|

Annual Centrepoint Lecture

- check against delivery -

This thirty-fifth anniversary lecture provides an opportunity to congratulate, celebrate and reflect.

To congratulate Ken Leech - the vicar at St. Anne’s - and the volunteers from the Simon Community who identified at the end of the 1960’s the importance of providing a safe haven for those young people adrift on the streets of London with nowhere to go.

To celebrate the success of Centrepoint and the fact that literally thousands of young people have benefited from its work.

To reflect on the challenges we face as a society, the new demands and pressures that confront young people at the beginning of the 21st century.

Thirty-five years ago Harold Wilson’s Labour government was facing a general election that most commentators confidently predicted he would win.

Neil Armstrong became the first person to walk on the moon.

The Beatles performed for the last time in public.

Colour television was introduced by the B.B.C. and I.T.V.

It was a period that had seen the introduction of major changes in the law which tackled discrimination and prejudice and which sought to free people from the moral straightjacket that had existed in the United Kingdom since the end of the Second World War.

Against this backdrop Centrepoint was formed. At the end of the 1960’s there was a desperate need for such an organisation.

Swinging London had proven to be a magnet for young people from all over the country and indeed beyond the shores of the United Kingdom.

For many life was tough with the shop doorway or park bench being their bed for the night. They needed emergency help and none existed. So Centrepoint filled the gap.

Looking back over the thirty-five years whilst it is clear that as a country we have made major advances for many young people life is still difficult. The pressures may be different but the reasons that saw the setting up of Centrepoint are as relevant today as they were then.

Homelessness, poverty and deprivation still blight too many lives.

What I want to do this evening is to identify some practical objectives and to put them in the context of the present political picture.

Having a strong and stable economy provides a firm foundation on which we can build policies for the future.

Our economy has grown for the longest period since records began. Unemployment is at a thirty year low and employment is at an all time high.

This benefits individuals. In my own North Tyneside constituency unemployment is down sixty-two per cent since 1997. Youth unemployment down ninety per cent since the early 1990’s.

A strong economy also provides opportunities for policy-makers. A growing economy has given us the resources to invest in our public services. But there is much more that we still need to do in order to change our country for the better. In a way which allows all our people to benefit.

On the foundations of a strong economy we need to build two pillars which support and complement each other.

The first pillar is the reform and modernisation of our public services and public institutions. It is this area that has seen most debate, contention and conflict both within the Labour Party and outside over the last couple of years.

I am a strong supporter of the modernisation and reform programme but it is crucial that this is not the only area of fresh thinking and new policy proposals.

Alongside it there needs to be a second pillar – of social justice and opportunity for all. It is this part of the centre-left political agenda that we must now give greater attention to. Policies in this area have the potential to attract and motivate voters. They should be aimed at both Labour’s core traditional supporters and those who came over to Labour in the landslide election victories of 1997 and 2001.

Policies like the national minimum wage which have broad appeal. Not just to the one and a half million who benefited directly but the wider public who saw it as the right and fair thing to do.

Some will argue that there is no need to concentrate on delivering social justice and providing opportunities for all. They say that as wealth increases and our economy grows then surely all will benefit.

It is true to say that more people are now better off and this improvement continues. Positive steps have been taken to increase levels of income for the less well off and to take people out of poverty.

But while the overall picture is one of improvement there are still individuals, families and communities who are missing out.

Let us first take a few examples.

The last five years have seen a significant increase in house prices – not just in London and the south-east but throughout the whole country. While this might be seen as good news for those already on the housing ladder it is bad news for those who are not home owners who will find it increasingly difficult to get on even the first rung of the ladder.

In recent years the increase in home ownership has slowed down. In 1971 fifty- per cent of dwellings were in owner occupation; sixty per cent in 1984, sixty-six per cent in 1993 and seventy per cent in 2002 .

This means that some 7.7 million households are in the rented sector. As a result the value of the family home – which nowadays is a significant asset – is not there to be passed on to their children.

If there is no asset held in terms of the family home what about savings? Here again the figures show that around a third are missing out.

According to the Family Resource Survey for 2002/3 twenty-eight per cent of all households have no savings or personal pension provision at all. Forty-eight per cent of households have savings of less than £1,500 .

In our schools system where education should provide a path out of poverty too many are failing to take advantage of the opportunities available to them.

A report from the Chief Inspector of Schools David Bell found that around 10,000 fourteen to fifteen year olds were unaccounted for . This means that despite being legally required to attend school they simply didn't appear on any school register. As a result they are not getting the education, qualifications or skills they will need for adult life. This is nothing short of a national scandal. How can 10,000 teenagers simply go missing?

They are joined by a further 50,000 children who although registered at school truant everyday . In such circumstances it should come as little surprise that in 2003/4 4.1 per cent or more than 26,000 fifteen year olds at the end of statutory schooling failed to gain a single educational qualification . Or that the proportion of sixteen to eighteen year olds not in education, training or a job at the end of 2003 was nine per cent, or 177,000 young people .

