| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
When a young offender is released, the local authority where he is supposed to have lived has to devise a training programme for him wherever he goes, even if he does not go back to Essex. Who devised that policy? I cannot believe that it came from the Ministry of Justice, the Home Office or the Prison Service. Did it come from the education department-the DCSF-or the business or skills departments? In those days, I think business and skills were under the education department. It is clear that this has not been thought through very carefully. It is an immensely bureaucratic structure. At Third Reading, it would be sensible for the House to postpone for two years the implementation of these clauses relating to the training of young offenders aged 16 to 18. The Minister shakes her head. Read these details and understand the complexity of it. Who will pay for it? There will be an annual grant to the host authority for the provision but will that be per capita or an annual grant? If it is per capita will that allow for the prison population to go up from 2,600 to 4,000? If it is an annual grant, they could not possibly
2 Nov 2009 : Column 71
Lord Elton: My Lords, first, I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has said about those amendments in our joint names. Secondly, with due deference to the Companion,I support my noble friend Lord Baker, who expressed sentiments which I wish I could have expressed earlier. Thirdly, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for introducing clarification of what I called the Henry VIII clause. I am grateful for what she has done to ensure that this does not allow an Administration to overturn the provisions in the Bill where they affect young people in custody.
Amendment 55, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is designed to elicit from the Government the duty which the governor of an institution from which a young person is released is under. When a young person is incarcerated, how does the duty rest on the governor to see that the education, which the Bill provides in such a complicated and expensive way, is delivered? As my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will know, there are often shortages of members of the Prison Officers' Association able or willing to move prisoners from one part of a prison to another. It is all very well having teachers, overhead projectors and white boards in one room in a young offender institution if all the inmates who are to benefit from it are elsewhere. Nowhere in the Bill have I seen a requirement that the governor and the host authority shall be able to discharge the functions as set out in the Bill. Nor do I see an explanation of how they shall be exempted from being in breach of the statute if they have been unable to do so because of responsibilities which lie with the Prison Service. Although the Minister may not much like the amendment, I hope she will like the opportunity to explain what will happen under those circumstances.
I reaffirm my enthusiasm for the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in Amendments 51 and 52, which I support and about which we shall have to take a view when the questions on them are put by the Lord Speaker. We cannot debate them again but my view is that it would be very good to have them in the Bill, unless the noble Baroness can produce something more effective than I expect.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, on my amendments in this group, the Minister has answered my questions before I have asked them. I am content with her answers.
I look forward to hearing what she has to say about the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, which seem to be much more to the point and try to introduce some sense of hope and direction into this Mittsommernachtstraum of a section of the Bill. We are living, as my noble friend Lord Baker has said, in the realm of fantasy. The ability of the Government-produced information systems to handle something of this complexity is not often demonstrated-I say that kindly. The number of people through which these processes have to go, each of whom will take their own time and have their own in-tray, will leave
2 Nov 2009 : Column 72
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I offer support for my noble friend's Amendments 51 and 52. I cannot see why there should not be an assessment when a young person enters and leaves custody. The amendment speaks of six months, but I cannot see why it should not refer to three or four months. I look forward to the Minister's response. I strongly support my noble friend.
Baroness Garden of Frognal: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister and to the Bill team for the detailed discussion that we have had on these clauses. I take the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Ramsbotham and Lord Baker, that sometimes the length of the detail and description has been somewhat overwhelming. With the benefit of the amendments tabled, the Bill provides for improvement to procedures and systems in some cases. We welcome the Government's commitment to assessing literacy and numeracy skills when a young person begins a period in custody and we strongly support the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, in his Amendment 51, which suggests that special educational needs should be assessed at the same time and that that assessment should lead to an intensive programme of learning to ensure that young people leave custody with higher levels of skills than when they entered. If they are better equipped for life and work, surely that makes sense for them personally, and it makes social and economic sense.
We have listened to the arguments about assessment when young people leave custody. On the whole, we support the Government's view that repeated assessment might discourage them more and not be the most effective use of limited resources. In previous debates, we have discussed who will do the assessment and how it will be assessed. We have to recognise that assessment resources need to be targeted in the most effective way possible.
We support Amendment 55 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, as I indicated when I spoke to a similar Liberal Democrat amendment in Committee. The duty of liaison between host and home authorities should, most appropriately, rest with the governor and if there were a change of governor-the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has raised that before-the responsibility could still rest with that function and the continuity of the young person's educational programme could be assured. As the Minister said, I feel that we are edging forward in some respects with this Bill and we would support some of the government amendments proposed today.
7 pm
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, I support all the amendments that have been spoken to. My noble friend Lord Ramsbotham has put his finger on what
2 Nov 2009 : Column 73
That said, I hope that the Minister can be more specific about just how far the Government are prepared to go to meet the concerns that have been expressed in these amendments, all of which I strongly support, or that we will be testing the opinion of the House on at least some of them.
Lord De Mauley: My Lords, several of the government amendments in this group are designed to respond to our amendment tabled in Committee, now Clause 49, which asked that a reading assessment be carried out on those subject to youth detention. The Minister has brought forward a new amendment to replace ours. Barring one objection, she will be pleased to hear that we are gladly able to accept those amendments. As she has described, she has expanded the assessment so that the initial assessment will be of both literacy and numeracy. We welcome this change, and thank the Government for having seen the merit of our amendment in such a favourable light as to expand on it.
We also welcome the Government's intention to expand the requirement that the information from the assessments be used to help determine suitable educational provision. We also agree that if a recent assessment is available, then a further assessment should not be required. However, I ask the Minister to clarify two matters. First, how does new Section 562DA link to the provision which requires information to be taken into account when determining what constitutes suitable education? My reading of the Bill, and the amendments, suggests that it is only new Section 562E which is taken into account. I would be grateful if she would consider and clarify that.
Secondly, can the Minister offer us some reassurance that there will be some statutory guidance in place relating to the amount of time which would be considered appropriate for it to be concluded that a further assessment was not necessary? We agree that it is important not to overassess detained people, but it would be unfortunate if subsection (3) of new Section 562DA were to be exploited so as to render it meaningless.
I was interested to hear the Minister respond to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, before he spoke to them. His response to that response was very compelling, and we share his concerns about
2 Nov 2009 : Column 74
We welcome in particular Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. While the government amendments are acceptable replacements for our own Clause 49, we feel that it remains important to have an assessment in place for when the person leaves youth accommodation, as well as when he enters it. We have taken on board the Government's concerns that a short sentence could mean that assessments were unnecessary, so we are supportive of the amendment, which requires the second assessment to occur only when the person has been detained for six months or longer. I very much hope that the Minister will look favourably on this amendment, as it reflects the concerns which were behind Amendment 124D when it was accepted by the Committee.
Moreover, we concur with the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that the assessment should be made available to the home authority. This allows for a coherent approach to education, which should mean that progress made while in detention can be carried forward thereafter. In this light, I hope the Minister will look favourably on Amendments 53 and 54, which have been tabled by my noble friend Lord Lucas. I think she said that she did. These amendments have at their heart a desire to ensure that information is provided to those detained in youth accommodation in a coherent way. The host authority, the home authority and the providers of education should all be aware of what each other has been doing and what progress has been made. It should be a duty to ensure that such a consistent approach is taken. All the good intentions which the Government have here will be to no avail if one side is not aware of what the other is doing or has achieved.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, is there a definition of a home authority, as related to a young offender, which would stand up in a court of law, or is it a term of art?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, this has been a very full and interesting debate, and I hope that I can respond to the points made by noble Lords. I made it clear in my speech that we propose to return at Third Reading with amendments that would require the transfer of information about educational progress to inform resettlement, which I think will pick up the concerns raised in Amendments 51 and 52. I want to be clear that I am very keen to continue the dialogue.
I am very disappointed with efforts to provide the Committee, and now the House, with information. In some cases, noble Lords feel that there is not enough, and in other cases that there is too much. I appreciate that noble Lords want to see detail in the Bill. That is very difficult when we are looking at the length of guidance that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to, which is very draft, as he pointed out, and when we want to be specific about the "whats" that need to be delivered. We have to have comprehensive statutory guidance, so there is a difficult balance to strike in order to get the right detail in the Bill but the full detail in statutory guidance, so that those in the system
2 Nov 2009 : Column 75
It is about making sure that we drive up standards for young people in custody and making sure that they are not left behind. The system of information exchange is key. It is about making sure that when young people enter custody, when their sentence planning is undertaken, that information about their prior special educational needs and attainment is taken into account and that, when they leave, that information is transmitted to those who have a duty-the home education authority, which is defined in statutory guidance. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is right: that must stand up to scrutiny. Those education authorities have a duty to ensure that those young people are not left behind when they come out, in resettlement, but that their education is picked up and carried on. Where there are duties to ensure that, in resettlement, young people's special educational needs are met, they must be exercised.
I have a few detailed comments. Amendment 51 would require a full SEN assessment for every young person entering youth custody, including a repeat assessment if they were to be moved to a different establishment, or on their release. Considering that SEN statements can take 16 weeks for initial advice and 10 weeks for the actual assessment, we do not consider that to be a practical solution. That is why we think that we need to do further work. We think that it is more appropriate to put requirements for assessments of literacy and numeracy in the Bill, because they are more easily definable and quantifiable.
To pick up on a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, Amendment 52 stipulates that if a recent assessment is available, a reassessment should not be necessary. Our stakeholders have made it clear to us that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, repeated assessment can be extremely discouraging to young people in custody, as well as being an unnecessary use of resources. We are listening very carefully to the words of advice and wisdom from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, but we must ensure that we apply resources practically and effectively. As I said, we have made commitments to consider further and to come back at Third Reading.
The Bill is about raising standards in YOIs and the secure estate for young people. As I said in Committee, the YPLA will receive funds from central government, which will be ring-fenced for the purpose. That is much more straightforward in education; the costs of the education and training provision in YOIs are already separate from the wider costs of custody, because the funding is currently being directed through the Learning and Skills Council, which holds the contracts with learning providers operating with YOIs. I offer that as reassurance to the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Ramsbotham, and others who are obviously concerned about the funding streams.
2 Nov 2009 : Column 76
As for the question of which Secretary of State is involved, I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to ensure that we see progress for young people in custody, that there is proper joined-up government and that we deliver real improvements in education provision in the system, which is already showing significant improvement. The guidance will be joint guidance and will be signed by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the Justice Secretary; Welsh Ministers will issue guidance for Wales. There will be clear accountability from the Secretaries of State.
7.15 pm
On the question of assessment of communication skills, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that that is key. Assessment of communication skills and disabilities in young people when they come into custody is extremely important, and they will to a large extent be picked up by the new literacy and numeracy assessments required under government Amendment 50 and-this is the important point-by the hidden disability screening that has already been developed by the Dyslexia Action organisation, to which we have already referred. Those important developments are taking place.
To make a minor correction of something that I said in opening the discussion, I think that I said that Amendments 56 and 61 were minor and technical amendments. I should have said that Amendments 56 to 61 are minor and technical amendments. I apologise if I have caused any confusion.
On the general thrust of what I hope this group of amendments will achieve, we are amending the reading and assessment requirement passed in Committee, so that it is now a broader requirement for literacy and numeracy assessments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for his welcome for that. We have removed the requirement for reassessment on release. I hope that I have explained why, although we continue to listen, we believe that it would not be an effective management tool, may not apply resources in the best possible way and could demotivate young people. We will issue statutory guidance that will cover what provisions authorities should consider when commissioning education and training. That will provide the detailed guidance about what is expected and what should be delivered.
Governors will have a vital role to play in education in custody. I have here committed to amending regulations to make that absolutely clear to governors. I entirely accept the arguments made by noble Lords about the importance of that. As I have said-and I apologise if it has been at length-the Bill already contains strong information transfer provisions. Our statutory guidance, which will be detailed-and spell checked-will set out how that should work in practice. We intend that to be linked to both current planned information transfer systems within the youth justice system-which, I can reassure noble Lords, are strong and good-the introduction of the new eAssets system.
With those remarks, and my commitment to consider-
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: Before the Minister sits down, I seek clarification on her response to Amendment 52. She says that she will come back at
2 Nov 2009 : Column 77
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: The noble Baroness is absolutely right, and I apologise if I have not been clear enough about that. As she says, a considerable amount of assessment goes on, which is captured through the individual learner's report. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said earlier, it is so important that that information transfer is properly undertaken and that the home education authority receives it on resettlement. It is that authority's duty to ensure that that young person's special educational needs and requirements are met on release.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, will the Minister say who actually devised the policy of transferring from the Prison Service to two local authorities, the host authority and the home authority, responsibility for the education and training of 16 to 19 year-olds? Many of us are concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out that many young offenders will slip between those two authorities. Making the system work is not just about the transfer of information, which is what these amendments are about. It is a whole Byzantine structure of administration involving not two bodies, but about a dozen bodies. Who actually thought up this scheme?
Baroness Morgan of Drefelin: My Lords, the noble Lord is very well aware that the Government take collective responsibility for legislation. It would be disingenuous of me to identify one particular person who may have been responsible for developing this policy. We are talking here about applying education law to young people in young offender institutions and giving them equal opportunity to have access to the same standards of education. The feedback we have had from those involved in delivering education to young people in these settings is that it is a great opportunity for them to be able to work with the education providers around them and to be part of an education community and to drive up standards for young people, which is what I think all of us hope to achieve.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I would just like to make my intervention clearer because I do not think I was as clear as I should have been. What worries me-
Baroness Thornton: My Lords, at the Report stage the noble Viscount must ask a question.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, rephrasing my question: what happens if it is impossible to identify a home authority, or if no authority agrees that it is the home authority?
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |