---

Care Farming

I chose this subject because of Highfields farm in my constituency near Etwall. I have known Roger and Beryl Hosking, who run Highfields farm, virtually since I became a Member. The farm produces eggs from around 20,000 free-range birds. However, Roger and Beryl also use their farm to care for young people who have struggled with orthodox education or who have found it hard to stay on the rails. At various times, Roger and Beryl have offered places both to the local education authority—up to 30 young people a week—and to the youth offending service, giving participants a unique setting in which to learn basic work skills, team working, respect for others and, critically, respect for themselves. Some of those who have passed through the farm have returned as workers and no offenders who have been there have reoffended. It is a moving experience to visit Highfields. There is a strong faith element to Roger's commitment to his task and a great deal of love for young people towards whom many people are perhaps not so affectionate. What Roger is doing—running an egg farm, handling delicate objects and teaching youngsters who perhaps do not have the most natural grasp of delicate things to take care, to respect and listen to others and then gradually to build up their self-discipline—is a marvellous thing to see. Highfields is admirable, but why should it be of interest to the House? Highfields farm is part of a wider movement, although ““movement”” is probably a bit of an overstatement. For a start, many people do not recognise the term ““care farm”” and would not say that they were involved in one. However, care farms are extraordinarily diverse and there is no common model. I will touch on some of the implications of that later in my speech. I want to draw on the research conducted by the university of Essex, funded by Natural England and completed at the start of this year. Around 80 farms in the UK were identified in that study as being run at least in part for social purposes, and 19 of them are city farms, which tend to be fairly small scale. The rest are either independently owned, such as Highfields, or are charities. Care farms vary hugely in scale and type, from smallholdings to quite large ventures, and run across the full range of agricultural activity. As I have mentioned, Highfields is an egg farm, but all varieties of farming activity are to be found in the endeavour. Most care farms offer basic skills development aimed at a mix of client groups. Around half offer places to troubled young people who might have had problems with the law, another half—these categories overlap, because places are offered to various groups—offer places to those with mental health problems and more than 80 per cent. cater at one stage or another for those with learning difficulties. Referrals come from a wide variety of sources, including Connexions, youth offending teams, local education authorities—mainly Derby city council in Roger and Beryl's case—and pupil referral units, to which children who have for various reasons been removed from mainstream education have gone. All those sources have seen a care farm as an appropriate alternative setting. The university of Essex study was rather good at identifying some of the measurable changes within at least a subset of those using care farms. The main outcomes were greater self-esteem, stronger social skills for younger people and the formation of a work habit, as many of them had not been used to turning up regularly and working through a day. Another outcome was an increased trust of other young people and adults. Analysis of the clients of seven care farms in the Essex study showed dramatic improvements in self-esteem and vigour, because those outdoor activities involve young people taking part in physical activity. There were also reductions in anger, confusion and frustration. The academics who completed the study conceded that they would need a larger base to establish a proper scientific base, but the study and the anecdotal evidence that I have gained from my visits to Highfields persuaded me that such care in a farm setting can offer tremendous gains to particular young people. The—as yet small—UK experience can be compared with far larger initiatives in continental Europe. There are more than 800 care farms in the Netherlands, 500 in Norway and 350 in Italy. In the Netherlands, the sector has a formal support structure, with a clear integration of farm-based care with other state and voluntary provision. In 2005, care farms in the Netherlands had 10,000 clients. Those visits were driven partly by the provision of personal care budgets that allow clients to choose a farm setting for their care. In Norway, an inter-departmental committee covering the various Ministries involved co-ordinating the work of the wide variety of Government agencies that use care farming. In comparison, there has been accidental growth of the sector in the UK, which has been driven by the strong individual motivations of particular farm owners. They believe, either for social or religious reasons, as in the case at Highfields, that they owe something to a group of young people, and that a farm setting can deliver a benefit to them better than anywhere else. Although there is a generalised awareness that the use of open spaces is therapeutic both mentally and physically, there has been no link to a formal strategy. Neither has there been any recognition of the value of care farming within a wider agricultural diversification agenda. So what do we need? First, as is clear from the Essex study, we need more research on the value and scale of care farming in the UK. Secondly, we need explicit recognition of care farming options in agricultural policy, including access to relevant funding for classrooms and adaptations, for example. I know from my dealings with Highfields that it was immensely challenging to raise resources to provide for education and social meeting areas at the farm and, critically, for adapting the sheds into an appropriate model for a modern egg farm. I would encourage my right hon. Friend the Minister to read that section of the Essex university report about Highfields farm and the immense strain that was placed on the owners when buildings from a certain period were condemned and they thought that what they had invested their lives in would be taken away. They got through that, but not through the aid of any Government agency; they got through it by their individual efforts at fundraising and support. We need a clearer identification of this as an area of diversification where support can be provided. Elsewhere in South Derbyshire additional funding has been provided for turning a collection of barns into small business units for industrial purposes, for example. That is very welcome; I am delighted to see resources used in that way, but I believe that it is equally appropriate to support initiatives that will provide an educational or care focus in a rural environment. The third aspect of what I wish for is collaboration between the Government Departments focused on youth policy to define how care farming can be facilitated as a youth resource. I managed to get a Home Office Minister to visit Highfields farm some time ago and my right hon. Friend's predecessor visited the farm fairly recently. If she had had a chance to have a word with my noble Friend Lord Rooker, she would have had some insight into what he thought of the place. I have spotted that such facilities fall into the classic difficulty in British policy terms of sliding between various silos. It is a farm, so it is the responsibility in some sense of my right hon. Friend who is answering this debate, but the services provided on the farm are educational, which means that they are the responsibility of another Government Department. In respect of caring for young people who have been offenders, it is the responsibility of yet a third Department. One could easily find arguments for saying that other agencies that are the responsibility of other Government Departments might also be engaged in care farms. What is required is a focus on those who are beneficiaries of care farms rather than on the individual streams of Government thinking that might touch on various parts of the farm. The critical group of beneficiaries are young people who are disadvantaged in various ways and who have faced adversity; some of that may have been self-imposed but, in other cases, it may have been imposed upon them. If we can focus on that group and put in place the mechanisms necessary to support them through the valuable experience they will get from a care-farming provision, that is my goal. Such collaboration is necessary. Fourthly, there is a need for assistance with regulatory burdens. I mentioned the difficulties Highfields had experienced in raising funds to deal with the sheds that were condemned in the early part of this decade. When I saw Roger on Friday, he told me that he had needed assistance to fill in some forms to apply for assistance on one of the educational activities that he was involved in. The difficulty is that the focus of many of these enterprises is not bureaucracy or compliance with Government expectations. Instead, we are often dealing with small enterprises whose people are motivated by very different things. It is helpful to have people who are willing to assist with getting through some of the hurdles of compliance that Governments, perfectly understandably, place in their way. A recognition of the wider therapeutic benefits of care farming in dealing with a range of conditions would also be welcome. I feel strongly about the need for a rational approach to the risk involved in operating on a farm. Farms can be dangerous places— 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. Watts.]