| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10.57 am
Mr. David Kidney (Stafford): I have listened with interest to this morning's speeches on the built environment, but I want to return to the theme of youth, echoing the sentiments of the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who is no longer in the Chamber, about how we should invest more in the youth of today, as they will be the active citizens of tomorrow. I want to focus on those tens of thousands of children who are looked after by local authorities under care orders. In particular, I shall refer to an event in Stafford over Easter that gives some grounds for optimism about the future care of those children.
Some children are in local authority care for short periods and then return to their families. Others, regrettably, are looked after for many years. When they reach the age of 18 and adulthood, they must leave local authority care. As statistics show, many children are 16 or 17 when local authorities make arrangements for them to move on and to look after themselves. As policy makers, we need to pay more attention to that group. I sometimes fear that society does not feel the urgency of the need to save those people, who are peculiarly vulnerable to homelessness and joblessness, and to becoming victims of crime, drugs and prostitution.
At Easter, I convened and hosted a conference at Stafford college on that very subject. I warmly thank my guest presenters, people of national reputation, who attended to share the benefit of their experience for no remuneration other than their expenses, which was marvellous. They were Martin Ayres, a consultant to the Department of Health, James Cathcart of the National Childrens Bureau, Peter Hardman of First Key, and Janet Manders of the National Foster Care Association.
Every possible local agency was represented that day, from the statutory agencies such as social services, to all the health and education services and right through to the voluntary sector. Some of those present told marvellous stories of the excellent services that they already provide for children and adolescents, but one of the worrying features of the day was that some had not met others and did not know of the marvellous services that they provided. The picture was of fractured rather than complementary services.
One example given by a presenter showed how badly things can go wrong. A social worker told us of a boy who, in the 1990s, was coming to the end of his time in local authority care and was placed with a landlady. They got on well, for once he had a secure home, and he
developed well. His 18th birthday came and went with no official recognition, except for the significant fact that the money stopped arriving. Neither of them understood at first why that was.
By chance, the landlady met the social worker at the market several weeks later. The landlady mentioned that the money had not arrived and the social worker explained that it had stopped because the boy was 18. The landlady rushed home to tell the boy--now a young man--that he should apply to social security for benefit. There was a delay, and she got so fed up waiting for the money that she evicted him. The next time she and the social worker met at the market, neither of them knew where he had got to. That is how things can go wrong.
The situation has improved in Staffordshire, but there are still problems. Under the Children Acts, local authorities can give help to people leaving care beyond the age of 18, but that is discretionary rather than mandatory, so they can wash their hands of young people at 18, either because they do not consider them important or because their funds are so stretched that they consider it better to spend the money elsewhere. More needs to be done nationally.
It is a good start if everyone collects information and makes plans on a common basis, and the Department of Health is trying to ensure that authorities collect the same information and plan in the same way. I am told that nine out of 10 English social services departments now follow the same planning processes and keep the same records. Part of those records consists of the individual care plan for each child under local authority care.
The best care plans should be co-produced with the young people themselves; involve other family members, if possible; try to take account of wider community ties; involve other agencies, such as housing and training providers; be positive about education and health outcomes, which are often overlooked; and, most important, plan for continuity of care, including the leaving of the looked-after system.
The conference at Stafford was very positive and told of collaboration between social services and housing associations to provide suitable housing and training opportunities for care leavers. Employment and careers representatives explained that they were willing to come out of their offices and visit the young people, rather than sitting back and waiting for them to come to the offices.
A good idea arose from the day, and I am taking it up with the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities: if the new deal could be extended to 16 and 17-year-old care leavers--a small number of people, and a marginal additional cost to the new deal--it would be a terrific boost for their support networks.
The conference was not a one-day wonder: the participants agreed to meet again to plan the co-ordination of their services and make them complementary, not fractured. New partnerships were formed before our eyes to maximise the support that can be given to young people. I am pursuing the idea of creating a Staffordshire forum where young people can meet and give their input to the planning of their future care.
Mr. Paul Tyler (North Cornwall):
The issue about which I want to speak is of national importance, but I am concerned with its parochial, or county, significance. In Cornwall, we have three core industries: agriculture, tourism and the extractive industries. I want to deal with them in reverse order.
Everyone in Cornwall is very sad at the loss of the last working tin mine in Europe. It has gone because of the artificial level of the pound. It has had insufficient investment in the past, but the crucial issue for the industry is the exchange rate.
The holiday industry is equally badly affected by the current exchange rate. I understand that the pound is now quite a bit lower than DM3, but recently it has been as high as DM3.1. Set against DM2.2 just a few years ago, that shows the extent to which the situation is causing difficulties. It is not only manufacturing industry that gets clobbered by the artificial valuation of the pound.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
The hon. Gentleman's argument is extremely important. How does he judge the level of the pound to be artificial? In a free market, do not foreign countries and those who purchase our currency place a value on it that is a function of the competitiveness of British industry and the strength of the British economy?
