Читать книгу Changing London - David Robinson - Страница 9

2. A Great Place to Grow Up

‘If we can lead in finance (or law or fashion or Olympic Games) it is neither illogical nor grandiose to demand of our mayor that this great world city leads the globe in nurturing our young. It would require vaunting, breath-taking, ridicule-risking ambition.’ So said south London teacher and community organiser Jamie Audsley, in one of the first contributions to Changing London.

Dozens of contributors shared Jamie’s passion. They included children and young people, who mourned the paucity of sweetshops and the cost of games consoles but were forceful in demanding decent schools, better transport and housing, more to do, reduced inequality and more opportunity; in this their views differed little from those of our adult contributors.

London can be a wonderful place to grow up. Some can take advantage of the opportunities to learn, to play, to experience culture from all around the world, living in safe communities with supportive neighbours, good services, and a loving family. Yet low pay and high costs consign a third of children to living in poverty.23 Densely packed, often-poor-quality housing damages health. Cars dominate public space, leaving little room to play. Insecurity and transience stop neighbours getting to know each other. Violence and fear blights the lives of a minority. We are a young city – a quarter of us are aged under nineteen – yet we don’t want to grow up here: a poll asked Londoners where they would rather spend their childhood if given the chance again, and most opted for elsewhere.24 Asked if London was a good place to bring up children, only 39 per cent of people in the poorest areas said yes, compared with 81 per cent in the richest.21

The former mayor of Bogotá Enrique Peñalosa said:25

We know a lot about the ideal environment for a happy whale or a happy mountain gorilla. We’re far less clear about what constitutes an ideal environment for a happy human being… If we can build a successful city for children, we will have a successful city for all people.

He is right. Our infrastructure, services and systems are not designed with the happiness of children and young people in mind. They leave many desperately struggling to thrive, and it is to them that a civilised society must turn first. It also traps many in a childhood that is good but not the best it could be, and even the luckiest children would see their lives improved if the streets and communities around them were thriving too.

The Rights of Every London Child

When they are growing up we expect a lot of our children and young people. In return they should expect more from us. In her contribution, Ellie Robinson suggested a set of expectations each child and young person could demand of their mayor and their city: the rights of a London child, spelt out because many are denied them at present. Based on the contributions to Changing London we propose six.

1 For every child: a fun, friendly community.

2 For every child: experience of all London has to offer.

3 For every child: the extra help, whatever it takes.

4 For every child: the first steps into a good career.

5 For every child’s family: a decent income and a good home.

6 For every child: the right to be heard.

There will be many other ideas and more to add but we will know we have succeeded when the next generation are able to say: ‘These are the birthrights of a London child; the best place on earth to grow up.’

(1) For Every Child: A Fun, Friendly Community

Ten Thousand Play Streets – and a Presumption of Consent

In 1972 a group of children living in central Amsterdam decided to reclaim their street from cars. With a calm, playful resolve they set up barriers at either end, organised petitions, took on irate car drivers and world-weary adults. ‘Impossible! You cannot ever close a street! Out of the question!’ said one. He was wrong. Local leaders took notice, they began rerouting traffic away from residential neighbourhoods, and introduced a 30 km/hour speed limit. Eventually the young campaigners won the right to a permanent play street, which still exists today.26

‘Playing out’ was a fond childhood memory for several of our contributors, but it barely features in the lives of today’s children. ‘For us it was fresh air, friends, games. For our parents it was a community, an excuse to chat, a sense of shared responsibility,’ said Sally Rogers. Christian Wolmar recalls ‘inter-war pictures where residential roads, with barely a car in view, were the site of a multitude of activities, ranging from women gossiping and cleaning the pavement, to children playing cricket or football on the cobbles.’

A bucolic vision perhaps, a victim of modernity. Not necessarily. In the 1930s children played on every street but cars were already taking over: the Street Playground Act of 1938 was introduced after thousands of children were killed in road accidents. It allowed local authorities to close residential streets between 8.00 a.m. and sunset. At their peak there were 750 around the country but by the 1980s most had disappeared. Until 2011, that is, when a group of parents in Bristol decided to use legislation intended for street parties to close their road for the day. Their play street was such a success that they set up Playing Out to support other parents in their efforts, and there are now hundreds around the UK, including many in London, after a campaign led by London Play and local residents’ groups.27 Once a week, or once a month, the street is closed to through traffic, with a few volunteers ensuring that residents can drive safely in and out.

