House of Commons Hansard Debates for 17 Oct 1991

Column 518

The Opposition must pay great attention to that because after the next general election we shall inherit those problems. We look forward to working with the Public Accounts Committee to prevent some some of them.

9.14 pm

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude) : I was about to chide the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) for having introduced an unwelcome note of acrimony into this otherwise congenial and splendid debate, but, as he said, he managed to unite the House towards the end of his speech by spotlighting the double standards of the Liberal Democrats. They affect to be greatly concerned about these matters until it comes to turning up on a Thursday evening and exercising the important and proper House of Commons function of scrutinising Government expenditure. Their usual slot on the green Benches has remained vacant. The hon. Gentleman does the House and the country a service by drawing attention to this appalling lapse.

This is the second occasion on which I have had the pleasure of speaking in such a debate. It is idle to pretend that these debates generate either the interest or the electricity of other debates such as that which we shall enjoy on Monday. None the less, the holding to account by the Public Accounts Committee of the way in which public money is spent is an important part of the parliamentary calendar. I join all those who have spoken in paying tribute to the work of the Committee and in particular its Chairman, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon). As others have said, he gives an enormous amount of energy and application to this exceedingly important task. I also pay tribute to the Comptroller and Auditor General and his staff at the National Audit Office, whose work is invaluable and essential.

I am sorry that I was not here to listen to the remarks of the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Garrett), but they have been reported to me in full. He spoke about the relationship between the Treasury and comptroller. We recognise the importance of the independent audit and fully support the independent status of the comptroller, which was set out in the National Audit Act 1983. It is important to stress that the staff of the NAO are not civil servants. The question whether the comptroller should be a member of the Board of Management of the House is for the House to decide, not the Government. Specific reference is made to the NAO staff in the Official Secrets Act 1989 simply because they are not civil servants. I gather that that issue was debated at length in the House during the passage of that Bill. I was upset to hear that the hon. Gentleman was hostile to the idea of me and my successors being members of the Public Accounts Committee. This may not be a matter of fundamental importance, but the Financial Secretary's traditional and historic membership of the Public Accounts Committee is at least of symbolic importance. It reflects the close relationship of the necessary link between the Treasury and the PAC which goes back to the mid-19th century. It symbolises the fact that the PAC and the Treasury are, for these purposes, natural allies and they should be, as they are, operating on the same side, rooting out bad practice and scrutinising the way in which public money is disbursed.

Column 519

The hon. Gentleman animadverted on the participation of the comptroller in discussions on the citizens charter. That is unfair. A number of distinguished, independent and serious people took part in such discussions and the charter is essentially about delivering more for taxpayers' money. It is about the process of converting taxpayers' money into good service for citizens. The roles of independent audit--the National Audit Office and the comptroller--of the Audit Commission and of an independent inspectorate are all important. It was vital, as we formulated the policies that make up the charter, to have the benefit of advice from the comptroller, among many others.

Mr. John Garrett : First, the Minister will be aware that the Procedure Committee recommended that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury should not be a member of the Committee of Public Accounts. Surely there is a direct conflict of interest if a Treasury Minister, whose responsibilities could be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General, should be a member of the Committee to which the comptroller reports.

The Minister must be aware of the direct conflict between the comptroller advising on the contents of the citizens charter and then having to examine expenditure as a result of the charter before giving an opinion on whether that expenditure was accounted for properly. Surely the comptroller cannot help to construct policy and at the same time audit the consequences of that policy.

Mr. Maude : I hate to argue with the hon. Gentleman, but he is wrong about what took place. The comptroller was not involved in the formulation of policy. Policy is formulated by Ministers. An important element of the citizens charter is monitoring the performance of public services against the standards that are set. As we were looking to make that process effective and independent, it would have been odd if we had not taken advice from those involved in the process of audit, both in the Audit Commission and the comptroller's office, and from those who have experience in the schools and social services inspectorates, for example, to ascertain how the process could be strengthened. The hon. Gentleman would legitimately have been able to criticise us for being remiss if we had not taken that course, and I make no apology for its having been taken. I am sure that we proceeded in the right way.

Mr. Terry Davis : Surely there is a difference between the inspectorates to which the Minister referred, which are responsible to the Government of the day, and an Officer of the House.

Mr. Maude : It is clear that the matter is exercising Opposition Members. It seems to be one of such little importance that I propose not to pursue it any further. I have answered hon. Members' questions to my complete satisfaction and I propose that that admirable point rests my case.

Some of my hon. Friends who spoke earlier in the debate have asked me to explain to the House that they are unable to be present at this stage. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), who is in his place, referred to the retail prices index and asked what progress was being made on the treatment of owner-occupied

Column 520

housing. Various options are being explored, but it is right to say that the treatment of owner-occupied housing raises conceptual and practical difficulties.

The right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) talked about beer duty. The Treasury has recognised for some time the need to change the system. It has now completed discussions with brewers and packagers of beer. The broad legislative framework that is necessary for the future has been established in the Finance Act 1991. Completion of the policy and administrative framework that is required is on target and implementation is planned for 1993. We reject the main criticism of the Committee of Public Accounts about the way in which the sale of Herstmonceaux castle was conducted. We believe that the price obtained was a good one and was the best available at the time. The Science and Engineering Research Council had good reasons for doubting the financial soundness of the two putative higher offers that were received after the deadline for best and final offers. It is worth saying that the present owner attempted to resell at a higher price and has failed to do so. That lends some support to the Government's view.

Mr. Nicholas Brown : Perhaps the Minister will tell us what was wrong with the two higher bids.

Mr. Maude : Those bidders did not meet the standards required for financial references. We do not accept a bid simply on the raw numbers. When there is a serious sale, the Government rightly need to be assured that the bid comes from a financially sound source, and such concern is proper. I am satisfied that the Government behaved properly.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : How can the Minister possibly say that about Mr. Nesser? Has he read the report and the appendices to it which were based on correspondence between Mr. Nesser and the Committee? Is it not clear that no effort was made to establish whether Mr. Nesser was worth what he said he was worth? He insists that he could have purchased the castle.

Mr. Maude : That may be so, but the bids were late. The Treasury has carefully examined the matter and its conclusions are set out in the Treasury minute. The fact remains that the sale was made to the highest bidder who could provide the necessary financial references to support the bid. The Government do not accept the Committee's criticisms.

Mr. Terry Davis : Is the Minister, on behalf of the Government, saying that he rejects the opinion of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and the concurrence of the chief valuer, that the district valuer should have been told about the offer of £14 million and the reasons why it was not being pursued?

Mr. Maude : I can add no more to what I have already said, which is that the Government, having carefully examined the matter, are satisfied that the highest bid was accepted from someone able to provide the necessary financial references.

The hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) raised the issue of the Department of Energy building. The Department accepts that a full investment appraisal of all options should be undertaken, but obviously a number of the Department's functions are

Column 521

closely linked with Ministers and with Parliament, so proximity is an important factor governing future reviews. The Department's current review of its accommodation requirements is being carried out on that basis and the Committee will be informed of the outcome. Being untied from PSAS and improved guidance on responsibilities will give Departments greater control over their accommodation requirements.

The 1987 efficiency scrutiny has improved the PSAS management of projects, with project managers now agreeing roles and

responsibilities with clients at the outset of each project.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : I must press the Minister on this matter. Can we have an assurance that if the Department moves to a single building, it will apply the latest and best available energy efficiency technology? Is it prepared to consider solar technology for heating the building? Will it examine the question of payback periods? Will it consider to what extent investing in energy efficiency would save the Department money? Would it be prepared to invest, in the knowlege that other areas of the public sector might follow suit? This is an extremely important matter and Ministers should not laugh it off.

Mr. Maude : I am not laughing it off. The Department, by its very nature, spends a great deal of time considering solar energy and other such matters. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he seeks, but I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is made fully aware of what he said. If the hon. Gentleman pursues the matter with my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he will receive an answer and I hope that it will be one that satisfies him.

As regards the 36th report on universities, the Treasury minute set out the Government's response and made it clear that action has been taken by the UFC to reinforce its arrangements for the financial monitoring of universities. It has reinforced professional staff, reorganised internal structures and provided more effective links with institutions. University accounts now conform to a statement of recommended practice, the UFC has issued a code on internal and external audit, and agreed financial memoranda are now in place between the Department of Education and Science and the UFC, as well as between the UFC and the institutions.

A number of questions were raised about the ninth report on the sale of the National Bus Company, especially matters relating to property, and it is important to deal with those. All the NBC's 1,500 properties were valued for existing and for alternative use and non-operational property was removed before the sale of companies and sold on the open market. Where property had a high alternative use value, either a mortgage charge was placed on the property, or prices for the company were negotiated upwards to reflect development value.

The Department of Transport and NBC received separate advice from professional property advisers throughout the sales process. It seems to me that the exercise was entered into on a proper basis and had very good results for the taxpayer and for the country because deregulation has been a substantial success.

Mr. Paul Boateng (Brent, South) : What about the 13 per cent. cut in passengers?

