Mr.
Hayes: I apologise for interrupting the Minister again,
but these are really important matters. I did not really follow the
Minister’s last remark. I was the shadow schools Minister when
my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton regarded
that post merely as a distant ambition, among his many objectives, and
I remember serving on a Bill Committee that I suspect was one of those
to which the Minister referred in relation to SEN. One of our concerns
about statements was that they were not necessarily holistic or
comprehensive in taking into account the subtle needs of children. The
young people concerned might be statemented for emotional and
behavioural difficulties, for example, but if they have language
problems, it is not absolutely certain that those problems would be
identified in that EBD
statement.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Statutory guidance in the SEN code of
practice divides SEN into four categories, including communication and
interaction, which encompasses speech, language and communication
difficulties.
Mr.
Hayes: I am grateful for that assurance, which has
educated me, if no one else, but what about the quantification of the
provision needed to meet those challenges, because the critical things
about that guidance are the specificity of the provision to meet
statemented needs and how that provision can be quantified? Perhaps the
Minister will say something on
that.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The point I am trying to make is that I do
not think that the requirement on local authorities to have regard to
SEN—I might be corrected by a little note if I am
wrong—refers specifically or only to statemented young people. I
need to clarify one
further thing: it is implicit in the 1996 Act that those reasons are
other than those relating solely to the fact that a language in which a
person is taught is different to that spoken in the person’s
home, a point to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
During the
passage of the Education and Skills Act 2008, we committed to work with
the Communication Trust and other relevant organisations to develop
training materials for those with responsibility for the education of
young people in juvenile custody. We published our response to John
Bercow’s review of speech, language and communication needs last
year, which set out a series of initiatives across Government to
improve services for children and young people with speech, language
and communication needs.
The
development of an improved awareness of the importance of speech,
language and communication and better support for those with SLCN
across universal, targeted and specialist services will also help young
people in contact with the youth justice system. Our action plan made a
commitment to develop a joint commissioning framework on services for
children with SLCN through up to 20 local area pathfinders. We are
currently selecting those pathfinders, and it is intended that they
will include services for children in contact with the youth justice
system, including those in
custody.
Mr.
Hayes: I wonder whether I might helpfully intervene while
the Minister seeks further inspiration. What proportion of young people
who are incarcerated or detained at home and who do not have a
statement acquire one thereafter? If a young person who is detained has
profound difficulties that have not been identified earlier in their
school life, it seems critical that we should put in place measures
that allow those difficulties to be analysed and dealt with in an
appropriate way to move them on and improve their chances. Does that
happen, and if not, why
not?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Obviously, I do not have that information to
hand, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman on that point. We will
also make clear our expectations for the provision of education and
training and for meeting the SEN of young people in custody through
statutory guidance to local education authorities. That will be
developed in partnership with stakeholders and will be consulted
on.
With regard
to amendment 232, to which the hon. Members for South Holland and The
Deepings and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole both referred, I understand
that its intention is to amend the new duty inserted by clause 49,
which is to promote the fulfilment of a person’s learning
potential while they are in custody and on their release, so that it
specifically requires the home authority to have regard to any SEN or
learning difficulties the person might have. However, our view is that
in taking steps to promote a person’s learning potential the
home authority will already need to take account of any SEN or learning
difficulties that person might have. We will also issue statutory
guidance to local authorities, which home local authorities must have
regard to when exercising their duty to promote the fulfilment of the
person’s learning potential while they are in juvenile custody
and upon their release. That
will set out our expectations that, in doing so, the home local
authority should take steps to help to ensure that a person’s
special educational needs and learning difficulties are
met. Mr.
Gibb: I just wanted to take the Minister back to a comment
that she made earlier, which clarified an earlier comment that she had
made during her remarks that language difficulties were not included in
the other clause that she referred to. If the language difficulty
arises because English is not the person’s mother tongue, and if
she is conceding that point, she is not providing a sufficient argument
against Barnardo’s, whose concern led to our drafting amendment
212. Yes, Barnardo’s is concerned about children with
statements, but it is also concerned about children whose first
language is not English. If she is now saying that the Bill does not
cater for such children, then she has not provided this Committee with
an argument against amendment
212.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: The Bill is in line with any other Bill
about the responsibility of the local authority, whether or not people
are in the secure establishment. Currently, there is nowhere in the
legislation that requires a local authority to include as a special
educational need the fact that the language in which a person is taught
is different to that spoken in their home. As we all know, that does
not necessarily mean that in other parts of educational establishments
those needs are catered for and I envisage that, in our statutory
guidance, we would include guidance about that too.
I thank hon.
Members for amendments 378 and 379, which are timely amendments. Before
we introduced the Children’s Act 2004, which brought together
education and children’s social services functions to deliver
the Every Child Matters agenda, the term “local education
authority” was widely used. Since then, those working in this
sector have used the term “local authority” to encompass
everything that they do for children and young people. Our
communications with the sector and stakeholders have reflected that
change.
As the
Committee will have noticed, the Bill is peppered throughout with the
term “local education authority”. I want to reassure the
Committee that that is not a mistake. The Bill has been drafted in this
way because the order-making power in section 162 of the Education and
Inspections Act 2006 to change the term has not yet been used. I am
pleased to put on record that it is our intention, subject to the will
of this House and the other House, to lay that order at the end of this
parliamentary Session. A copy of the draft order was sent to all
members of the Committee recently and it is also available in the House
Libraries.
Given this
information and my assurances, I trust that hon. Members will withdraw
amendments 378 and 379, along with the other amendments that I have
referred to.
Mr.
Hayes: I remain concerned about these matters. I have no
doubt about the good intentions of those involved, which the Minister
described as the “goodwill” associated with these
matters. I have absolutely no reservation about the
“goodwill”, either of Ministers or indeed local
authorities. I am well aware of the sterling work done by councillors
of all political persuasions in
local authorities up and down Britain. However, I do not think that
bowling local authorities a googly and then saying, “They are
people of immense goodwill”, is quite the way to proceed. This
measure is certainly a googly; there is no question about that. It is
an immensely deceptive area and it is very easy to get this
wrong.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that I
certainly did not intend that this measure would go ahead solely on the
“goodwill” of local authorities? Instead, the powers that
we have put in and the framework that we are going to deliver will
enable local authorities to deliver the measure, with their
“goodwill” as well as the powers that we are giving
them.
Mr.
Hayes: The Minister, in responding to the amendments that
I proposed, suggested that her faith in the “goodwill” of
local authorities was greater than mine. Now, I am arguing that my
faith in their “goodwill” is just as great as hers, but
that my doubt about the capacity of local authorities to deliver these
provisions is rather greater than hers, not because of any fault on
their part but because this is an immensely complex area. As I said, it
is deceptive in its complexity, because of the need to draw information
from a variety of agencies and the need to pass that information on
speedily and effectively.
The Minister
offered me few assurances about the systems that are in place and
almost nothing about the protocols that I asked for. Just in terms of
the data, this matter is immensely complex. A series of independent
parties have doubts about the effectiveness of databases in respect of
Connexions. That is not an allegation of the Opposition, but an
observation based on evidence. It is no wonder that so many third party
organisations have expressed concerns about this power. Those
organisation have expertise in this field that certainly exceeds mine
and may even exceed the
Minister’s.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the
delivery framework we are developing to bring all people together will
develop the very protocols he is talking about? All the parties
involved will be
consulted.
Mr.
Hayes: Again, I have no doubt about the willingness to
consult. The Bill is a move from the Stalinist, Soviet Russian view of
the world that was embodied in the Learning and Skills Council to
Byzantium. As I said this morning, at least a Soviet approach brings a
certain predictability and consistency. Byzantium was an altogether
different affair and it is made real in these provisions with a
multiplicity of local authorities dealing with some of the most
challenged young people. As a Parliament and as a civilised society, we
have a profound responsibility for those young people. They deserve a
better deal, a fairer chance and greater
opportunity. My
amendments seek to create a more straightforward system by giving those
responsibilities to a single agency. This is not an open and shut case.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole is right that something
about local responsiveness is attractive. I mentioned earlier that we
are advocates of local government so you, Mr. Chope, and
Committee members have experience
in that regard. As such, we always want local authorities to play an
important role in these matters. However, I am not sure that we should
hand them the competence for this matter when there are real doubts
about their capacity to deal with it, although there are few doubts
about their
willingness. I
have amplified many of the questions that have been put by a series of
third parties. They are of such significance that I am inclined to
divide the Committee on amendment 127 to put them on the record. If
passed, these matters would be passed to the YPLA rather than to local
authorities. That is not because I do not believe in the good will of
local government but because I believe in these young people and their
futures and I want the best for
them. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes
10.
Division
No.
11] Question
accordingly
negatived.
5
pm
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 99, in
clause 47, page 29, line 38, at
end insert— ‘(1A) In
deciding for the purposes of subsection (1) whether education or
training is enough to meet persons’ reasonable needs, a minimum
of 30 hours per week of education and skills training must be
provided.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 340 to 342, 348 and
349.
Mr.
Gibb: Most children should be able to decode words
effortlessly by the time they are five or six. Every child, except
those with specific neurological problems, should be a fluent reader by
the time that they are seven. I make absolutely no apology for
labouring those points at every opportunity, because the full scandal
of how we have been teaching children to read in the past 40 years has
yet to be revealed. Statistics for 2007 show that 48 per cent. of
prisoners had a reading age of 11 or less, 65 per cent. had maths
skills below those of an 11-year-old and a staggering 82 per cent. had
handwriting skills at or below those of an average 11-year-old. Reading
those statistics makes one realise the full horror of what happens when
children fail to acquire such basic skills at an early
age. A
2003 inspectorate of prisons report revealed that 83 per cent. of boys
and 65 per cent. of girls under 18 in custody had been excluded from
school. More than 40 per cent. were 14 or younger when they
had last
attended school. I strongly believe that the fact that so many
11-year-olds still struggle with reading when they start secondary
school lies at the root of their disaffection. How do we help those
youngsters in youth custody? The answer must lie in education in the
basic skills and more that lead to a general
education. Action
for Children is a voluntary sector provider of children’s
services that shares our concern about the quality of education for
young people in custody. Action for Children
states: “Within
the secure estate, education and training provision is patchy. There is
a commitment of 30 hours per week of education and skills provision,
but figures suggest that the average amount of time spent on education
and training is much
lower.” Amendment
99 would therefore insert into clause 47 a provision defining whether
education or training is enough to meet a person’s reasonable
needs by requiring at least 30 hours a week, or six hours a day. Given
the importance of education in today’s competitive modern world
and the poor education suffered by most young people in custody, the
amendment is
essential. When
I was a member of the Education Select Committee, we conducted an
inquiry into prison education. What we saw in our prisons when it came
to education was appalling and contrasted heavily with prison education
abroad. The churn of prisoners meant that education was given a low
priority by prison officers. Education in youth custody is not quite as
bad, but a statutory duty to provide 30 hours a week would focus
priorities in our system. In an important 2002 report, “Reducing
Re-offending by Ex-Prisoners”, the social exclusion unit
concluded that employment reduces the risk of reoffending by between
one third and one half, and that prisoners who did not take part in
education were three times more likely to be re-convicted than those
who did. If we believe that education is vital to help young offenders
back on to the straight and narrow, Ministers should support amendment
99. We
agree with the Government amendments grouped with amendment 99, as they
seek to ensure that those in youth detention receive the same education
provision as those in mainstream schools. Government
amendment 340 defines the curriculum to be used as either
the national curriculum or a local curriculum and requires learning
providers to use information from the student’s home authority,
but I have a question for the Minister on that amendment. Clause 47(2)
says:
“In
deciding...whether education or training is suitable to meet
persons’ reasonable needs, a local education authority
must...have regard
to— (a)
the persons’ ages, abilities and
aptitudes; (b)
any special educational needs”.
The amendment adds to
that three more requirements. The first is the desirability of enabling
persons to complete programmes of study or training that they have
begun. My concern here is about the wording. If when deciding whether
education or training is suitable to meet the person’s
reasonable needs, a local education authority must have regard to the
desirability of enabling persons to complete programmes of study or
training which they have begun, that could be interpreted to mean that
if the young person will be unable to complete a particular course or
training once they leave custody, it will not be
necessary to provide it in custody. I should like some reassurance from
the Minister that that will not happen in
practice. | 
