The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families (Sarah McCarthy-Fry): Has the hon. Gentleman
inadvertently strayed into the next set of amendments? Amendment 99 is
in the next
set.
Mr.
Hayes: That was a mere aside. In terms of this peroration
that was barely a word. I really only meant helpfully to set the matter
in context for the benefit of the Minister before she gives what I
think will be a scintillating response to these few brief words.
[Interruption.] The Minister for Schools and
Learners is intervening from a sedentary position but I will not be
goaded by him, despite the fact that I described him as being sluggish
earlier. He has clearly tried to disprove that by the energy of his
sedentary
intervention. Amendment
212 aims to ensure that LEAs take account of learning and language
difficulties. I mentioned the Bercow review earlier and the profound
issues around the language skills of many of the young people we are
speaking of in this part of the Bill. Those in detention who may not be
able to speak English as a first language or who suffer speech
impairment may be significantly disadvantaged by this clause. This
amendment should be used to establish guidance on this matter.
Barnardo’s is most concerned about this and seeks the
reassurances that I articulate in these comments and through this
amendment. It is particularly concerned that the duty on LEAs to ensure
education for the group of children with language difficulties includes
a clear requirement to meet the needs of children with statements and
those whose first language is not English. It is also anxious that if
children are detained outside their home local education authority that
the home LEA must co-operate with the LEA where they are placed to
ensure that suitable educational support is provided immediately on
release.
Amendments
378 and 379 are probing amendments, once again stimulated by the
Standing Committee for Youth Justice, to clarify how guidance under
these clauses will be applicable to both the host and home local
authorities, to children’s services and youth offending teams as
well as to education services. We also seek assurances that the
guidance will specifically address the issue of information sharing,
sentence planning and curriculum content in the way that I mentioned
earlier.
These
amendments will allow the Minister to confirm that guidance will be
applicable not only to LEAs, but to those other agencies in order to
ensure effective joint working between the various arms of the local
authority in this matter. This is necessary, given that new
subsection 18A requires host local authorities to have
regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State and new section
562C, inserted by clause 49, does the same for the home authority. This
guidance should
address a number of issues. This is an important matter and a number of
outside bodies, agencies, representative groups and charities are
particularly concerned about this aspect of the Bill. These matters
deserve airing. To ensure
that a child is able to fulfil their learning potential it is vital
that information about the young person’s educational needs and
experience is shared between host and home authorities quickly and
readily as a child goes into custody and then again to prepare for
their release. The speed and readiness of the process is what I am
trying to highlight here because, as I said, these can be highly
dynamic circumstances where, without that alacrity, there will be
failures that impact on the young person concerned. It requires schools
and local authorities to have joint working protocols with youth
offending teams and the secure estate.
That is
particularly important for children with special educational needs, for
some of the reasons I gave earlier. That is certainly the view of the
SEN consortium which suggests that the host authority should meet the
child’s recognised special educational needs where applicable
and be in accordance with part 3 of their statement of special
educational needs. That will be workable only if the information
regarding SEN and the statement itself is made available in a timely
manner. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the issue of
information sharing will be addressed in the guidance and if so,
how? In
essence our concerns about these matters are founded on doubts about
existing practice. You will know, Mr. Chope, with your
comprehensive knowledge and profound interest in these things, that the
National Audit Office report in 2004 found that only 6 per cent. of
youth offending teams were able to confirm that young people could
continue education started in custody after release, mainly because of
logistical problems in finding suitable courses, reluctance by some
young people to attend and difficulties in persuading schools to accept
young people who might have previously been excluded. So how will the
guidance associated with the Bill ensure that kind of continuity in
what is offered to young people, both in terms of information sharing
and in placing them in appropriate training or education once they have
been released?
With those
few remarks on these important matters, I invite the Minister to
address some of the critical questions that we have raised. We have
discussed these matters at length with some of the bodies that had the
greatest expertise in dealing with young people and the bodies that
also have considerable doubts about the effectiveness of some aspects
of the Bill. We do not for a moment believe that the Government are not
as concerned as we are about these things, but we have real doubts
about whether all the measures have been thought through as fully as
they might have
been. 4.30
pm
Annette
Brooke: I will be brief. This is an important clause as it deals
with yet another area that has been long neglected. Although I might
not agree with all the comments made by the hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings, I agreed with a great deal of what he said.
This is an occasion where we must get it right.
I have given
a lot of thought to the balance between the local authority where the
institution is located, and the home authority where the young offender
has some
residence. I think that the measures in the Bill are right, but it will
be incredibly difficult to implement them well and we must be aware of
that. It has not always been easy for youth offending teams to keep
track of everybody in institutions when they have a lot of people on
their books and are spread out all over the place. In Dorset, for
example, young people can find themselves miles away from home, which
makes it difficult for the youth offending team. That means that there
is a burden of resources on both the home and local authorities, and
both must be resourced adequately to make the provision work. There
must be staff in the home authority with the specific duty to liaise
and ensure that it works. I am entirely
in sympathy with amendment 232. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, one
of the big issues is that for various reasons young people may have
missed out on basic educational skills. The one true way to
rehabilitation and an end to reoffending is to break that cycle.
Addressing special educational needs is really important. In instances
of speech and language difficulties, addressing those needs could mean
that there is the chance to overcome those disabilities. That is an
unusual situation, but it could happen. Come what may, we know that
educational retainment will be low and there is a huge challenge to be
tackled at that level. It is important not to get into a downward
spiral regarding children and young people who, for whatever reason,
have not managed to get a basic level of education up to this
point.
There are
many opportunities. Many of us will have heard about the
apprenticeships that Transco has provided in various youth
institutions. Those have set up young people and enabled them to move
into a job. If the approach in the Bill can provide opportunities for
apprenticeships, it will make a big contribution to the future. I
support the approach, although there are a lot of ends that need tying
up and we need reassurances. We also need monitoring because the danger
is that a young person could fall between different
authorities.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: First, I shall speak to
amendments 127 to 131. We have heard from the hon. Member
for South Holland and The Deepings that their intention is to place a
duty on the Young People’s Learning Agency to secure the
provision of education and training in juvenile custody, rather than
see the duty placed on local education authorities, as in the
Bill.
I recognise
the concerns that, as drafted, the duties will mean that LEAs that have
juvenile custodial establishments in their area will need to secure
provision for young people from different local authority areas who are
detained in their establishments. I also sympathise with the concern
that we need to ensure consistency in the approach to education and
training provision across the juvenile secure estate. However, clause
47 is at the heart of our reforms to improve education and training for
young people in juvenile custody and to ensure that education and
training arrangements for that group are aligned as closely as possible
with those in the mainstream sector.
We intend the
duties on the home and host local authorities to promote continuity and
consistency in provision. That would certainly not happen by giving the
duties to the YPLA because provision should mirror the mainstream as
much as possible. We expect local
authorities, as the strategic commissioners of children’s
services in the mainstream sector, to be in the best position to secure
education and training to meet young people’s reasonable needs
while they are in juvenile custody. Our proposals to make LEAs
responsible for education and training in juvenile custody will
establish clear accountability for children and young people’s
learning, aligned with the mainstream sector. The
hon. Members for South Holland and The Deepings and for Mid-Dorset and
North Poole expressed concerns about a local authority’s
capacity to deliver. We will be working on a national delivery
framework, which will be developed in partnership with central and
local government, the Youth Justice Agency, the National Offender
Management Service and the Prison Service. We will consult to ensure
that there is a delivery framework and will issue statutory guidance.
The YPLA will play a vital role in supporting LEAs, and the React
programme, established in the LGA with the support of the Association
of Directors of Children’s Services, is working to prepare local
authorities for their new responsibilities.
A concern was
also expressed that some host local authorities may be
disproportionately burdened because they have a young offenders
institution in their area. However, they will receive specific funding
and resources for this purpose via the YPLA. There were also concerns
about information sharing but, if I may, I will defer my remarks on
that until we get to the proposals on information provided by the home
LEA, particularly, on SEN. They are in new clause 17, which we have not
got to yet.
Mr.
Hayes: Local authority funding seems to be critical. The
Under-Secretary has reassured the Committee that the affected local
authorities will receive extra funding. Will it be ring-fenced? How
will it operate year by year? Clearly there are long-term planning
issues associated with this work, so will the funding be annual or over
an extended period? I also raised a point about dynamism. Circumstances
will change radically according to the number of young people that the
local authority is responsible for and their particular needs, such as
learning difficulties.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: We intend the YPLA to play a pivotal role in
ensuring equitable distribution of funding. The arrangements for
exactly how that will be managed will be developed with the
YPLA.
I expect that
another argument for not using the YPLA is that, as hon. Members are
aware, it will cover England only and its jurisdiction is not planned
to be extended to Wales. We have worked closely with the Welsh Assembly
Government to consider the best approach for people in juvenile
custody, and we propose that a consistent approach across England and
Wales, where LEAs take on the function, is the best way forward.
However, in England, the YPLA will have an important role in ensuring
consistency of approach for education and training provision across the
country. The Welsh Ministers will fulfil that function in Wales and
will work with relevant partners to agree and set parameters for
education and training in juvenile
custody. For
those reasons, I propose that clause 47, as drafted, provides the best
way to ensure that we align education and training in juvenile custody
with the mainstream
sector and to ensure that the needs of those children and young people
are met. I thank the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole for
concurring with the view that this is the best approach. Amendments
132, 133 and 134 relate to clause 49, which places a duty on the child
or young person’s home LEA to promote the fulfilment of that
person’s learning potential while they are in custody and on
their release. We intend for that duty to play an important role in
fostering a consistent education experience for children and young
people in juvenile custody. For the first time, one authority will need
to maintain involvement in the young person’s education,
regardless of where that person is in the system. That will also help
to ensure that young people’s education and training needs are
picked up on their release from juvenile
custody.
Annette
Brooke: I am concerned that the home authority will need
additional funding to cope with the responsibilities of tracking and
making sure that the young person is receiving the education. Can the
Minister say something about the resources for the home
authority?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I am sure that that is something that will
be developed in our framework, particularly with the YPLA having the
overarching responsibility to ensure that there is equitable funding
across the system from the home LEA and the host LEA.
Many young
people are held in custodial establishments located in LEA areas that
are different from where they live, so the individually owed duty is an
important mechanism for ensuring that a young person receives a
consistent experience.
I sympathise
with hon. Members’ intention to place that duty on the YPLA.
That would be particularly applicable if the YPLA were also to be
responsible for securing education and training, as proposed in hon.
Members’ previous amendments. However, the YPLA, as a national
agency, would not be in a position to consider the individual needs of
every young person in juvenile custody and would not be the appropriate
authority to be able to, for example, transfer information about the
young person’s prior learning needs, or to take such steps as
securing appropriate educational training places for the young person
on their release from juvenile custody.
We believe
that placing that individually-owed duty on children and young
people’s home LEAs will be a huge step forward in terms of
fostering consistency of provision for that group and in encouraging
information exchange about young people’s personal educational
needs.
Mr.
Hayes: I am anxious, as other Committee members might be,
about who will be the owner of the information to which the hon. Lady
refers. This is a complex matter. We are talking about gathering
information from a variety of sources, ensuring that that information
is accurate and then passing it on to a variety of others in order to
ensure not only the coherence, but also the continuity, that we seek.
Are LEAs equipped to do that? What database will they use? Can the
Minister say something about the protocols involved? This is very
challenging and I am not yet convinced that LEAs are equipped, or as I
put it earlier, tooled-up, to do the job.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Maybe I have more faith in the ability of
local government than the hon. Gentleman. There is a huge will among
local authorities, particularly with their new responsibilities for the
children’s trusts boards, to make sure that those things happen.
As I said, we will be strengthening provisions as we get on to our two
next sets of amendments, which will give local authorities the power to
enable that information-sharing to
happen. I
understand that the intention of amendment 212 is that the duty to
secure suitable provision for persons in juvenile custody should
specifically require LEAs to have regard to children, or young persons,
with language difficulties when securing suitable provision. However,
that amendment assumes that a person’s language needs are not
already included in the definition of special educational needs or
learning difficulties. As hon. Members might be aware, the definitions
of special educational needs and learning difficulties are set out in
section 312 of the Education Act 1996, and in section 15ZA of that Act,
as inserted by the Bill. Clause 47 should be read alongside
that.
Section 312
provides that the child has special educational needs if he has a
learning difficulty that calls for special education provision to be
made. It is therefore implicit in the 1996 Act that language needs are
encompassed in the definition of special educational needs. We consider
that clause 47 already provides that host LEAs will need to have regard
to young people’s language needs.
4.45
pm
| 