The extent to which education failure blights an individual’s life chances is starkly demonstrated by the Youth Justice Board's general education audit of those juveniles going into custody which revealed that at least seventy one per cent had left school without any significant literacy or numeracy qualifications .

Poverty and deprivation also affect the health of an individual. In Manchester the death rate for people under sixty-five years of age is over three times higher than in Kingston and Richmond.

Life expectancy for males in social class V is 71.1 years compared to 78.5 years for a male from the professional social class. For women the gap is over 5.5 years.

Between 1998 and 2000 the infant mortality rate for children in social class V was double that in social class I.

The death rate from chronic heart disease is three times higher among unskilled manual men of working age than among professional men.

Babies born to poorer families are more likely to be born prematurely, are at greater risk of infant mortality and have a greater likelihood of poverty, impaired development and chronic disease later in life . This sets up an inter-generational cycle of health inequalities.

In terms of quality of life and taking advantage of opportunities, it is important to know how persistent low income is for a person and their family.

The British Household Panel Survey looked at this issue. It found that between 1998 and 2001 around one in ten individuals lived in households with below 60 per cent of median income for at least three years .

Lone parents were more at risk of persistent low income than other family types. Those in workless families were at the highest risk followed by those without qualifications and those living in rented housing.

The latest unemployment figures show that over twenty per cent of those out of work, or 286,000 individuals, are long term unemployed having claimed benefit for more than a year .

So a clear picture begins to emerge. One in which around a third of the population has no wealth in that they don't own their own home; don't have their own pension and have no savings.

Within this group there is a further sub-set of between five to ten per cent of the population who have no qualifications; face long periods of unemployment; will exist on persistently low incomes; and will suffer from poor health.

It is likely that they will live in neighbourhoods that are crime ridden and suffer from anti-social behaviour. They lack access to good value shops, have under-performing schools and poor transport links.

An environment in which disadvantage reinforces itself across generations. Where underachievement leads to a spiral of decline.

So what, if anything, should the government do?

There will be some who will say that there is no role for the government. That people should be able to look after themselves and their families and that if they cannot then they should expect the consequences that follow.

Some would say that this is not a political priority. There are precious few votes to be gained. The most disadvantaged five to ten per cent are unlikely to even register to vote never mind being engaged enough to make the effort to get along to the polling station to cast their vote.

This is a group that feels itself to be outside the world as most of us know it. They are detached from political activity, feel that society has done little or nothing for them and therefore they don't owe anything in return.

This Labour government should bother. We need to support people on the basis of their worth not due to an accident of birth. All should have the chance to bridge the gap between what they are and what they have it in themselves to become.

But there's also a selfish reason why action is needed which would benefit the majority. The group that we are talking about, in particular the five to ten per cent who are most disadvantaged are a burden on the health service, make demands on the benefit system, make little positive contribution to the economy, and from their ranks come those who are most likely to be involved in criminal activity and general anti-social behaviour.

If we accept that something needs to be done then we need to identify the extent of government intervention and the form it should take.

This evening I want to put forward two proposals. The first in relation to child poverty. The second is the need to identify at the earliest possible stage those children at risk of a lifetime of underachievement.

Child poverty has far reaching consequences. Such children are at increased risk of unemployment, low income if in work, welfare dependency and homelessness as an adult.

In 1997 over a third of children in the U.K. lived in poverty. The rate having more than doubled over the previous two decades.

In March 1999 the Prime Minister pledged not just to reduce but to eradicate child poverty within a generation.

The first goal on the path to achieve this was to reduce child poverty by a quarter by 2004/5. This will be done and as a result a million children will be lifted out of poverty.

The question now is what should the next step be?

In my view the second stage on the path to ending child poverty should be the establishment of a new goal – that by the end of the next full Parliament, 2010/11, an additional one million children will be taken out of poverty.

This is an ambitious and challenging target because the task gets more difficult as attention needs to be turned to those groups who are more deprived and as a consequence harder to reach.

In order to meet such a target there will need to be a unified approach across government. This will mean the adoption of a strategy to tackle child poverty. To date the government has resisted such an approach. I hope they will change course. Give a clear commitment to lifting a further million children out of poverty by 2011 and have a strategy to achieve it.

Tackling child poverty is one of those issues which commands support from most sections of the population and across the income range.

But there is a second issue that we need to address.

If we are to be successful in providing opportunities for all then we have to recognise that there are some children who because of their family background are at risk of a lifetime of underachievement, of poverty and dependency on others.

In these cases intervention has to be early, significant and supportive. It needs to start when the mother is pregnant so that a programme can be put in place which supports both the parent and the child. At a local level there needs to be a children’s centre in every community providing parenting groups, support for language development, health services and advice, as well as job training and skills development for the parent. This would lead to childcare and nursery provision.

The cost of such universal provision would be significant but let’s look at it alongside the cost of failure to intervene.

Let’s take the case of James who is now fifteen and coming to the end of his sixth month of being held in custody in a local authority secure children’s home.

