Mr. Hayes: While the hon. Lady is speaking about the determination, and the balance between practicalities and what is desirable, will she say something about the interface with Connexions? It is critical that when a young person is released, there is good transmission of information between other authorities and Connexions so that the young persons circumstances can be made known and the options available to them explored through the Connexions service. She said nothing about that. Will she enlighten the Committee about her thinking on the subject?
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: That is one of the benefits of our bringing Connexions back under the wing of the local authority. They have all the tools at their disposal to achieve that.
I hope that Committee members will agree that it is not practical for all the duties imposed on local education authorities in the Education Acts to apply to the education and training of persons detained in relevant youth accommodation, but that our new clauses and related amendments provide a robust and practical solution to ensure that the special educational needs of children and young people in juvenile custody can be supported appropriately. We will also issue guidance to which LEAs must have regard when exercising their duties. The guidance will set out our expectations of how LEAs should support the special educational needs of children and young people in juvenile custody.
The Chairman: The question is that clause 49 stand part of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion, say Aye. [Hon. Members: Aye.] To the contrary, No. Perhaps we can do that again.
Mr. Gibb: On a point of order, Mr. Chope. Has that not now happened, and can we not now move on to clause 50?
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is technically correct. The question is whether the Chair should make some allowance for the fact that there is obviously a lack of understanding, perhaps, on the Government Benches in relation to the material under discussion. My inclination is to give the Government a second chance, otherwise time might unnecessarily be taken up on the issue on Report when the Committee might have other priorities.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Detention of child or young person: local education authority to be notified
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 18Detention of child or young person: local education authorities to be notified.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: New clause 18 inserts new section 39A into the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to require youth offending teams in England and Wales to notify a child or young persons home and host local education authority when they become aware that that person has been detained in or transferred or released from relevant youth accommodation. The new clause replaces clause 50, which is omitted by amendment 345, and extends that clauses requirements.
Clause 50 currently requires youth offending teams to notify the home LEA when they become aware that a child or young person has become subject to a detention order and has been detained in relevant youth accommodation. New clause 18 reinserts that requirement and extends it to require youth offending teams also to notify the host LEA in the area in which that person has been detained. The new clause also requires youth offending teams to notify LEAs as soon as they become aware that a person has been transferred between juvenile custodial establishments or is released from relevant youth accommodation.
The new clause will ensure that home and host LEAs always know when a child or young person moves into, within, and out of the juvenile custodial estate. It will also ensure that they know where the person is detained, and will help LEAs fulfil their new duties under new chapter 5A of the Education Act 1996. Furthermore, the new clause will help to ensure that suitable education
Mr. Hayes: The new clause ensures that youth offending teams share and exchange information with host, as well as home, authorities, which goes some way towards dealing with the concerns that we raised a few moments ago. As such, that is a step in the right direction, but I re-emphasise that we are most concerned that the right mechanism be put in place to exchange information. That would require a considerable investment in terms of databases, protocols and so on. Given the doubts that have already been expressed about whether the Connexions database is fit for the additional purposes for which it is now intended, I remain unconvinced that systems are in place to ensure that the issue is appropriately dealt with.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 50 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Transport policy statements for persons of sixth form age: consultation
( ) In section 509AB of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) (further provision about transport policy statement) after subsection (7) insert
(8) In performing the duty to consult, an authority shall have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State concerning the timing and manner of consultations under this section.
(9) An authority shall make available to persons or bodies it proposes to consult under this section such information as may be prescribed and is in its possession or control; and it shall do so in such form and manner, and at such time, as may be prescribed...
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2Further provision about transport policy statements
(1) In section 509AB of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) omit subsection (3)(d) and insert after subsection (7)
(8) In preparing a statement under that section a local education authority has a duty to provide affordable transport...
Annette Brooke: We now move on to transport following our rather tortuous discussions on education in youth offending institutions and so on. Amendment 125 would insert a requirement for consultation in the Bill. There is a very good reason for that. Most people would agree that local authority transport plans need to be madeafter proper consultation with colleges and other appropriate stakeholdersyet the Association of Colleges 2008 survey found that that did not happen in 40 per cent. of cases. That is quite staggering when considering the importance of transport in the Bills proposals. It is therefore very important to make sure that that really
I would like to make a number of probing points on whether a local authority should have a duty to provide affordable transport. The Bill proposes strengthening transport arrangements for 16 to 18-year-old students and I think that we all applaud that. When publishing their annual transport policy statement, local authorities will have to set out, in full, their thinking behind the statement and publish it in good time so that young people and parents can take account of it when making decisions about where to study. That is all very important, but at the moment there is no duty to provide affordable transport that takes into account the ability of young people to pay. Cost considerations are from the point of view of the local authority rather than the learner, and we have been emphasising today how important it is that the learner should be at the fore.