Mr. Tyler:
In that sense, the valuation put on any currency is always artificial; but stability is critical. If the sentiment is such that a currency continually goes up and down and causes huge problems to industry, the Government must deal with that artificiality. If the hon. Gentleman were to advance his argument over a longer period and in relation to some of our major industries, many in his party would disagree fundamentally.
Agriculture is perhaps the most obvious victim of the situation. Farm incomes suffered an appalling collapse in 1997. Most of the reasons for that collapse arose from the policies of the previous Government, but the cumulative effect is such that the present Government must take a long, hard look at what is happening. In 1997, there was a 47 per cent. drop in real incomes on our farms, according to the National Farmers Union. All authorities, inside and outside government, expect 1998 output prices to be well below 1997 prices.
Everyone acknowledges that the core issue is not BSE or the peripheral problems that may be addressed by tomorrow's debate: it is the strength of sterling. Despite a slight weakening in recent weeks, the pound has risen by 33 per cent. against the mark and by 30 per cent. against the franc since the beginning of 1996. The drop in farm incomes is having a huge cumulative effect on investment, not only in farming, but in supply. The prosperity of large swathes of rural Britain is threatened; that is symbolised by a 43 per cent. drop in new tractor purchases, following a 1997 figure already lower than that of 1996. No industry can afford that sort of haemorrhage over a long period. Most commodity prices have shown significant year-on-year falls. Milk prices have fallen from 22.5p a litre to 18.2p a litre, a problem that will not be speedily addressed.
The level of the pound is damaging in several areas. Agriculture is unusual, however, in that the Government have methods to hand to address some of the impact. The
green rate, which affects direct payments to farmers as well as impacting on market prices, can be devastating, as is recognised in the mechanisms available to the Governments of European Union member states, and which several states have used to address the problem.
A difficult situation has arisen because an already uneven playing field is being made even more uneven. Countries that suffer valuation problems similar to ours have taken measures to mitigate the resulting difficulties, but the United Kingdom Government have done comparatively little. Over the next few weeks, more difficulties will arise. The increase in the pound's value during the first half of the year was large enough to trigger a 2.7 per cent. green rate revaluation on 3 May. Unless the pound falls significantly before 1 July, area payments to arable farmers will fall sharply from last year's level, which was not in any case encouraging. For example, payments per hectare for cereal will drop by £15.50 in England.
There have been several recent revaluations of the green pound under EU legislation, so our Government are permitted to pay temporary and degressive compensation to farmers. All other member states that were in the same position have done so, at least up to the extent of their EU contribution. The UK Government have so far applied for only £85 million as part of the December livestock aid package. However, they could have applied over the past 18 months for virtually £1 billion.
Hon. Members who represent rural constituencies appreciate that it is not easy for the Government to obtain such large sums, which have implications for the Exchequer. However, the continuing refusal to add to the aid paid to beef and sheep farmers in December 1997 is causing hardship to tens of thousands of farmers and their families all over the country, and to many ancillary industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to farmers in that category in Somerset, and it is also true of Cornwall.
Even if aid were paid in full, it would go only some way towards addressing the substantial fall in farm incomes. Again, I stress that, by allowing the problem to continue, not only the Government, but their predecessors, have built up a huge backlog that will be difficult to deal with. Even if the full sums were made available, they would not completely offset the loss that the industry has suffered, although they might provide a softer landing.
Some of the sum can no longer be paid, because EU approval must be sought within a year of revaluation. If the previous Government had taken the initiatives open to them, we might be in a better position, but the present Government could obtain about £424 million--half from the EU, and half from their own resources.
The Government's decision not to join economic and monetary union from its inception on 1 January 1999 will mean a continuing need for agrimonetary arrangements. More importantly, the freeze on the green rates of the UK and other countries, as applied to direct payments, will cease from that date. Unless steps are taken to offset change, British farmers' receipts will reduce by a further £165 million in 1999, and by £235 million in 2000. In view of likely developments in market receipts and costs, that will be a further severe blow to rural Britain.
The beef sector faces specific problems after two desperately difficult years since the fateful announcement by the previous Government on bovine spongiform encephalopathy and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. There has been a welcome and sustained recovery in the home market, but beef farmers are suffering a double squeeze because of increased imports. Perhaps not all hon. Members appreciate that the strong pound is a major problem--not only does it affect how farmers obtain their income; it subsidises beef imports. Our inability to export makes that a double whammy. The strength of sterling has made the UK an attractive market for beef from other EU countries, just when our producers are handicapped by the additional costs of our having the safest beef in the world because we have the greatest safeguards.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |