| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Yvette Cooper: It is certainly true that the Bill's provisions are long overdue, and that young people leaving care have been left in a very vulnerable situation,
with no support, for far too long. As has been said, the Bill is not rocket science and could have been introduced long ago. It is well overdue.
Mr. Hammond: In view of the hon. Lady's provocative remarks, would she just remind the House of when Sir William Utting reported?
Mr. Dobson: Remind the House about when he was chief inspector of social services.
Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): Give way to our right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson).
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I think that the Minister should respond to the initial intervention.
Yvette Cooper: The concerns expressed by Sir William Utting, at the end of 1997, were clearly important in informing the Bill. However, it should not have required Sir William Utting to point out that care leavers were in a vulnerable situation. It should not have required Sir William Utting to point out that care leavers were far more likely to be unemployed, to become teenage parents, to leave school with no qualifications and to be in grave need of support. Young people leaving care have been denied the opportunities that they have a right to and which other young people have been given. This is about social justice. It does not require magic to work out that it is a serious problem that should be dealt with.
Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend accept that the issues of leaving care that we have discussed today--such as the inadequacy of preparation for young people before they leave care and the lack of support available to them after they leave care--were raised with me by young people in 1988?
Yvette Cooper: I am sure that those issues were raised with my hon. Friend in 1988, and that they have long been raised with hon. Members. It is about time that we addressed them.
Hon. Members have discussed the need to introduce provisions for 18 to 21-year-olds as soon as possible. I assure the House that that is our intention. However, we shall not place duties on local authorities that we cannot resource. That is why we have indicated our commitment to provide extra resources through quality protects. For future years, we will depend on decisions made in the spending review, as hon. Members mentioned earlier.
Several questions were raised about the possibility that Scotland could become a magnet or a honeypot if it retained its benefits system provision.
Mr. Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that most young people leaving care lack the confidence to travel much? People who travel the world have a firm background and a lot of confidence and support. The idea that young people will travel from Meriden to Musselbrugh to seek extra benefits is for the birds.
Yvette Cooper: It is true that claiming that young people will travel some distance in pursuit of benefits
assumes that they have the confidence to travel and a sophisticated knowledge of the benefits system. In practice, many of them find it complicated and baffling.I shall clarify the situation in Scotland. Until clause 6 is implemented there, Scottish looked-after children who come to England will be supported through the benefits system. England will not be a magnet for Scottish young people, but neither is Scotland likely to be regarded as a magnet for English looked-after children. To state otherwise assumes that the present benefits system in some sense gives beneficial and preferential treatment to looked-after children. I do not believe that.
The new arrangements will provide better and more easily accessible support, including financial support and cash, than the present benefits system provides. That is why the proposals were so warmly endorsed throughout the consultation period.
My hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) referred to advocacy. My hon. Friend the Minister of State has already mentioned that we issued a consultation paper recently on the complaints procedure stemming from the Children Act 1989, which covers advocacy issues. We will certainly use the powers in this Bill to ensure that care leavers have advocates to speak on their behalf.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North referred to the need for real educational support going beyond a pathway plan and providing real opportunities. I agree: that is why the Bill introduces duties to provide general assistance and to assist with education and training that goes beyond the age of 21.
That is what proposed new section 23C of the Children Act 1989, in clause 2, is all about, and it deals with one of the most important matters of all. We know that children who are looked after tend to have very poor educational records. It is especially important that pathway plans are not confined to immediate material and emotional needs, but that they also look to the longer-term opportunities that teenagers leaving care have been denied for far too long.
The Bill is about giving care leavers a second or even a third chance to return to education and to the activities denied to them in childhood, but not denied to other children and teenagers. It is about providing a strong framework to encourage young people to go back into education and catch up on qualifications so that they have the educational foundation that will serve them throughout their lives.
Examples of best practice exist around the country already. The hon. Member for Southend, West referred to some. I can tell him that I have visited the signpost project
in Wakefield, which supports teenagers and care leavers from my constituency. The work done there, by the local council and Barnardos in partnership, is very impressive, not least because young people there say that the support that they receive, and the advice on housing, jobs and training, is essential.More importantly, however, they have somewhere to go back to, where there is someone they can talk to, and keep talking to. The most impressive thing of all is the way that the signpost project helps young people to develop ways to support each other. As a result, they are providing mentoring and friendship to other care leavers, teenage parents or other young people in need.
Similar examples exist throughout the country, but we must build on them. The Bill gives us the framework to do exactly that. It meshes with a range of initiatives across the board to tackle social exclusion, and to ensure that all our young people get the best chance in life, and the best help to take those chances.
The Bill is about providing opportunity for every young person, regardless of background or start in life. All young people deserve those opportunities--not just the few.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).
CHILDREN (LEAVING CARE) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
Queen's recommendation having been signified--
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52 (1) (a),
- That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children (Leaving Care) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums which are payable out of money so provided by virtue of any other Act.--[Mr. Allen.]
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Constitutional Law
- That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modifications of Schedule 4) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 25th May, be approved.--[Mr. Allen.]
Regional Policy
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.--[Mr. Allen.]
8.50 pm
Mr. Andrew George (St. Ives): I am delighted to have secured tonight's Adjournment debate on the Government's policy towards the regions and I am pleased to open the debate earlier than many of us had anticipated. When I was preparing for this debate, a number of hon. Members asked me to mention Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly. In view of their requests and by popular demand, I shall not disappoint hon. Members who may read the debate tomorrow, or may indeed be following it elsewhere.
My purpose tonight is to probe the Government's plans for the devolution of power to the regions, particularly in relation to Labour's manifesto commitments. There will be no surprises for the Minister because, in the spirit of constructive dialogue, I have done my best to ensure that she is aware of the issues that I intend to raise. Do the Government plan to establish regional assemblies and if so, what timetable will apply to them? How do any such proposals relate to discussions here and elsewhere about the appointment of city mayors? What plans do the Government have, if it is perceived that the establishment of regional assemblies would result in too many layers of Government, and which layers, if any, should be removed?
Will there be an opportunity to debate the Government's definition of the regions? I raised the issue in an Adjournment debate in April 1998 and I should like to pursue some of the questions that I raised then. What factors will be considered in such a debate? I intend to probe the Government's intentions, raise a few technical questions about objective 1 regions and encourage the Government to engage in an agenda that is all about the celebration of distinctiveness, and to welcome difference across this diverse land which is the United Kingdom.
A brief trip to Iceland last year with the Select Committee on Agriculture brought into sharp focus my growing concern about Cornwall's slide over the precipice into extinction. Icelandic people are proud and distinctive. Their pride and distinctiveness is the bedrock from which they can concentrate on their priorities and on success. Since achieving independence from Denmark in 1944, this relatively poor island has become one of the wealthiest nations on earth. It has a higher gross domestic product per person than not only the United Kingdom, but France, Germany and Japan. It has achieved low inflation and a high standard of living. It has one of the highest life expectancy levels in the world and enviable economic prospects for the future. Yet the population of Iceland is only 270,000--little more than half the population of Cornwall, which is about 500,000. Places such as Cornwall should learn lessons from this, but Cornwall seems to be drifting in the other direction.
I am not suggesting that Cornwall should declare independence--that would be absurd, unrealistic and patently unobtainable. However, Cornwall and Scilly might learn that, through being clear about our strengths, knowing what we want to achieve, standing up for ourselves and going out there determined to succeed, we might be taking destiny by the scruff of the neck instead of sleepwalking into oblivion with our cap in our hand.
As a Cornishman, I have always respected the noble art of self-deprecation. Some say that it is a chronic and untreatable condition, brought on by centuries of deference to the Saxons, since King Athelstan drew a line at the River Tamar between England and Cornwall in 936.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |