Draft Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Amendment of Functions) Order 2014
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Austin, Ian (Dudley North) (Lab)
† Bacon, Mr Richard (South Norfolk) (Con)
† Brine, Steve (Winchester) (Con)
Clwyd, Ann (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
† Corbyn, Jeremy (Islington North) (Lab)
† Evans, Mr Nigel (Ribble Valley) (Con)
† Graham, Richard (Gloucester) (Con)
† Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)
† Huppert, Dr Julian (Cambridge) (LD)
† Jarvis, Dan (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
† Murray, Sheryll (South East Cornwall) (Con)
† Selous, Andrew (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)
Simpson, David (Upper Bann) (DUP)
† Tredinnick, David (Bosworth) (Con)
† Turner, Karl (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
† Wallace, Mr Ben (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)
† Winnick, Mr David (Walsall North) (Lab)
Grahame Danby, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Fourth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 7 January 2015
[Sir Alan Meale in the Chair]
Draft Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Amendment of Functions) Order 2014
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Andrew Selous): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Amendment of Functions) Order 2014.
Good afternoon, Sir Alan. I wish you a happy new year. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon. The order amends the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales Order 2000, which was made under section 41(6) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and the Act itself. The order gives the Youth Justice Board additional functions. The board has the important statutory role of overseeing the operation of the youth justice system in England and Wales, and those additional functions are intended to assist it by enabling it to carry out its role more effectively and efficiently.
The order deals with four provisions. I will briefly outline the purpose of each and then explain the context of the changes, before describing the provisions in more detail. The first provision, set out in article 2(c), extends the scope of the board’s function to make grants to local authorities and other persons. That will allow the board to respond more easily to the evolving needs of local youth justice services.
The second provision, set out in article 3(3)(a), gives the board a concurrent power with the Secretary of State to release young people temporarily from secure training centres—a form of youth custody. The provision contributes to meeting an objective of the Government’s “Transforming Youth Custody” programme, which is to ensure the effective use of temporary release from custody to support the resettlement of young people.
The third provision, set out in article 3(3)(b), has also arisen from the “Transforming Youth Custody” programme. In line with the Government’s aim to put education at the heart of detention, the provision gives the board a concurrent power with the Secretary of State to contract with education providers so that it can commission and manage the delivery of education in directly managed young offender institutions.
The final provision, also set out in article 2(c), is designed to enable the board to make the best use of its skills and knowledge regarding the information technology systems used in the youth justice system. It will enable the board to provide assistance with the development, management and maintenance of IT systems belonging to local authorities and other persons.
Taking the provisions in the order in which I have spoken about them, I will now provide some brief background information on each to explain why the Government seek to make the changes.
First, the board’s current grant-making function dates from when the board was established under the 1998 Act. It enables the board, subject to the Secretary of State’s approval, to provide grant funding to local authorities and other bodies. However, the grant powers do not extend further than the purposes of developing good practice and commissioning research on issues affecting youth justice. One example of a grant provided by the board is the annual youth justice good practice grant to all youth offending teams—otherwise known as YOTs—in England and Wales. That is the board’s most significant grant financially, but it is not the only one it provides to local authorities.
Secondly, the order will enable the board, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to release trainees temporarily from secure training centres. At present, temporary release is provided and overseen by a combination of the National Offender Management Service, on behalf of the Secretary of State, and the directors of secure training centres.
Thirdly, the board leads commissioning of custodial provision in young offender institutions from NOMS. Education in directly managed public sector young offender institutions is commissioned and managed by the Education Funding Agency, which procures contracts from education providers. The agency is an Executive agency sponsored by the Department for Education. It manages funding to support all state-provided education for children and young people up to the age of 19.
Lastly, youth justice IT systems are in place to facilitate the flow and management of information through the youth justice system. That includes permitting information to be shared between front-line agencies, such as local authorities and the youth secure estate, which work directly with children and young people and with the board. The important role the board plays in overseeing the operation of the youth justice system as a whole means that it is highly knowledgeable about the requirements of those information technology systems and their users.
With that background in mind, I will turn to the reasons for the order. When the board and YOTs were established by the 1998 Act, the scope of the board’s grant-making powers served the board’s purpose well. Legislation enabled the board to fund local authorities and others in relation to programmes to develop good practice and commission research.
As part of the Government’s triennial review programme, the triennial review of the board was published and laid in Parliament in November 2013. It reviewed the board’s functions and the appropriateness of its delivery mechanism and governance arrangements, and it concluded that the purpose of the grant-making powers was now outdated and limited. Through the order, the Government are acting on the triennial review’s recommendation. By widening the board’s grant-making powers, we seek to increase the scope of services for which grant money can be used, thereby better responding to the evolving local priorities of youth justice. The order will therefore promote improved front-line delivery of youth justice services locally through a grant that can be used more flexibly—not just to fund good practice and research, but to improve outcomes for young people by funding key services.
