first-ever black carer. I am particularly pleased to tell the Minister that Ealing, which has a population as diverse as that in any borough, matches that diversity with the diversity of its carers, who come from all ages and backgrounds and from all communities.

The number of children placed for adoption recently reached the highest ever in Ealing—22 adoption orders were granted last year and a further 44 children are currently placed for adoption. Those figures reflect implementation of the Prime Minister's review of adoption and the establishment of the national taskforce on adoption to share good practice, on which Ealing's director of children's services is represented.

Another development, for which my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), the Minister of State, Department of Health, was present, was the launch last month of the Westminster and West London Consortium on Adoption. That returns us to the theme, which I am trying to establish tonight, that local authorities need to work together on the issue, especially in London. They have tried to go it alone in assessing potential adopters and identifying suitable matches for children.

The new consortium is an absolute breakthrough in that it provides a wider pool of adoptees and children to match up across the central and west London area. As the Minister knows, that will be further facilitated by the establishment of a national register of adopters and adoptees. The consortium model is already contributing to a marked increase in the speed of adoption and the number of children placed for adoption in Ealing and across west London.

The Government's agenda on improving education outcomes for children in public care, following the issuing of national guidance—the Minister formerly held the relevant role—is also leading to the raising of expectations and achievement in Ealing. I do not often stand here and blow a trumpet for the London borough of Ealing, but when we do something well I think the country needs to know it. I hope that the House will allow me to say that the percentage of children leaving care in Ealing with at least one GCSE rose from 16.7 to 35.2 per cent. in 2001–02, and we are currently on course for more than 50 per cent. of year-11 looked-after children achieving that target this academic year.

Those figures are still nationally too low, but they show the progress that can be made with a concerted effort, additional resources and partnership between children, social workers, carers and schools. A positive education is clearly the best opportunity we can give vulnerable children, especially those who grow up in the care system. Those children may be diverted from what we consider antisocial activities into useful, productive activity for the benefit of society, themselves and the community at large.

In Ealing, we currently have five specialist teachers to help looked-after young children with their educational needs. They provide a short-term service for children not currently in school placement, and integrate them back into mainstream school places. They also offer additional support for schoolteachers and carers. In addition, they run homework clubs and SATs and GCSE pre-exam holiday clinics. The council has made a clear commitment to providing financial support for looked-after children in higher education.

Members will probably be aware of the appallingly low number of looked-after children nationally who make it to higher education. My hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) was once quoted as saying that in his constituency in any one year more teenagers go to jail than go to university. That is a horrific and terrifying statistic, and we need to take great and careful heed of it.

In Ealing, we are not quite in that position. Thirteen young people who were care leavers are currently at university. That is 13 more than we had a few years ago, and the number is expected to rise to 25 over the next two years. That is a real response to the needs of young people, and a real diversion away from the antisocial behaviour of many young people in the past. The figure includes a young man who is a 4th-year medical student, and a young woman who I am delighted to say will start this September at the world's finest university, the London School of Economics, of which I am an alumnus. Another outstanding young woman is studying politics at Cardiff university. Despite the fact that she has undertaken work experience in my office, she is still interested in politics.

In addition, Ealing was very involved in the Department for Education and Skills teenagers to work programme in May this year, in which 28 young people took part, including three Ealing young people in care who had a two-day placement in Brussels with MEPs and three who had placements with fellow MPs at the House of Commons. Others chose such settings as the fire station. I cannot comment on that: the young person I had working with me seemed to enjoy herself. Opportunities for children who are often excluded from the chances that many young people in mainstream families take for granted can only increase their understanding and ability to exercise real choices about their own future, to be involved in the wider society, and to be diverted from antisocial behaviour.

Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire)

I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I did not give him notice of my intention to intervene. I welcome what he is saying about education. Will he join me in welcoming what the Government are doing by broadening vocational education to GCSE level, which is likely to engage the young people that he is talking about much more in school-based activities? It is a constructive approach. Children who are at present alienated by an excessively academic curriculum may be re-engaged as a result of that initiative.

Mr. Pound

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. People of my generation who were divided into sheep and goats at the age of 11, who suffered the agonies of the grammar versus secondary modern school system and were often marked for life by one afternoon when they were 11 have concerns about a wholly vocational alternative in secondary education. Hon. Members may be amazed to hear me say this, but I think that the Government have got it absolutely right. They have managed to find the via media between those old extremes. They have recognised that vocational training meets the needs of particular groups of people, and by making that available while at the same time not making it a matter of stigma, they have managed to excite the support of even the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—and I never thought I would be able to say that in this place. I am delighted to join him in that.

Two years ago, we were extremely fortunate to have the Minister's predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), open our one-stop shop for children in care and for care leavers. The Ealing drop-in centre has gone from strength to strength and underpins Ealing's approach to the Government's new legislation, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000, which has been implemented with additional Government resources from last September. The drop-in centre is led by young people in partnership with staff and Ealing's elected Members.

Furthermore, Ealing's commitment to improving outcomes for children in care through the corporate parent panel, which is chaired by my old friend and colleague, John Cudmore, the leader of the council, has been an innovative and very successful model of ensuring that joined-up local government delivers the best possible services and outcomes to children in care. I sometimes cavil at phrases such as roll-outs, initiatives and joined-up government, but in this case it actually is joined-up local government. That ensures that looked-after children are seen not just as the responsibility of the social services department, but of the whole council, which provides access to education, housing, leisure, sports and arts opportunities. Ealing council takes very seriously its responsibility to the—I pause to allow the significance of this figure to sink in—380 children in its care. That is one London borough. Ealing acts as a good parent should.

This is the third year that young people in Ealing are organising their own consultation day: a day to demonstrate their talents and abilities. The event is called the Ealing outerlimits day and takes place at the Questors theatre. It is a mixture of serious events, such as a drama production on children's experiences of the care system and how it can be improved, and a presentation on their educational achievements. It was extremely successful last year Marks and Spencer agreed to lend a lot of new clothes for a fashion parade, but unfortunately we were bombed two days before and its shop was inside the exclusion zone. A number of people, including myself, had to produce some of our older and more exciting garments, which the children could wear with some humour, not as high fashion. The day shows their talents in dance, arts, sports and music, and culminates in a talent contest of—dare I say it—"Pop Idol" style and a barbecue and party. The event also ensures that all children can access information that they need on education, health and housing issues as well as arts, sports and music.

I suspect that the Minister knows what is coming. This year's event takes place on Saturday 10 August. I appreciate that she may have a prior engagement with the Salford motor cycle club on that day, but if she is able to drag herself away from her two-wheeled weekend pastime, I would be delighted to invite her to attend and open the event and to meet some of Ealing's talented looked-after young people. She will also see the Government's radical policy programme translated into real action.

I started by talking about the components of the wider problem that we describe as antisocial behaviour. I said that we should consider what makes up the groups of children and young people whom we stigmatise and, let us be honest, from whom we sometimes suffer. We do not deserve to suffer, but they do not deserve to have us lump them together in one group.

Mr. Luff

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's comments, especially what he said about not stigmatising a particular group. In Droitwich Spa, where there are real concerns about antisocial behaviour, it is clear that we cannot categorise the young people who are causing the problem of bad behaviour. They come from across the social spectrum, and not from one particular group. We must not assume that just because a child is underprivileged, he or she will necessarily be a leading light in antisocial behaviour in a town. That is certainly not my experience in Droitwich.