At first glance play streets don’t seem to deal with the tough stuff that should surely concern a mayoral hopeful: crime, transport, housing, health. A nice-to-have, perhaps, but a priority?

Yes. We think, a priority.

Public space in which to meet and play is the lifeblood of a thriving community, particularly for our children. Parks and playgrounds are vital but, astonishingly, roads make up 80 per cent of our public space in London.28 We have surrendered them almost entirely to the car. Some are major trunk roads where cars undoubtedly belong but most are the local, residential streets along which neighbours used to meet and children used to play.

This affects our environment and our safety but also our community life. Pioneering studies as far back as the 1960s have shown that roads with more cars have fewer community activities.29 Busy streets mean fewer chats over the front wall, fewer impromptu gatherings in the road, and fewer children playing out and drawing adults in. It is no coincidence that cul-de-sacs sustain the highest levels of social cohesion.30

These community relations themselves might seem inconsequential but – as the next chapter explores – the strength of our ties to friends and neighbours is vital to our health and happiness, our graduation rates, our chances of being a victim of crime and even our IQ.31 Close-knit, supportive communities are core to the ‘tough’ challenges mayors grapple with.

Play streets bring another health benefit too. When originally introduced in the 1930s they were intended to prevent children dying in traffic accidents. Today we have evolved different responses to the same problem – the TV screen and the computer console – which have themselves caused a different kind of health crisis. Some have linked rising obesity levels to the decline in spaces to play.

Play streets are not difficult to implement: a barrier at either end of the road, a few volunteers to keep things in order, perhaps a few games to play with, and the children will do the rest. Legally very little stands in the way – as the trailblazers in Bristol, Hackney and elsewhere have shown – although there are legislative changes the mayor could make that would ease the process. Richard McKeever suggested a ‘presumption of consent’ whereby local authorities would have to justify to parents why a street could not be closed once a week or once a month if there was local enthusiasm for it to become a play street.

We suggest that 1000 new play streets could emerge in London within the first year of a new mayoralty. At around thirty per borough, it is not unachievable: Hackney has nearly twenty already. Within a four-year mayoral term sights should be set even higher: Angus Hewlett suggested a minimum of 10,000 – about five per primary school and enough that most children would have a chance to take part. Sally Rogers suggested every borough could have a Play Street Activator, driving the adoption of play streets within their local authority.

Using the voice and visibility of the mayor to engage local councils and encourage willing volunteers, the campaign would draw heavily on the knowledge and enthusiasm of groups like Playing Out and London Play, who are pioneering the resurgence.32 The barriers are not financial or legislative but cultural and practical – exactly the kind that a bold, visionary mayor can take on and tear down.

Redesign Public Space around Children

Play streets redesignate existing space but there is also scope to redesign it from scratch, particularly in new developments. Rotterdam’s pursuit of its status as a child-friendly city required new or redesigned neighbourhoods to meet four criteria.33

(1) Child-friendly housing: specifications including a room for each child, a minimum amount of floor space, communal play areas and safe access.

(2) Public space: a set of development requirements that include, charmingly, ‘a pavement suitable for playing, 3.5 metres wide on at least one side of the street, preferably on the sunny side’ and ‘trees with seasonal variation’.

(3) Child-friendly facilities: including at least one ‘extended school’ per district, which provides services and activities for the whole community.

(4) Safe traffic routes: with a child-friendly network of streets in every neighbourhood.

Because local government in Rotterdam is highly localised, the city government offered each district a ‘scan’ of their neighbourhood, assessing compliance with the four criteria and suggesting changes that could be made, on the understanding that the district would endeavour to implement some of the ideas. Many did. The programme cost €15 million in total and ended in 2011, but its legacy lives on in actions that districts are still taking to make their areas more child friendly.

London’s mayor could use his or her planning influence to encourage and support the adoption of similar standards across the city. Progress might be incremental and it would take many years for the impact to be felt in every neighbourhood but, if adopted now, it would shape the city in favour of children for decades to come.

Ban Advertising Near Schools and Playgrounds

In 2006 the mayor of São Paulo banned all outdoor advertising. Fifteen thousand billboards were taken down, store signs were shrunk, ads were taken off buses and leafleting was forbidden. Nearly $8 million in fines helped enforce the ban. When first proposed it was met with incredulity but eight years later it is still in place, and São Paulo is not alone – Auckland, Chennai, Vermont, Maine, Hawaii and Alaska all have restrictions or bans. Paris reduced its advertising by 30 per cent and prohibited it entirely within fifty metres of a school gate.34 Grenoble has recently decided not to renew its contracts for advertising displays around the city.35

Advertising is so ubiquitous in London that it can be hard to imagine the city without it. More importantly, why would we? São Paulo billed their ban as an effort to clean up a cluttered and messy cityscape and London would benefit from this too, but there is a more important reason.

As Neal Lawson has written, ‘Adverts are not there to inform but to sell one thing: unhappiness. They work because they make us dissatisfied with what we’ve got or what we look like. They make us want the next new thing, until of course the next new thing comes along.’

Their impact on children is widely acknowledged, with restrictions in place on advertising manifestly unhealthy products like alcohol and tobacco. But even adverts for seemingly harmless products exert the pernicious effect that Neal described. By marking out those who can and cannot afford the latest trainers, advertising turns inequalities of income and wealth into stark markers of social status.

Whatever we think of this in adults it is surely unjust that children are judged by other children according to what their parents can afford. Even a small step to lessen the influence of our acquisitive culture on London’s children would bind us together from a young age. As a first step, the mayor could agree with London councils to ban all advertising near to and within schools, as has been done in Paris.

Children will be exposed to adverts on television and the internet and in the rest of the city but this measure would send a message and set a trend; our children deserve to live in communities unsullied as far as possible by the inequality for which they bear no responsibility.

(2) For Every Child: Experience of All London Has to Offer

London Sundays

Who first thought of covering themselves in silver foil, standing very still, and then moving just a little bit? And what made them think of it?

Two questions which must have occurred to many of us when wandering along the South Bank past the live musicians, magicians, jugglers, escapologists and those peculiar human statues. Not all to our taste, of course, but you don’t have to stop and it costs no more than you think it is worth.

So an afternoon’s free entertainment? Well no. The relatively short distance from, say, east London to the centre is the price of an off-peak travelcard, which can top £8 per adult: not insignificant for a family on a low income. So it is that even central London’s free delights – the museums, galleries, parks and river walks – are seldom enjoyed by many outside zone 1.

As Sally Goldsworthy has noted, ‘London is a leading cultural city with world class galleries, museums and theatres. Yet for many Londoners they remain undiscovered, more likely to be visited by tourists than a teenager from a poor background growing up in zone 4.’ For a tourist a gallery is little more than an afternoon stop but for our children these experiences can open doors and open minds: ‘For some it’s jumping the highest, running the fastest, for others it’s singing, dancing, painting, performing. For every child, a dream,’ said Ellie Robinson.

Holly Donagh reports on research from charity A New Direction, which found that over half of young people in London hadn’t been to a theatre performance, gallery or music event in the last year. When asked, young people say they want opportunities to be part of something, leading and decision making as well as simply watching; more free experiences ‘that you just come across’; to be able to find out about what is happening more easily and get support to develop talents; and to see more arts in schools.36

The mayor of Bristol has been Making Sundays Special once a month: closing the centre of the city to cars, importing climbing walls and bouncy castles and inviting street performers to take over. Last year a giant water slide constructed down a main street attracted 100,000 applicants for 360 tickets.37

London saw something similar in 2012 when the Olympics and the torch relay that preceded it brought families out into London in force, congregating in person and in spirit around one of the world’s great sporting events. London boasts some of the world’s greatest cultural institutions all year round, which – with the right support – could recreate something similar and more permanent. We could start with one Sunday each month.

These London Sundays would see a coordinated programme of free events and activities designed specifically for young tourists from within the M25, widening access to London’s art, culture, history and traditions. One Sunday could see the South Bank Centre or the Natural History Museum or the Tate lead a day’s celebration beyond their walls. Others could feature some of London’s best musicians, dancers, authors or poets.

To ensure everyone can take part, particularly in activities in the centre of the city, that tube ticket would have to be covered: a free return trip for every adult accompanied by a responsible child would remove one severe restraint on participation and open the event to every family.

The Olympics was a sporting occasion that opened eyes, inspired, drew Londoners together and briefly transformed our city. We can recreate the effect on a smaller scale, but regularly and consistently, once a month, with free tube and bus travel and some enthusiastic arts partners.

A ‘Have-a-Go Festival’

Edinburgh is world famous for its wonderful annual festival, but our participation is largely as audience members, watching others perform. Could London add to its fame by being the first to host an annual festival where we all take part? Act on the stage at the National, sing at the O2, play at Wembley, paint at the Tate, write at the British Library. Have a go at riding a bike for the first time, at learning to swim, at ballroom dancing, at healthy cooking, at being a first aider. For a couple of weeks every summer the ‘Have-a-Go Festival’ would see London’s organisations, large and small, opening their doors to the public, particularly children, encouraging us all to join in.

Some museums already do this once a year, through an annual countrywide Takeover Day organised by charity Kids in Museums, which puts young people in charge of major cultural venues for twenty-four hours.38 Employers in the public and private sectors could participate too, giving children the chance to try being a fire fighter, a city trader, a nurse, a plumber, a lawyer, a builder – or even at being a mayor. Opening doors and opening minds. Some opportunities would necessarily have to be restricted to only a few children but all should be advertised openly and for some activities there would be no limit on numbers.

A small central resource would provide a coherent brand and collate the opportunities in a programme and on a website, but individual organisations would be responsible for managing their own involvement.

A Have-a-Go Festival would not just open up new opportunities for millions of children but would send a message: London – its art and culture and sport, its community organisations, its best employers and its government – is here for the benefit of all its citizens, not just the tourists, the privileged few or those in the know.

A Cultural Guarantee for London’s Children

London Sundays and a Have-a-Go Festival would see children accessing the art and culture for which London is famous, but we could strengthen our duty further. Sally Goldsworthy argued in her contribution that the mayor should institute a cultural guarantee to all London’s children, of things they will have had the opportunity to achieve by the time they leave school: ‘For example, see a play, visit an art gallery, write with an author and be mentored by a professional artist. This wouldn’t be a restrictive Ofsted tick box of fifty things to preserve but a dynamic list created by children, parents, teachers and artists that captures London’s quality and innovation.’

Holly Donagh wrote: ‘London schools currently have access to £450 million a year in funding through the Pupil Premium, and whilst this must support a range of needs for lower income pupils it could also fund cultural activity when it is clear that it helps in the development of those young people. All schools in the city allocating 10 per cent of Pupil Premium for cultural provision would help break the link between family income and cultural engagement and be one way of funding the delivery of a citywide guarantee.’

Alternatively, the scheme could be funded by the kind of Visitor Tax that is applied in Paris and New York. A one or two per cent levy on hotel bills would hardly be noticed by the tourist but it would be hugely beneficial to the children of London if spent in this way.

A scheme of the sort Sally and Holly describe – embedded across London’s schools – would perfectly embody the agenda we describe. The mayor should lead its development and be the public face of its implementation. London Sundays would be a part of it but the educational infrastructure would help ensure no child missed out.

Expand the London Curriculum

Credit where credit’s due: the current mayor’s education enquiry proposed creating a London Curriculum that weaves the history, culture and stories of London into English, art, music, geography and history lessons. It was launched last year, to great success. Holly Donagh suggests it should be expanded across the Key Stages, particularly to Key Stage 2.

She wrote about Kuopio in Finland, where each year of school is based around a different ‘cultural path’ – drama one year, film the next, dance the year after, and so on.39 Dallas’s Big Thought Arts Partners coordinates cultural education across the city, providing a portal where schools can view and book cultural experiences for their young people.40 Mocca in Amsterdam run a city wide programme of training, online offers and discounts for schools on cultural experiences as well as advice and guidance for teachers.40 And, closer to home, the World Heritage Organisations in Greenwich (The National Maritime Museum, the Royal Observatory and the Old Royal Naval College) have created a curriculum for Greenwich schools based on their local area.41

(3) For Every Child: The Extra Help, Whatever It Takes

Sylvie Bray mentored a seven-year-old boy who had never been out of Peckham. When they took a Thames Clipper down the river he thought they were leaving the country. Sylvie could empathise more than most – parental domestic violence and alcohol abuse meant she was in care as a child. This is why we should listen particularly hard when, writing on Changing London, she said: ‘Every child deserves the same chance to live, and to thrive. It’s not acceptable that we just keep a whole group of children treading water … it would be terrible to give up on these kids.’