Just after James started school his mother reported that she was finding it difficult to manage his behaviour at home.

As he progressed through primary school it became apparent that James had some significant difficulties with learning. He had speech difficulties and there was concern about his poor attendance and behaviour at school. He was said to be aware of his difficulties, as he avoided work and had very low self-confidence.

A statutory assessment of his educational needs was undertaken and at the age of eight James was provided with a place in a special school. Around the same time the school indicated their concern that James was being left at home alone until nine o’clock at night.

At the age of ten, James was involved with some other young people in an arson attack on a local high school. He then received a couple of cautions over the next year for handling stolen goods and for shoplifting.

By the age of thirteen James was rarely attending school. There were episodes of very challenging behaviour when he was in school that were resulting in fixed-term and informal exclusions.

The youth offending team became involved after an appearance in court relating to criminal damage. The school was now suggesting an alternative education package that involved some part-time attendance at school and attendance at two off-site units.

James took part in the planned education package for only a short time. He was involved in an assault on a girl and was no longer taking part in education. He was arrested for theft of a bike and then further involved in criminal activity (taking a car).

At this time comments were being made by the school and the youth offending team that James was ‘out of control’ and that his mother was not living in the family home.

James was interviewed and assessed by the duty social worker.

James was by now fourteen and had not appeared at all at school since the previous autumn half term. James was again involved in criminal activity and breached his court orders. He was given a custodial sentence and was sent to a secure unit. He made good academic progress while in custody.

James returned to the community after six months in custody. He was offered home tuition by the education department instead of placement in a special school, but would not accept it.

Six months later James was in further breach of his supervision order. He received a second custodial sentence which he is presently serving.

This is a sad saga for James but it has been at a huge cost – to those who have been the victims of James’s crimes and a financial cost to the taxpayer. Based on information from the Audit Commission; National Audit Office and replies to Parliamentary Questions I estimate that the costs of action in relation to James amounts in his case alone to £236,019. This ranges from £350 for a social services family assessment ; £13,068 for youth offending team involvement with court orders to £92,625 as the average cost of a six month custodial sentence in a local authority secure children’s home .

Rather than this costly way of picking up the pieces of failure surely it is better to finance effective intervention at an early stage to make sure breakages do not occur in the first place. Intervention brings us back to the role of Centrepoint.

Traditionally perceived as a London-centred organisation with its work concentrating on youth homelessness.

Today thirty-five years on Centrepoint has grown and developed. No longer solely concerned with the problems of London – although these are clearly important and pressing – but reaching out to other parts of the country. As a Member of Parliament representing a north-east constituency I know the excellent work that Centrepoint is engaged in in County Durham.

Looking at the work of Centrepoint it has evolved in a way which reflects its direct experience of working with young people.

Moving forward not in a naïve or idealistic way but one that recognises that whilst individuals can be difficult and challenging all of us have potential.

Centrepoint identifies that potential by looking at the person as just that – a person. Not just someone with an emergency need but as someone who will probably need support and assistance across a whole range of concerns and activities – income, health, employment, skills development, not just housing.

Centrepoint can act as a broker and facilitator with the relevant authorities. To act as mentor and provide a helping hand.

In my view it also has a crucial role to play in raising public awareness and understanding about the needs and aspirations of young people.

There has been much comment and discussion recently about the needs of parents, babies and young children – rightly, but it is important that we do not lose sight of the fresh and new opportunities that we should be extending to young adults.

Centrepoint with its practical experience is in a pivotal position to work in partnership with central and local government; other agencies and organisations to identify and deliver this new agenda.

We need to be bold and ambitious. The Sure Start programme has dramatically changed the way we look at and deal with parents and their children.

We need a young person’s equivalent – a Strong Foundations programme which young people themselves will have ownership of. Development of such an initiative will take time. To be a success it must not be dictated by Whitehall but must come from young people themselves actively supported by organisations like Centrepoint.

As I said at the start, this is an opportunity to congratulate, celebrate and reflect.

It is also the time to rededicate ourselves to helping those people in our society who need our support and backing the most.

There remains a crucial role for Centrepoint to play and I wish it every continued success over the next thirty-five years.

---

i ODPM housing statistics

ii Family Resources Survey 2002/03

iii Key Stage 4: Towards a flexible curriculum, June 2003, OFSTED

iv Improving school attendance in England, February 2005, National Audit Office

v DfES statistics

vi Participation in education, training and employment by 16-18 year olds in England: 2002 and 2003, statistical release, June 2004, DfES

vii Youth Justice Board education audit, November 2001

viii Cross-Cutting Review: Tackling Health Inequalities, 2002, HM Treasury

ix Households Below Average Income 1994/95 - 2002/03, 2004, Office of National Statistics

x Labour Market Statistics, January 2005, Office of National Statistics

xi Youth Justice Report 2004, Audit Commission

xii Youth Justice Report 2004, Audit Commission

xiii Answer to written Parliamentary Question 213177, Hansard, 1 February 2005