Mr. Pound

I am slightly worried that my membership of the Labour party may be in doubt if I continue to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I remember a group of overpaid City-employed hooligans known as the Flaming Ferraris. They came from an elegant background—indeed, I think that the father of one of them was a Conservative peer. In the 18th century, the Mohawks, young aristos from the Hellfire club, terrorised the streets of London, setting fire to watchmen—and possibly Labour canvassers, for all I know.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that social background is no determinant of antisocial behaviour. However, there is ample statistical evidence, particularly in the work done by Louise Casey in the rough sleepers unit as recently as two years ago, that an enormously high percentage of people who are homeless and suffer from drug and alcohol abuse problems are products of what we call the care system. We owe it to that group of people to identify their needs and present solutions. We owe it to this country and this Parliament not to stigmatise them and lump them together.

In Northolt in my constituency, the problem was, I sincerely hope, one of transition. Young people were moving away from the warehoused care homes and orphanages of the past into a modern, more specific and better tailored way of resolving and addressing their needs. In transition, severe problems were caused. I reiterate my earlier comment that the organisation is now in partnership with the London borough of Ealing and the local residents, which will, I hope, be in the interests of all people.

I ask the Minister to consider the points about hostel definition, cross-borough accreditation and the assessment and checking of standards. I also ask her to accept my assurance that in Ealing we address the needs of young people as well as the concerns of the community, because ultimately they make up society. If antisocial behaviour confronts and affronts society, we need to remember that these vulnerable young people are not only a part of society but a part that we should value, cherish and recognise.

6.2 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears)

I am delighted to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) on raising an extremely important issue with his usual sensitivity and common sense. He commended many things to us this evening, particularly the practices in Ealing. His description of Ealing seeing itself as a corporate parent was extremely interesting. He has brought a great deal of new information to the debate.

The Government recognise that many communities are concerned about antisocial behaviour by young people. There can be no Members who do not regularly see people at their surgeries who suffer from such problems. As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) said, these problems are not confined to people from particular social backgrounds—they are many and varied. That is one reason why, since 1998, we have introduced a range of initiatives to tackle antisocial behaviour, along with various programmes to tackle crime. Crucially, the fear of crime caused by low-level antisocial behaviour often does more damage to communities' sense of self-confidence than more serious and isolated criminal behaviour.

This is about getting the balance right. Throughout our period in office, as well as introducing initiatives to tackle antisocial behaviour, we have tried to demonstrate our commitment to improving opportunities for young people who have been living in and leaving local authority care. It is a matter of doing both; these objectives do not need to conflict when tackling antisocial behaviour and trying to support people who have left the local authority system.

Those policies are expressed in the quality protects programme and the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000. Both measures have promoted support for care leavers so that they have the same opportunities as other young people. My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) introduced the Act with passion and common sense. He said that families do not suddenly stop taking responsibility for children when they are 16; that responsibility continues until they are 18, 21 and even beyond, when children regularly come back home looking for support. My right hon. Friend said that if our children come back and ask to borrow a tenner, we respond quite naturally, as we do if they come back with their washing or looking for emotional support. Equally, our responsibility as corporate parents means that we must continue to give support to children who leave care.

We try to ensure that children leaving care can fully participate in the life of their local community as citizens, through education, training and opportunities to work. The quality protects programme has been welcomed by local authorities. I was particularly interested in my hon. Friend's description of what has been happening in his council. The quality protects programme has not only been delivered as a central Government policy but has been owned by the local authorities, which have been able to build on the principles in that programme to come up with ways of working that suit their community. The author of a report on evaluating local responses to the programme, Diana Robbins, has said quality protects is an effective tool for developing local work on specific priorities; but it has already achieved changes in way that local authorities work. Some of those changes may be a bit slow, but they are beginning to show through in terms of measurable outcomes.

Our most recent data show that more children in care are being adopted and that looked-after children are experiencing fewer changes of carer—for many children in the care system, having different sets of foster parents and home settings has been extremely disruptive. There has been a complete reversal of the trend that had seen more and more young people discharged from care when they reached 16, whether or not they were ready for independence. We are now assessing young people on their skills and potential and providing them with the right level of support.

We have also introduced the Adoption and Children Bill, which will overhaul the outdated Adoption Act 1976. It will modernise the existing legal framework for domestic and inter-country adoption. That change underpins our drive to speed up the process and provide many more looked-after children, who cannot return to their families, with a fresh start and the opportunity to live in and be part of a new family.

The Care Standards Act 2000 established the National Care Standards Commission to ensure that vulnerable children and adults get the protection they need and that all care providers have high standards. There are now national minimum standards for the services to be regulated, and we hope that that will ensure that vulnerable children will have confidence in the quality and safety of the care that they receive.

Local authorities have a duty to ensure that they place children in accommodation that conforms to national standards and meets their needs. That applies whether the placement is in their own authority, elsewhere across London or in any other part of the country. The Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 transformed the powers that councils had to support young people into duties. It became mandatory for local authorities to make sure that they followed through their responsibilities. That is relevant to the issues raised by my hon. Friend because the 2000 Act requires local authorities to assess and meet the needs of care leavers and, crucially, to stay in touch with them, not simply abandon them when they reach the age at which they can leave care. The duty continues wherever a young person moves to.

The Act also provides that young people should have a pathway plan, setting out the support they will need and what help the local authority will offer them if things go wrong, so that they have confidence that they will continue to be looked after even when they are living independently. The plan has to include arrangements for young people to live in suitable accommodation.

Councils should take steps to ensure that young people have the best chance of succeeding where they are living. Arrangements for their accommodation should be linked to other arrangements for support. As my hon. Friend has said, in his own local authority, the support is keyed in to issues of accommodation, education, transport and housing. All those services need to be connected and in place to give young people the best possible launch into their adult life.

My hon. Friend mentioned some of the difficulties that had occurred locally and I entirely understand his concerns about the impact of young people on local residents. A group of young people left local authority care and almost all of them were placed in Ealing by other local authorities. That sends a key message: we must ensure that those authorities continue to take responsibility for the children whom they have placed. They must also share information with each other; they should work together in such situations rather than acting in isolation.

Local people living near those youngsters associated their presence with nuisance, intimidation, vandalism and other criminal acts. Although it may be hard to prove a direct link between the young people and every incident that has occurred, the residents have real concerns and they were right to express them.

I appreciate the fact that it seems to local people that an entirely new establishment housing nine young people has been imposed on their neighbourhood. Unfortunately, the status of the property is of nine self-contained independent flats, each with its own entrance and facilities, so the service is not defined as a hostel under current planning regulations. The scheme is thus not covered by planning law and would not qualify for inspection by the National Care Standards Commission.

My hon. Friend raises legitimate concerns about a group of nine young people leaving care who are all vulnerable and need intense support, yet difficulties are caused because their accommodation does not fall under the narrow definition of a hostel. I can reassure him that the Government are considering ways to establish best practice in all publicly funded accommodation, including hostels. At present, they are not covered by the legislation, but I undertake to raise the issue with my colleagues in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister so that we can reassure local people that regulation will be introduced.

Through the quality protects programme and the other initiatives to which I referred, the Government stress that councils should try to take the same interest in the young people whom they have looked after as a reasonable parent would take in their own children who face the challenges of adulthood. It is important that the local authorities which placed those young people in my hon. Friend's constituency assure themselves that those young people are being offered adequate support. Like any reasonable parent, the local authorities should ensure that the young people can engage in constructive activity so that they are not left to drift and get involved in antisocial behaviour. They should be offered sufficient education and training to achieve their potential. Any parent will understand that even if support is available, young people inevitably push at the boundaries of behaviour, but it is important that local authorities which place young people maintain consistent contact and continue to provide regular support.

The issues raised by my hon. Friend are not of the sort that can be easily and neatly resolved by central Government policy. They need to be resolved locally by all the parties getting together and involving local people. Young people are entitled to suitable accommodation with appropriate support, but their neighbours are equally entitled to go about their business free from harassment and intimidation and not to be subject to antisocial behaviour. The young people themselves have a responsibility to behave properly. They must recognise and act on their responsibility to be good neighbours.