On the second provision, the Government’s “Transforming Youth Custody” response on 17 January 2014 set out plans to improve the resettlement of young
people following custody, including making more effective use of temporary release. Where a young person is risk-assessed as suitable for temporary release, permission will be given for them to leave the establishment for an agreed period to undertake constructive activities without compromising security or public protection. The aim is to provide young people with a phased reintroduction into the community.The order will enable the board to release trainees from secure training centres temporarily. In that way, young people will be given the opportunity to experience a safely managed, phased reintroduction to the community, which will increase their chances of successful resettlement and reduce the risks of their reoffending in the future.
Temporary release from custody can be used to enable young people to attend interviews and training courses or to arrange accommodation ready for their release. The board’s understanding of young people in secure training centres will ensure that temporary release activities balance the benefits to the young person with public protection considerations.
The provision of education in directly managed YOTs is also part of the “Transforming Youth Custody” programme. Members of the Committee will be familiar with the Government’s goal of making education the core focus of a young person’s time in custody and doing more to tackle the root causes of reoffending. All young people deserve access to a high-quality education that will allow them to fulfil their potential, and that is all the more important if they have started out on the wrong path in life.
It is important to improve provision for those currently in the youth secure estate. At present, young people in YOIs receive an average of only 12 hours per week of contracted education. The new contracts will more than double that by August 2015. They will be managed by the board, which, as commissioners of the youth estate, will assist the integration of education into the wider rehabilitative regime.
Lastly, I turn to the Government’s reasons for amending the board’s powers to enable it to provide direct assistance to local authorities and other persons in respect of their IT systems. The youth justice system relies on the ability to communicate information about the young person with whom it engages to its various partners, such as local authorities and the secure estate. It is therefore vital to have the appropriate IT systems in place. IT systems have been developed over time to facilitate the flow and management of such information. The board needs to be in a position easily to assist local authorities, the Secretary of State and others to make adjustments to those systems to fit the evolving requirements of the youth justice system. The order will give the board a clearer remit to use its extensive knowledge of youth justice IT systems to assist local authorities and others in the development, management and maintenance of those systems.
The amendments that the order will make to the board’s powers will assist it in carrying out its functions more efficiently and effectively, which will, in turn, benefit the overall operation of the youth justice system. The intention is to give the board the powers it needs to help address offending and reoffending by young people. The challenges it faces now are not identical to those it faced when it was established in 1998. The fall in
first-time entrants to the youth justice system and the decline in the number of children detained in custody are welcome trends, but reoffending rates remain stubbornly high. I commend the draft order to the Committee.2.40 pm
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alan.
I thank the Minister for his statement setting out the details of the order, which, as he said, amends the functions of the Youth Justice Board and grants it a number of new ones. With that in mind, I begin my remarks by paying tribute to the work and achievements of the board over recent years. The substantial fall in youth crime over the past decade is a testament to the leadership it has shown along with youth offending teams across the country.
Albeit that, not that long ago, the Government were arguing for the YJB to be abolished, I welcome the Minister’s efforts to strengthen its mandate. It is welcome that Ministers are ending this Parliament by seeking to build on the board’s success, even if that was not their policy in 2010. The changes are sensible and we do not object to them in principle, but I hope the Committee will understand my seeking clarification on a few points from the Minister, particularly as the Government have not published a specific impact assessment for the order.
First, as the Minister said, the order extends the YJB’s ability to award grants to local authorities and other bodies working within the youth justice system. That greater flexibility should allow new services to support young people and is a welcome change. Additional powers to award grants are always welcome, but the Committee will appreciate that they need to have adequate funds behind them if they are to make any difference. What assessment, therefore, has the Minister made of the YJB’s current operating budget, including the pool from which the grants will be awarded?
I also ask the Minister for a little more clarity regarding the conditions to which the grants will be subject. The Government’s triennial review of the YJB in 2013 recommended that future grants should be linked to the monitoring of youth offending teams and to “specific measurable outcomes.” Will he give the Committee an idea of the outcomes he and the board might have in mind?
The Government are also currently carrying out a stocktake of youth offending teams to establish how they are operating and how they may need to evolve in the future. It would make sense for the proposals set out in the order to reflect whatever the conclusions of that stocktake might be. Will the Minister update the Committee on how it is progressing and whether there are any early conclusions?
Secondly, the order also gives the YJB the new function of assisting other relevant bodies with IT support. Again, that is unobjectionable and I do not doubt that the board has considerable expertise to offer in that area. It is, however, a complex area, especially with regard to protecting young people’s data and sharing those data between different agencies. Will the Minister tell the Committee what assessment the Government have made of how many local authorities and other organisations the YJB will be expected to support? Is he confident that it will have the necessary staff and resources
to carry out the role effectively? None of us wants to give responsibilities to the board that it does not have the capacity to carry out in practice.Thirdly, article 3 of the order will allow the YJB to enter into contracts for the provision of education in young offender institutions. This is an important issue, and I agree with the Minister that more needs to be done to improve the level of education and purposeful activity being delivered in YOIs. The Opposition have made our feelings clear: the Government should be focusing more on efforts like this one to improve educational standards in existing institutions rather than on certain other projects.
A competition is already under way to find new providers of education in YOIs, and a new service is due to commence in just a few months’ time. Will the Minister update the Committee on the progress of that competition? Given the greater role proposed for the YJB, what input will he seek from it in deciding how that contract is decided and implemented?
Fourthly, the order allows the temporary release and recall of trainees from secure training centres. We know that temporary release can play an important part in the resettlement of young people if it is handled properly, so this is a good step. It makes sense to ensure that the YJB has the powers that it needs to recall any trainees who breach the terms of their release, but may I ask two things of the Minister? Will he explain the Government’s rationale for granting these release and recall powers for young people in secure training centres but not YOIs, and can he provide any reassurances about how and when a released trainee will be deemed to be unlawfully at large?
The Care Quality Commission and others have estimated that as many as 30% of people going through the criminal justice system suffer from learning difficulties of some sort. Sometimes it is those factors that lead to some offenders breaching the terms of their release, rather than that happening through malicious intent, so I would be grateful if the Minister could give the Committee some guidance on how the new powers of arrest will be exercised, particularly given that we are talking about young teenagers.
Fifthly and finally, on commencement, the order is drafted to come into force with immediate effect. Can the Minister confirm for the Committee what transition arrangements are in place, and has he satisfied himself that the YJB has the necessary capabilities to exercise the new functions right away?
I would be grateful for any reassurances that the Minister can provide on my questions. As I said at the outset, we have no objection in principle to granting the additional powers to the YJB, and if the Minister can reassure us on those points, Opposition Members will feel no need to oppose the order.
2.46 pm
Andrew Selous: I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s broad support for the order. I was writing fast as he was speaking and I may have his questions down in a slightly different order from that in his notes, but I shall do my best to address them now.
The hon. Gentleman started by asking about the budget. He referred to the review of the YJB and youth offending teams and mentioned that youth offending teams have been successful. That is absolutely the case. They have managed to bring down youth offending quite considerably. Like him, I pay tribute to all the staff who work in this area for the success that they have had in recent years. On the budget, the costs of the youth justice system have fallen as the number of first-time entrants into the system has fallen. We are committed to funding the YJB adequately to deliver its role effectively. Decisions are taken on an annual basis in conjunction with the board of the YJB and Ministers, but as I said, the number of people in youth custody has come down.
The hon. Gentleman’s second point was about the youth offending team stakeholder review that we are undertaking. That is an ongoing piece of work. We do not have any findings to report at the moment. We are aware of the success of youth offending teams and we want reoffending to continue to fall. The hon. Gentleman, I am sure, is aware that roughly one third of funding for youth offending teams comes from the YJB and, broadly, the other two thirds comes from local authorities and other partners. There are obviously some issues of accountability when there are different funding sources, as we need to ensure that the taxpayer is getting value for money. We also want to examine, perhaps in slightly more depth, why some youth offending teams have been more successful than others, so that we can spread best practice and learn the lessons. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would want us to do that.
Next, the hon. Gentleman asked about the IT provisions in the order. In large part, they are intended to ensure that the YJB and local authorities, which are the other significant funder, are able to communicate properly and successfully. It is not that there have been major problems, but we are aware that the YJB has relevant expertise, and we felt the need to put its ability to operate more firmly on a legal basis.
I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s support for our increase in the amount of education that we are providing for young people in custody. That is essential if we are to be successful in rehabilitating them in due course. As for the next point made that he made, the new education contracts will commence in March. He then asked about temporary release. As I explained earlier, it is obviously important to ensure that young people are prepared well for their release into the community. We need to ensure that we have the correct legal powers commensurate with public protection.
The hon. Gentleman quite properly asked about the transition arrangements, and I assure him that the measures have been discussed fully with the YJB in advance—they are not something that the ministerial team has sprung upon it. We worked collaboratively with the YJB. It welcomes our approach, which is in effect to give more operational devolution of powers to the YJB while having strong ministerial accountability. That is the right way to proceed.
Having addressed the various points made by the shadow Minister, I commend the order to the Committee.