For some children, growing up in London is a dangerous, bewildering and painful experience. Some have parents who are unable or unwilling to look after them. Others might experience terrible difficulties at school, with mental health problems or with bullying. Research among children at the charity Kids Company found that one in five had been shot at and/or stabbed, and half had witnessed shootings or stabbings in the last year.42 For many more the deprivation might not be as extreme but it is almost as debilitating for their future success: leaving school unable to read or write well enough to get a job, caring for parents or siblings instead of learning or playing. If our ‘every child’ ambition is to mean anything, it must extend most actively to the most vulnerable children: every child, from whatever beginning, with whatever it takes.

A London Children’s Challenge

By the early 2000s it was widely acknowledged that children were being badly let down by the poor quality of London’s schools. In response, in 2003 the government introduced a new minister to take responsibility, some new money and a crack team of officials in the Department of Education to lead a programme called the London Challenge. Ten years later, with London’s schools amongst the best performing in the country, the London Challenge is still hailed as a model of successful intervention.43

It focused on improving leadership and teacher quality but in doing so recognised that schools thrive when the staff and leaders feel trusted, supported and encouraged. It built partnerships between schools, often pairing better- and worse-performing schools, which actually improved the performance of both. It built on the belief shared by teachers and local authorities that no child in London should be let down by their school.

In short, a fantastic programme that transformed education for a generation of Londoners. Its only limitation? Children spend most of their time out of school. A great education can help overcome the effects of poverty or neglect at home but is no replacement for preventing them in the first place, and for some children it will never be enough.

Nowhere has recognised this more famously than New York’s Harlem Children’s Zone. Fed up with the duplication, gaps and inconsistencies in the myriad of public and philanthropic services trying to cater for children in the 100-block area of Harlem, its founder set out to weave them together into a coherent ‘pipeline’ from cradle to career. Schools were vital but so were charities, local care services, and parents and families themselves. Several organisations have attempted to bring the approach to the UK, including Only Connect, via their West London Children’s Zone, and Save the Children. The model cannot be imported wholesale – services and jurisdictions are different – but the principle of joining up services in a ‘doubly holistic’ way, across all ages from 0 to 18 and across all domains, can be replicated here. Save the Children have laid out in detail how to transfer the model to a UK context, emphasising the involvement of local leaders, particularly local authorities and schools, and a robust governance structure.44

Perhaps we could learn from the best of the London Challenge and the Harlem approach. A London Children’s Challenge would extend the challenge model beyond schools to the coordination of wider services for children, particularly those in the most disadvantaged areas. It would combine expert advice with peer support and some resources to bring together different services, similar to that which Save the Children has provided for some areas under their Children’s Communities programme. Led from City Hall and adopting the same positive, supportive tone (in contrast to much of the rhetoric around child protection, which operates in a climate of media intimidation and political fear) it would champion not just schooling but the wider protection and support of London’s children.

Other cities have shown how heavy investment in the lives of struggling children can pay off. Boston’s Thrive in Five initiative aims to ensure every child is ready to start school aged five; it has brought together agencies and organisations across the city to create ‘ready families, ready educators, ready systems and a ready city’.45 San Antonio has pursued a similar goal under its SA2020 plan,46 as has Hartford with its Mayor’s Cabinet for Young Children – a cross-sector group of public sector, charity and business leaders in the city, appointed by the mayor. They provide high-level policy recommendations for the mayor and oversee budgets for programmes that serve young children across the city.45

In Cincinnati, an ambitious programme called Strive brought together over 300 city departments, charities, businesses, universities and schools to improve all aspects of services for children from cradle to career. They re-imagined the system piece by piece; performance improved across a vast range of measures.47

Learning from this experience, the mayor should champion four vital issues for London’s children

Eradicate Illiteracy

The Evening Standard launched the Get London Reading campaign in 2011 with the news that one in four children left primary school unable to read properly.48 This campaign and others have gathered huge momentum since then but too many children still leave school unable to read and write well enough to thrive in adulthood. In West Dunbartonshire, renowned child psychologist Tommy Mackay has shown that it is possible not just to tackle illiteracy but to eradicate it.49 We should seize the opportunity and aim for the same in London, redoubling our efforts and, following Mackay’s lead, setting out to change attitudes as well as provide one-on-one support for those who need it most.