Column 522

Mr. Maude : Bus mileage has increased by 19 per cent. since 1985-86 with 83 per cent. of that run commercially, free from any subsidy. There are more operators and there is more competition and innovation in the form of minibuses, which provide more frequent services. More importantly, bus operator costs have decreased, as has local authority revenue support for buses.

Mr. Boateng : What about passengers?

Mr. Maude : Is it not important for bus operating costs to decrease? That means a better value service for passengers. Frankly, I am surprised that the new-look Labour party does not warmly support that approach and especially that result.

One report that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee mentioned was the 11th report on the 1989 statement on major defence projects--

Mr. Campbell-Savours : The Minister said that the NBC property sales were dealt with properly. Can he justify what is revealed in appendix 1 of the report, where it states that the Keswick station, shop and offices were valued at an existing use value of £50,000 and at alternative use value of £55,000, yet a short time later they were sold for nearly £700,000 and were later valued at £1 million? How can the Minister possibly justify that and say that the matter was properly dealt with? It is clear from those figures that the taxpayer was ripped off. Why does not he admit it to the House of Commons? Everyone in my county accepts it--even Conservatives in my constituency are disgusted by it. Why does the Minister simply ignore the facts?

Mr. Maude : I said that the Department and the NBC provided themselves with independent valuations on both existing and alternative use value. That is the correct approach. There is not a great deal more that any vendor of property or of a going concern can do other than to provide himself with good independent advice on valuations, and that is what was done in those circumstances. Mr. Campbell-Savours : Let me put it another way. Would the Minister allow his home to be sold at 10 per cent. of its value and then sit back and watch someone else make a 90 per cent. profit? Is he prepared to treat his own assets in any way differently from those of the general public?

Mr. Maude : If I were to sell a property I would obtain a valuation on it. That is exactly what the Government and the NBC did and that was the right thing to do.

Mr. Nicholas Brown : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Maude : No, I shall not give way. That is what was done in the circumstances.

Mr. Brown : I was only trying to help.

Mr. Maude : I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has nothing but help in mind, but I feel perfectly comfortable, and I am not in need of help from him.

The right thing to do was to secure independent advice and that is what was done and it was acted upon.

The 11th report deals with the 1989 statement on major defence projects. In response to specific recommendations which the Committee made in its report of the previous

Column 523

year, a number of changes have been made to improve the statement. The Committee welcomed the acceptance of those further

recommendations and the most recent statement has taken them up. In particular, projects will now remain in the statement until their in- service date has been met and until less than 15 per cent. of total estimated costs remain to be paid.

We welcome the broad endorsement given by the Committee to the Ministry of Defence's commercial approach to the procurement of equipment for the armed forces. The use of competition backed by good contracting practice using firm or fixed prices and milestone payments tied to technical achievements is intended to provide the best value for money for the Ministry of Defence, the Government and the taxpayer, and I believe that it is doing so.

A number of hon. Members have talked about the 18th report, on the British library building. It is worth making the point that this is a large project. The Government are investing £450 million in the new building. It is the largest civil public building project this century. It will meet the British library's key requirement. It will concentrate most of the British library's reference collections at one location in a controlled and pollution-free environment for the first time and it will unite its major services in a single purpose-built building providing greatly improved facilities for readers and staff making use of modern technology.

Mr. Nicholas Brown : Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Maude : Let me finish the sentence. It is important that the new building should meet those objectives and I believe that it is doing so. I will deal in a moment with the specific point that has been made which may pre-empt the point that the hon. Gentleman is full of.

The Dainton committee recommended the outhousing of low-use stock and most of the vulnerable material will be stored in the new building. The British library cannot meet the high standards economically of off-site storage, but it will seek to minimise the risk of deterioration by avoiding extremes of temperature and monitoring humidity.

The new building will provide a modest increase in the number of reader seats--70 extra seats. Trends in demand have changed since the original design was drawn up in the mid-1970s and it now thought unrealistic to provide the 3,500 seats that were proposed. Automation means greater flexibility and greater density of use and it will mitigate the effects of any increased demand. The phased handover date is expected to be achieved, and many of the difficulties encountered have been dealt with.

In its 19th report on the privatisation of new town bodies, the Committee criticised the Department of the Environment for failing to issue guidance to the development corporations, but that has been remedied. It would have been difficult to do so in the early stages of the exercise as there was no body of experience on which to build. The Government's response to criticisms was to remedy matters for the future, which was the right response to make to legitimate criticisms.

Mr. John Garrett : At the start of his remarks, the Minister said that it was right and proper, and even

Column 524

symbolic, for him to serve as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which prides itself on its unanimity. However, since then the Minister has done nothing but rubbish the Committee's findings or twist, wriggle, and try to dodge the PAC's perfectly legitimate, well-founded, and well-researched observations. Should not the Minister save himself and the rest of us further excruciating pain by voluntarily resigning from the PAC? If there is some symbolic virtue in his being a member of it, will he explain what it is?

Mr. Maude : The Government respond to each of the Committee's reports, and in the majority of cases accept the points that it makes and act on them quickly. It is right that that should happen. However, if the Government have a legitimate answer to a particular criticism, it is not unreasonable for them to give it through a Treasury minute or during a debate in the House. I certainly will not accept lessons in humility from the hon. Member for Norwich, South.

As to the 22nd report, on homelessness, the number of unoccupied Government -owned properties has reduced substantially since the time of the report's publication. It is possible that the estimate given to the PAC was too high in the first place. The current best estimate is that unoccupied Government properties total 27,000, which is an improvement. However, I frankly acknowledge that there is a good deal more to be done.

Much of that property is of a kind that is not in great demand. I refer, for example, to prison officers' homes, Ministry of Defence barracks, and health authority staff accommodation. Some empty property is located in places where there are unlikely to be homeless people seeking accommodation. None the less, we acknowledge that the percentage should be reduced and we are taking energetic steps to deal with that situation.

As to the 31st report on the dock labour compensation scheme, the benefits of the Dock Work Act 1989 have proved substantial, bringing huge advantages to ports. The 50 per cent. reduction in the number of dock workers has meant that there is new flexibility, with productivity increasing by as much as 50 per cent. to 100 per cent. in certain places. It has amounted to a rejuvenation of the ports and has brought great economic benefit to the country. As I said to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East, I regard the cost to the taxpayer as extremely good value for money.

Mr. Boateng : A price worth paying?

Mr. Maude : Yes, indeed. To coin a phrase, a price well worth paying. It was made clear that the estimate of £25 million was a loose estimate because it was difficult to predict with great accuracy how many people would take up the scheme. The results have represented extremely good value for the country.

Mr. Campbell-Savours : May I put a suggestion to the Minister? My hon. Friends have ribbed him tonight about his membership of the Public Accounts Committee. I wonder whether he could start attending. If he were to attend, perhaps he could develop a style of asking the witnesses helpful questions. It might help us in the production of our reports.

Column 525

Mr. Maude : The Financial Secretary traditionally attends the Public Accounts Committee. I am bound to say that when I attended I did not see the hon. Gentleman there. Undoubtedly, he was there on every other occasion.

This is an important debate. I am only sorry that on what is normally a bipartisan occasion, when the House of Commons joins together to conduct one of its most important functions, Opposition Members have chosen to approach the debate in a thoroughly partisan, nit-picking, pettifogging way. But there it is. They are clearly no longer interested in pursuing these matters in the spirit in which they have traditionally been pursued. That is their loss, the House's loss and the country's loss.

Mr. Nicholas Brown rose --

Mr. Maude : I have finished ; I am not giving way.

Mr. Brown : The Financial Secretary is probably inexperienced in these matters. This is the fifth year that I have responded for the Opposition to these debates. I look forward to responding to the debate from the Minister's side of the Chamber. In each of my responses for the official Opposition I have joined the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee and its all-party membership in drawing to the attention of the House matters which that Committee unanimously decided to put in front of the House. There is no breach of unanimity between the official parliamentary Opposition, the Chairman of the PAC and the membership of the Committee. The only partisan and discordant note has been that struck by the Financial Secretary.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the 33rd to 42nd Reports of the Committee of Public Accounts of Session 1989-90, of the 1st to 35th Reports of Session 1990-91, and of the Treasury Minutes and Northern Ireland Department of Finance and Personnel Memoranda on those Reports (Cm. 1323, 1405, 1462, 1479, 1542, 1582, 1617, 1679, 1685 and 1686) with particular reference to the following Reports : Session 1989-90

Thirty-sixth, Restructuring and finances of universities ; Session 1990-91

Ninth, Sale of the National Bus Company ;

Eleventh, The 1989 Statement on Major Defence Projects ; Eighteenth, A new building for the British Library ;

Nineteenth, Privatisation of work in New Town bodies in England ; Twenty- second, Homelessness ;

Thirty-first, Dock Labour compensation scheme.

SEVERN BRIDGES BILL

Mr. Speaker : Severn Bridges Bill.

Mr. Nicholas Baker (Dorset, North) : Not moved.

Column 526

Youth Service (Inner London)

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

Column 527

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

Column 528

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.

Next Section

Home Page