There are inconsistencies in the provision from different local authorities. Analysis of local authority transport policies in 2006-07 for students aged 16 to 19 shows that charges can be from between £60 to £550 per year. Free transport provision is available from some, but for the most part it is means-tested. The charge can cover anythingfrom the students contribution to student bus passes, places on local authority-provided buses, train passes, mileage allowance, or whatever the local authority has agreed to subsidise. While I am all in favour of local decision making, we have to determine that there is equitable provision for our young people across the country.
For the most part, local authorities will provide only free or subsidised transport to the nearest or nearest appropriate educational establishment. It is important to consider the young person who is travelling to undertake a course that is on offer at a particular institution only, or to a specialist college, which might be outside the home local authority boundary. The Government have encouraged colleges, schools and training providers to specialise and to offer more options, but sometimes young people need to travel further to access the right course. Choice in education is what we all wish for, but it can be expensive. However, if we have skill shortages, then we have to accept that travelling might be essential. It is important that young people have a genuine choice about their education and training, and that they should not face barriers relating to transport.
I have several specific questions that follow on from that. For example, colleges have been told by the Learning and Skills Council that they must no longer use the learner support funda fund to help disadvantaged students access coursesto fund transport. It would be very useful if the Minister clarified whether colleges can use that fund and whether the final responsibility to fund student transport should lie with local authorities.
There has to be concern about transport provision when colleges currently spend an average of £305,000 per year subsidising student travel. For example, Kingston Maurwood college in Dorset specialises in agriculture and many other very good courses. It manages to get a high proportion of students attending by having a very innovative transport policy that collects students from across the urban conurbation, as well serving the rural area. That issue is very unclear in terms of the future of colleges and needs to be addressed.
The Bill proposes that local authorities publish a transport policy statement covering travel arrangements for students aged 19 to 25 with a learning difficulty assessment under the Learning and Skills Act 2000. Does this mean that, on transport provision, students with learning difficulties who do not have a relevant assessment will be treated as adults, despite their additional needs? The purpose of the new clause is to put a firm responsibility on the local authority to ensure that there is genuine transport provision, so that all students can access the course that suits them bestwhile taking on board any disproportionality, as we discussed earlier today. I shall be interested to hear the Ministers comments on that.
Mr. Hayes: I want to add some brief comments to this short but interesting debate. The hon. Lady raises some significant matters, and I want to emphasise their significance for rural areas. She spoke about the inconsistency of provision, and it would have the most devastating effect in those places where people will have to travel furthest to access the right training and education. In my constituency in Lincolnshire, for example, there is no FE college; the FE colleges that serve my constituents are in Boston, Stamford and Peterborough, so journeys are significant, take time and involve costs.
There are some important issues about guaranteeing adequate skills training and education for people in rural communities. Not all rural areas are immensely privileged, as some might believe. My constituency has an economic profile that, in a nutshell, could be described as one of high employment, low skills, relatively low educational attainment and real deprivation, so it is important that the Minister deal appropriately and clearly with the hon. Ladys points; otherwise, doubts will remain about the opportunities for young people and others in communities such as those that I represent.
Sarah McCarthy-Fry: The clause will give young people a new voice in the local transport arrangements for those of sixth-form age, and, by requiring local authorities to consult young people on the drawing up of their transport policy statements and ensuring that the statements can be amended in response to complaints, we will strengthen local accountability in the implementation of the current duty. The measures should ensure that local authorities are bound to give adequate consideration to the cost of transport and affordability when they develop their statement. Local authorities already consult young people and their parents on a range of childrens services, and we envisage that they will build on their existing good practice in consulting young people and their parents about transport provision.
Following the proposed transfer of responsibilities from the Learning and Skills Council, we intend that the Secretary of State issue guidance under section 509AB(5) of the Education Act 1996. We will use the guidance to set out our expectations of local authorities when consulting young people and examples of good practice. Given that we will put that in the guidance, we do not feel it necessary to include amendment 125, so, in the light of that assurance, we ask the hon. Lady to withdraw it.
On new clause 2, we share the hon. Ladys view that access to affordable transport is integral to helping young people access education and training. Current
The hon. Lady spoke about colleges and their requirements. While colleges might wish to provide discretionary financial support for individual learners facing particular hardship, we do not expect them to fund transport provision routinely. With regard to young people aged 19 to 24 with learning difficulties, we are strengthening our learning difficulty assessment guidance to include an explicit reference to consider a young persons wider needs, including transport. New section 508G in the Education Act 1996 will place a duty on local education authorities to make available in a transport policy statement information about the travel provision they have to put in place for young people aged 19 to 24.
|©Parliamentary copyright 2009||Prepared 18 March 2009|