London Youth Service Provision (Hansard, 19 December 1989)

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, under the provision of the 1944 Education Act, as amended by Section 120 of the Education Reform Act, local education authorities have a duty to secure social, physical and recreational training and leisure-time activities for young people. In the exercise of this duty, all the inner-London councils' development plans propose substantial youth service provision including giving support to voluntary youth organisations.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. However, can he say what will happen to the headquarters of the various voluntary youth organisations when the government grant comes to an end in 1993? I ask that because I understand that there is an interim government grant effective from 1990 to 1993. Does not the noble Viscount agree that such bodies as the London Union of Youth Clubs, the London Federation of Boys' Clubs, the boy scout, the girl guides and the wolf cub organisations, and so on, perform a vital function in the London youth service?

§ Viscount Davidson
Yes, my Lords; the Government entirely agree with the noble Lord. We have recognised the importance of the support which umbrella bodies can give to the delivery of effective youth work at the grass roots by providing, as he said, interim funding of £500,000 for each of the three years from 1990/91 for these bodies, to enable them to assist the maintenance of effective voluntary youth services while adjustment is made to new relationships between the voluntary sector and individual inner-London councils.
Ministers at the Department of Education and Science have drawn the attention of inner-London councils to the important role which can be performed by umbrella bodies and have urged councils to agree a mechanism for providing centrally distributed funding to those bodies.

§ Baroness Faithfull
My Lords, despite the very positive Answer given by my noble friend the Minister, will he agree that the statement he made is not in accord with the various organisations which 114 run the youth service in London? Will he further agree that the activities and the companionship given by the youth service contribute to the prevention of juvenile crime? If we do not have a good youth service in London, we shall have more crime in the city.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. But the replies and comments that I have received from those umbrella bodies have in fact been extremely favourable. However, the boroughs will have to increase the efficiency of the service over time if they are to deliver education at a reasonable cost to their chargepayers. It should not be a hard task to be more effective in that respect than the ILEA. However, while agreeing with my noble friend, I must say that we should all encourage these organisations to the greatest extent.

§ Baroness Seear
My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that the boroughs in which the need for such services is greatest are those which will find the greatest problem in paying for them? It is not likely that the most hard hit boroughs with serious inner-city problems and with large numbers of unemployed people in ethnic minority groups will be able to finance the services required.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, that is a view with which I do not agree. The Government consider that more explicit reference in legislation to the level and type of service provision which local authorities should make is neither necessary nor desirable. It is currently for local authorities to assess the needs of young people in their areas in relation to this provision. Those local authorities who have identified a need to make extensive and varied provision have found no legislative barriers to this, and overall expenditure on the youth service is rising.

§ Lord Newall
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are youth clubs which are already closing down due to lack of funds? Therefore, will he look further into the subject? It is most important as regards crime in London.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, if my noble friend will furnish me with details, I shall certainly look into the matter.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the sum of £500,000 he mentioned which is being contributed by the DES still leaves a gap in funds amounting to about £235,000? Is he also aware that it is not yet certain whether the London borough grants committee can meet the difference, because it does not know whether it will receive the 5 per cent. increase that it requires? Is he further aware that a great many voluntary bodies which ILEA supported —for example, Centrepoint Soho, to which it gave £15,000; New Horizon Youth Centre, to which it gave £49,000; and the Piccadilly Advice Centre, to which it gave £7,500 —are at risk? Are not the Government concerned that such organisations may have to close?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, in future it will be a matter for the umbrella bodies and the local authorities to decide which organisations are worth continuing and which are not. However, the Government have provided interim funding, as I said, of £500,000 for each year for the next three years. That short-term special funding is designed to enable them to sustain effective support for grass roots works, including local youth services, for an interim period until the organisation of voluntary work in inner London has adjusted to the abolition of the ILEA.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, I think the noble Viscount used the neologism, "chargepayers". I take it that this is what the rest of us mean when we refer to poll tax payers. However, "chargepayers" is the expression I heard; but it is not a word in the English language that I have ever heard before. Further, will the noble Viscount also clarify the use of the word "duty"? Assuming that he is correct in saying that the Education Reform Act states that local education authorities have a duty in this connection, if they fail in that duty, will Her Majesty's Government intervene to ensure that they provide a youth service? Alternatively, is this one of those duties about which the Government will simply shrug their shoulders and say, "Well you have a duty, but it is too bad if you do not fulfill it."?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I did indeed use the words "chargepayers".

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, I thought I heard that.

§ Viscount Davidson
Yes, my Lords; I am admitting that fact. However, if the expression is not in the dictionary, then I shall apologise to the noble Lord whose knowledge of the English language is far superior to mine. As I was saying, the youth service relies for its legal basis upon sections of the Education Reform Act 1944 relating to the duty to secure provision by local education authorities of social, physical, and recreational training and leisure time activities. The duty is there enshrined in the law.

§ Lord Peston
My Lords, does the noble Viscount recognise that as he used the word "chargepayer" it will almost certainly appear in the new edition of the Oxford Dictionary? If he is lucky, the first ascription will be to the noble Viscount.

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, I am not sure whether I should be proud of that or not.

§ Lord Dormand of Easington
My Lords, is the Minister aware that although there will be considerable self-help among the organisations that I have mentioned, which is laudable, there will be a shortfall of some £200,000? That is a large sum for those organisations but a comparatively small sum for the Government. Will the Government give further thought to the matter?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, as I said, the umbrella organisations which are receiving the 116 money have not expressed dissatisfaction with the amount. That is all that I can say.

§ Baroness David
My Lords, is the Minister aware that I consider his responses poor and as showing a great lack of imagination and care about what is to happen after the ILEA is abolished?

§ Viscount Davidson
My Lords, no.