Annette
Brooke: Some very important points have been made by the
hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. It is vital that we get
this right. I was thinking outside the box as he was speaking because
it strikes me that whether or not they have special educational needs,
each young person needs an individual learning plan under these
circumstances. Needs will vary from individual to individual. It is
difficult to start specifying precisely. I have witnessed voluntary
work in Feltham young offenders institution which was very good. The
programme gave individual attention and was honing basic writing
skills. So each individual young person will have specific needs and
there needs to be a tailored programme. I shall confess my ignorance
here. I do not know whether prison education is inspected. I think it
should be. So I should like to ask the Minister about that. I support
all the sentiments behind this, but I feel we should tailor to the
individual person and have clear points of progress that can be checked
by an independent
inspector. Mr.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): I rise to
support amendment 99 and its requirement that young people in custody
should be entitled to 30 hours per week of education and skills
training. The Minister may be horrified by the cost of delivering that.
As well as cost issues there may be practical issues of being able to
deliver that within youth custody. But as my hon. Friend the Member for
Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made clear, the cost to society of
allowing young people whose education has so far been a failure to
continue to be uneducated and thus unable to engage in normal
employment outside, is far
greater. I
therefore hope that the Minister will take this issue extremely
seriously. I also put to her the proposal that she might look to amend
the Bill so that, given the lamentable educational standard of most
people who enter youth custody, entering youth custody triggers an SEN
assessment. Under the Bill it is not the home authority that will have
to deal with the young person when they leave custody, but the
authority in which the institution sits. It will have to make the
assessment and provide the funding and I fear that without the
long-term commitment that the home authority would have, it may
interpret the Bill to mean looking at any already established special
educational needs of a young person who is in custody. It will
certainly have no economic incentive to make such an assessment and
thus be obliged to allocate additional resources to help that young
person turn their life around. I hope that the Minister will also
comment on that proposal—that entering youth custody would
trigger a formal assessment of special educational
needs. Mrs.
Sharon Hodgson (Gateshead, East and Washington, West)
(Lab): I was heartened to read Government amendment 340, and
especially proposed new subsection
(c): “the
desirability of enabling persons to complete programmes of study or
training which they have
begun”. I
know that we are not discussing this here, but I seek guidance as to
whether that wording will also appear with regard to
apprenticeships—I hope that it will—and if so where. When
might we expect to debate that?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I will start with amendment 99.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton says that his
intention is to further define in the Bill what is meant by ensuring
that suitable education is provided to meet the reasonable needs of
children and young people in juvenile custody, by specifically
requiring a minimum of 30 hours of education and training per week. I
sympathise with the view that we should include specific requirements
such as the number of hours that should be delivered per person per
week. However, the clause makes it clear that LEAs must, in determining
whether provision is suitable, have regard to the persons’ ages,
abilities and aptitudes and any special educational needs or learning
difficulties they might
have. We
understand from working in close partnership with our colleagues at the
Youth Justice Board and from wider stakeholders that it is not always
practical, or in fact desirable, for young people to participate in
30 hours of education and training per week. As we can all
appreciate, young people in custody often have complex needs, which
require a range of interventions and support, and we want to ensure
that regimes in custody are able to support those needs. For some, that
might mean receiving at least 30 hours of education a week, but others
might have wider needs. For example, they might need to participate in
drug detoxification and behaviour programmes. We therefore propose to
set out our more detailed expectations for what education and training
should be delivered for children and young people in custody in
guidance, in which we can be clear that provision should be able to be
adapted to meet children and young people’s needs. That was, I
think, the point made by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North
Poole.
Mr.
Hayes: The Minister makes a case for a more flexible
approach because of the particular needs that the young people might
have, but it would be entirely possible in guidance to speak about a
normal expectation of 30 hours of education or training per week,
excepting for the kind of circumstances she has described. If the
guidance were less robust, doubts would take root about just how much
education and training young people would receive as a
norm.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s
points and when we put our statutory guidance together we will consider
how it could be worded so that the expectations are as I am sure
we all wish them to be. However, it is not necessary
to put that requirement in the Bill. Amendment 99 is
therefore unnecessary and I urge the hon. Gentleman to
withdraw
it.
Mr.
Gibb: Another argument in favour of the amendment is that
it does not say that a young person has to complete 30 hours of
education. The clause is about a local education authority securing
that enough suitable education is provided to meet the reasonable
needs, which is defined by the amendment as being able to receive 30
hours of education a week. The young person does not need to attend the
education but the LEA needs to ensure that it is provided. It is
important that it is because otherwise the LEA will find a whole
host of excuses not to provide 30 hours of education in
custody.
5.15
pm
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s
point but it would be too prescriptive to put that requirement in the
Bill. I prefer to put it in guidance so that we can emphasise the point
about meeting the needs of the individual
learner. Amendments
340, 341 and 342 would strengthen the clause, while amendments 348 and
349 are technical and consequential. I welcome the support from
Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members for the amendments. Given
that support and in the interests of time, I do not intend to dwell on
their detail. However, I want to put on the record that the assumption
is that it is desirable and that guidance will say that young people
will be able to continue in education or training obviously subject to
the constraints of a custodial
setting.
Mr.
Stuart: Does the Minister consider that people entering
youth custody should trigger an SEN assessment?