The ‘Read On. Get On.’ campaign is demanding that by 2025 all children leave primary school as confident readers. Led by a group of charities, teachers groups and publishers, it is avowedly a community campaign, arguing that this cannot be a job for government alone.50 The mayor’s high-profile support could propel it forward in London.

Every Child Mentored, Every Child a Mentor

Several contributors to Changing London outlined the enormous benefits of mentoring schemes for children who ‘do not know about their city or, even worse, are afraid of it’ and for mentors, who experience a whole new side to London. Gracia McGrath challenged the next mayor to become a mentor himself, to ‘see the city through the eyes of a child’.

Extending this theme, Ellie Robinson argued that ‘having a mentor can transform a childhood – building confidence, extending networks, eroding inequality’ and wondered whether we could extend these benefits across the capital through a voluntary mentoring scheme in every school. Crucially, children would have the opportunity to be trained as mentors and to be mentored themselves, because giving support is just as valuable as receiving it.

Some children will need far more than a mentor alone can provide, but establishing it as a right would guarantee every child a minimum of one supportive, trusted relationship, and a role providing the same for others when the time comes.

Shrink the Foster Care Waiting List to Zero

Mentoring could be for everyone but fostering is mercifully rare. How we care for children whose parents can’t or won’t care for them is a defining feature of a civilised society and yet, as Mandy Wilkins pointed out, there are over 1000 children in need of foster care in London and not enough willing carers.51

A concerted campaign could see the fostering waiting list reduced to zero by the end of the mayoralty. We should allow ourselves no leniency – in a city of 9 million people it is not unreasonable to believe we can find families for 1000 extremely vulnerable children.

Marjorie Fry once observed ‘You cannot give a child love by act of parliament’. Nor can you by mayoral decree, but Mandy’s piece concluded with some very practical ways in which City Hall – leading by example – could champion fostering amongst its own employees: active promotion, time off to go through the assessment and training, flexible working. Then she suggested that ‘the mayor should use his or her voice to encourage other public, private and third sector employers to follow suit, as has been done with the living wage campaign’.

Coordinate Child Protection

Even better would be to prevent children needing foster care in the first place. Matthew Downie outlined some of the specific challenges London faces in protecting our children: ‘gang violence and sexual abuse within gangs; abuse of children through belief in spirit possession and witchcraft; and the problem of mobile and transient families where children at risk of abuse move frequently and easily across the city.’

He goes on: ‘The prevalence and seriousness of the issue commands political attention across local and national government, but so far not from either of the two mayors of London. Why not?’

We could, he says, learn from successful programmes in other cities, like New York’s Blue Sky programme or Manchester’s co-commissioning of children’s services across multiple local authorities. It is a complex topic with no easy solutions, but throughout this rough guide we talk about the importance of influential leadership, about the mayoral super powers, the voice, the visibility and the capacity to convene. Nowhere could these be better applied than on this agenda, making the case over and over again that enabling every child to succeed means ‘every child’ from whatever beginning, with whatever it takes.

(4) For Every Child: The First Steps into a Good Career

A Youth Compact with Business

A ten-year-old in our children’s discussion group in east London suggested schools make better links with banks so he and his peers could better understand how to work in one.

It is sobering to learn that work experience and the worry of getting a good job should feature in a child’s concerns alongside the availability of fizzy drinks. But it is also a sign of just how important access to the right job can be for children and their families.

For a minority of our children, the path from school to college, perhaps to university, and then on to the first rung of a good career is well paved, assisted along the way by good schooling, inspiring work experience, family connections and perhaps an unpaid internship or two.

For others the transition into work is difficult and traumatic, often unfulfilling and sometimes impossible – unemployment amongst ­under-25s in London stands at 25 per cent.52 With young people ­arriving in London from all over the world, the competition for jobs at this level is fierce.

The first step is to discover what is out there. Sally Rogers described how, ‘When children from working class families in places like ­Newham grow up and – aged fifteen or sixteen – are sent off for a couple of weeks work experience … they end up spending two weeks stacking shelves in Shoe Zone. These kids – far more than their rich contemporaries – need experiences of work that inspire and excite. Two weeks shelf stacking won’t do that.’

Changing London contributor and local councillor Jamie Audsley, along with a group of young people in Croydon, has set up ­#FirstStepCroydon to campaign for better work experience. Working with Croydon Citizens and Teach First, the campaign has already won promises for 200 work experience placements, with expenses, from a huge range of local businesses, charities and public sector agencies.

Unpaid internships for many of the top professions exclude those who cannot afford to work for free. Informal advertising of entry-­level jobs is a further bar to those who haven’t had access to the ­internships and don’t have the family connections where these crucial networks are built up.

Instead, too many find themselves stuck in insecure, temporary, badly paid jobs with no training and no path for promotion or advancement. Apprenticeships traditionally provided a sure-fire route for those who didn’t go to university, and there has been a recent revival in interest, but there is far more a dedicated mayor could do.

Public sector employers are already beginning to lead the way. Andrew Attfield reported on Barts NHS Trust, for example, which offers apprenticeships to local residents, including into new areas such as operating theatres, pathology labs and the outpatients department. He observes, ‘if the NHS can do this at a time of great pressure on its services, other sectors should be able to do so much more’.

Much of the responsibility for delivering on this agenda lies with employers but a mayor exploiting the influence their position brings could encourage, cajole and coerce. Setting the agenda with a few of London’s largest employers could transform the rest.

The mayor could establish a Youth Compact with Business, setting the expectation that responsible businesses would do three things for young people starting out in their careers.

(1) Provide meaningful work experience in non-entry-level jobs for young people from local schools. The number of placements could be a fixed proportion of their number of employees, or could be related to their turnover.

(2) Offer apprenticeships in an ambitious range of roles for young people, particularly those local to the area where the employer is based. Again, the number could be in proportion to the size of the organisation.

(3) Only offer internships that are fairly recruited, with fair remuneration of at least the minimum wage, and clear contracts, and sign up to Intern Aware’s Fair Internship Charter.53

A driven mayor would have a range of tools at their disposal. Direct influence over parts of the public sector would mean the police and Transport for London could blaze the trail. Other public services, including the NHS and local authorities, could be quickly signed up, particularly because many meet these criteria already. They could be extended to companies contracted to provide public services.

Writing on Changing London, Jake Hayman and Amir Jabarivasal suggested that every college and secondary school have a staff member dedicated to supporting former students in finding a career: ‘Their job would be to source opportunities for work experience, insight days, internships and even jobs, to organise CV/interview clinics and have drop-in careers counselling services.’ Many students maintain strong connections to their school or college, and even those who haven’t done so might be more likely to return there for the support than seek it at the Jobcentre. £100,000 would be enough for the initial scoping, with a further £750,000 needed to pilot it.

As for private sector employers, Chapter 4 covers the mayor’s relationship with business. We argue that a thoughtful mayor with a campaigning mindset and a willingness to engage provocatively with businesses could skilfully convene and cajole around some core themes. A Mayor’s Pledge would set out our expectations of a good London employer. It would include the opportunity to take those vital first steps into a decent career.

If necessary, institutions could be built to help promote these aims, including, for example, a London Interns Service advertising decent opportunities and allowing participants to rate employers, or an ­Ofsted-style mechanism for holding employers to account in how they support young people into work, as suggested by Jamie Audsley and Emily Benn.

In addition, local control of the BIS training and skills budget would help to ensure that this important resource is directed towards the areas of deepest need and greatest potential, not least, perhaps, helping with this locally specific institution building.

(5) For Every Child’s Family: A Decent Income and a Good Home

An astonishing 37 per cent of London’s children live in poverty: their parents trapped by low wages, insecure and insufficient jobs and high prices.54 Our status as ‘child poverty capital of the UK’ should be a source of acute shame for a city that has much else to be proud of.

For a mayor who has little direct influence over wages or benefit and tax rates that directly affect income this can seem at first glance a hard problem to tackle. One approach is to make income matter less. Opening up public space, banning advertising near schools or increasing access to the arts means that a child’s experiences are less dependent on their parents’ income. Kate Bell has called this a process of ‘de-commodifying’ the experience of childhood: narrowing the spheres in which family income determines a child’s life chances.55

But a visionary leader does more than mitigate the effect of gross inequality. New York’s Bill de Blasio won his mayoral election by exposing the pernicious effect of the gap between rich and poor on one of the world’s few other Western mega-cities; it will surely feature equally prominently in London’s upcoming vote. We touch on some ideas below and develop more in Chapter 4.

A London Child Trust Fund