Where there is evidence of crime, antisocial behaviour and vandalism, the police have obligations to uphold the law and to protect the local community. Tackling antisocial behaviour locally requires co-ordinated action and the full use of all available resources. That could include the use of antisocial behaviour orders, if necessary, as well as acceptable behaviour contracts, which are being piloted in my hon. Friend's constituency. Young people enter into a contract about their future behaviour—a structured way of achieving the right balance.

Mr. Luff

As the Minister said, this matter is of real concern throughout the country. In Droitwich Spa. I recently held a survey on the causes of antisocial behaviour and constituents' responses to it. There were several distinctive elements in those responses—including policing, antisocial behaviour orders and the need for tough sentencing. There was a strong emphasis on the need to provide more facilities for ordinary young people; there is just not enough for them to do in the average British town. Will the Minister ask local authorities and public bodies to support schemes to help young people, such as, for example, the Droitwich Spa adventure playground, which provides an outlet for the energy of young people, and the Droitwich fusion centre, which is an advice centre for kids who get into difficulties?

Ms Blears

The hon. Gentleman is right: we need enough facilities in our communities so that young people have plenty of things to do and do not get involved in antisocial behaviour. In my own constituency, we have the street to stadium scheme: youth workers go out on the streets and offer young people the opportunity to take part in sporting activities—such as five-a-side football and basketball—which they try to provide at reduced prices. It is often too expensive for many young people to hire time in leisure centres. The workers try to ensure that young people can use such facilities or those in local schools. Sometimes, simply setting up a basketball net in some empty space can help to engage youngsters in constructive activities. It is also important to ensure that we involve girls as well as boys. There are many successful programmes that use dance to engage girls, who may not want to play five-a-side football—although many play it and are extremely good at it. A great deal of imagination is being used to set up schemes to support our young people.

Only a minority of young people are involved in antisocial behaviour; the vast majority want constructive activity. They are a credit to their community and make a huge contribution by helping people locally.

I am pleased to say that things are improving dramatically in my hon. Friend's constituency, due in no short measure to his personal intervention in trying to resolve a difficult situation. He has made tremendous efforts to mediate between the young people and local residents. I was glad to learn that only last Friday agreements were reached that were satisfactory to all concerned. From now on, the flats will offer accommodation only to five young people instead of 10. I hope that those young people will, therefore, be better supported and managed and that not so many of them will congregate in the area. They will he offered a more individual support service. I am delighted that peace has broken out in the community, and I hope that things will continue to improve during the next few weeks and months.

The Government recognise the need to offer young people leaving care adequate and reliable support. We are also determined to tackle antisocial behaviour by young people, and to ensure that they are diverted both from that behaviour and from serious crime and that communities are properly protected. Those objectives need not conflict; they are intended to build healthy and safe communities. I am sure that we all share that aim.

The way to make progress is to admit the problem and to work together. In Ealing, local council staff, the police and the owner of the flats held meetings over a lengthy period to try to manage the situation. Local residents, the young people and the local authorities which originally housed them in Ealing were also included. That is crucially important: they all shared the solution so they all have a stake in making it work in future.

There has been a fruitful outcome to the open and frank discussion of the situation that led to my hon. Friend calling this debate. It should be possible to ensure that only the young people best suited to benefit from the support available in those flats are placed there in future. Placements must be appropriate. I hope that, in future, the local community will have the reassurance that it has sought for some time. The parties have come together and they mean to ensure that people can live in peace in their neighbourhood and make a contribution to their community. I have no doubt that the practice adopted by Ealing is some of the best in the country, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend was able to share some examples of that good practice with us.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for his invitation to the open day on 10 August. I shall check my appointments and will try to be there. In any event, I am sure that it will be an excellent showcase for the abilities, talent and potential of many of the young people who are leaving care in his local authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Six o'clock.