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: No young person under the proposals will
gain a statement while they are in custody because part 4 of the
Education Act 1996, which deals with SEN, is suspended while they are
in custody. There is a specific reason for that. The statementing
process takes a considerable time and most young people are in
custodial settings for relatively short periods. We are proposing to
suspend the statementing process while people are in custody with a
requirement on the home LEAs to pick it up when they return. However,
we have not reached that clause
yet.
Mr.
Gibb: I am disappointed in the Minister’s response,
despite her encouraging opening comment that she was sympathetic with
our view. I visited several youth custody settings and prisons while I
was a member of the Education Committee, when every excuse from churn
to the fact that the prison sentences were not long enough was given by
prison officers as a reason why education was not provided. I am
talking about prisons, not youth custody settings, but in the prisons
that I toured back in 2004, the average amount of education given was
half a day a week compared with full-time education in most prisons
that we visited abroad.
Unless we
specify 30 hours a week under the Bill, I am worried that that level of
education will not be provided. It might be provided for 20 or 15
hours, but it will be nowhere near to six hours a day, which is
essential if we believe that the road to redemption for prisoners is to
ensure that they have a full education to equip them to cope in the
modern world. Even programming the Sky+ box often requires a
sophisticated level of education, let alone finding a job and holding
it
down.
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I am asking the hon. Gentleman to give way
because I am not sure whether I will get an opportunity to explain the
difference. In the adult prison estate, there is no requirement for any
prisoner to participate in education. We are now talking about the
youth offending estate, where the responsibility is currently
undertaken by the Ministry of Justice and which we are transferring to
local authorities. That will be best delivered through statutory
guidance not under the amendment.
Mr.
Gibb: I understand the Minister’s point, but the
ethos that seems to prevail in her custody settings in this country
differs from other countries. Since so much is laid out in legislation
that is of less significance than the issue that we are discussing, the
hon. Lady is wrong not to accept the amendment, which would put into
the Bill that young people in custody should be able to access up to 30
hours a week of education. Given that we regard education important for
young people in custody, I intend to test the Committee’s view
on the
amendment. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
9.
Division
No.
12] Question
accordingly
negatived. Amendments
made: 340, in
clause 47, page 30, line 6, at
end insert— ‘(c) the
desirability of enabling persons to complete programmes of study or
training which they have
begun; (d) any relevant
curriculum and the desirability that education received by children
subject to youth detention should be comparable with education which
they could be expected to receive if they were attending a school or
institution implementing a relevant
curriculum; (e) the
desirability of the core entitlement and the additional entitlement
being satisfied in relation to persons over compulsory school age but
under 19 who have elected for
them.’. Amendment
341, in
clause 47, page 30, line 6, at
end insert— ‘( ) In
subsection (2)(d), “relevant curriculum”
means— (a) in relation
to a local education authority in England, the National Curriculum for
England established under section 87 of the Education Act 2002 as
subsisting for the time
being; (b) in relation to a
local education authority in
Wales— (i) the National
Curriculum for Wales established under section 108 of that Act as
subsisting for the time being,
or (ii) any local curriculum
formed by the authority under section 116A of the Education Act 2002
(formation of local curricula for pupils in Key Stage 4) or for their
area under section 33A of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (formation
of local curricula for students aged 16 to
18). ( ) Sections 17B to 17D
apply for the purposes of subsection (2)(e) as they apply
for the purposes of section
17A.’. Amendment
342, in
clause 47, page 30, line 6, at
end insert— ‘( ) Any
arrangements made by a local education authority under subsection (1)
for the provision by another person (the “learning
provider”) of education or training must require the
learning provider, in making any determination as to the education or
training to be provided for a particular person, to have regard to any
information provided under section 562E by the person’s home
authority (within the meaning of Chapter 5A of Part 10) for the purpose
of assisting any such
determination.’. Amendment
270, in clause 47, page 30, leave out
lines 18 to 21.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.) Clause
47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
48Persons
detained in youth accommodation: application of
provisions Amendment
made: 271, in
clause 48, page 30, line 33, leave
out ‘section’ and insert
‘Act’.—(Sarah
McCarthy-Fry.)
Sarah
McCarthy-Fry: I beg to move amendment 343, in
clause 48, page 30, line 45, at
end insert— ‘( ) After that
subsection
add— “(3) A child
or young person who is being kept in accommodation provided for the
purpose of restricting liberty is not to be regarded for the purposes
of this section as detained in pursuance of an order made by a court by
reason of the fact that a court has authorised the person to be kept in
such accommodation under section 25(4) of the Children Act 1989 (use of
accommodation for restricting
liberty).”’. The
amendment clarifies legislation that relates to looked-after children
who are provided with secure accommodation for welfare reasons. Such
children are the subjects of orders under section 25 of the Children
Act 1989, which authorise the local authority to restrict their liberty
because they would otherwise be at risk of suffering significant harm
or present a risk to others. The clause will amend section 562 of the
Education Act 1996 so that children and young people subject to
detention in juvenile custody are no longer excluded from the
provisions of that Act and subsequent Acts read as one with
it. The
amendment will simply amend the clause to clarify that section 562 of
the 1996 Act does not apply to looked-after children who are placed in
secure accommodation under section 25 of the 1989 Act and that local
authority duties to those children are the same as to other children,
including other looked-after children, in their area. The amendment
will remove any doubt about the application of the
legislation. Amendment
343 agreed
to. Clause
48, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
