House of Commons
Tuesday 5 May 2009
The House met at half-past Two o’clock
Prayers
[Mr. Speaker in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
Justice
The Secretary of State was asked—
Party Funding
Formal inter-party talks based on Sir Hayden’s recommendations ended on 30 October 2007 without agreement. However, Sir Hayden’s reports have made an important contribution to debates and discussions ever since, in the House and outside. The Political Parties and Elections Bill, as amended in this place, received broad support, and is now proceeding in the other place.
How can the British people have confidence in our political system when, despite many of Sir Hayden’s recommendations, the wealthy can still buy influence in our politics with massive donations, and parties can still spend without limit at local level to buy votes? Will the Secretary of State, even at this late stage, amend his Bill in the other place to take account of Sir Hayden’s recommendations and ensure that the big money is taken out of politics—or is this another issue on which the Government have thrown away their moral compass?
The hon. Gentleman had to keep consulting his notes in order to read that question out—and it did not have much force behind it. The answer is this: I believe that, on the issue of party funding above all else, it is extremely important for us not to proceed without a broad consensus between the parties. Otherwise we would end up with the position that obtains in Canada, where so-called “great reforms” in party funding—including state funding—have become partisan tools in the hands of the Government of the day. We have one of the cleanest systems of party funding and party operation in the world, as the recent Electoral Commission report made clear.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that the proposals on party funding now being dealt with in another place are of necessity short-term arrangements? Does he intend to pursue, in particular, the issue of whole-term party funding limits in the immediate future?
I do not think that those proposals are short-term, but inevitably, they are not completely comprehensive. Labour Members are attracted to the idea of comprehensive funding limits that would continue throughout a Parliament, and I hope we can persuade the other parties in favour of that course as well.
Although the Secretary of State was right to say that this country is relatively clean in comparison with others, he must still acknowledge that there are excesses and abuses in the system. Will he urge all political parties to stop funding candidates massively before the calling of an election, which is what the Conservative party is continuing to do?
All parties seek to operate within the limits set by the law. At some stages, the Labour party funded candidates well when it was in opposition. That is now a matter for the Conservative party. Although the hon. Gentleman is in a small minority in the House in terms of the party that he represents, let me say to him that we have enough problems in terms of the reputation of party politics, without turning the issue of party funding into another partisan political football.
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a huge conundrum when it comes to party political funding? The public want democracy, but it is expensive. They do not want to pay for it with their own taxes, and they do not want other people to pay for it with their hard-earned cash.
The hon. Lady has put the dilemma very acutely. She will know that one of Sir Hayden’s key recommendations was that in return for donation limits there should be very extensive state funding. I think it is now recognised, not least given the state of the British economy, that the British people would not take kindly to that proposition. In Canada, where there had been state funding, the Government of Mr. Stephen Harper suddenly decided to withdraw it as an economy measure, causing a fundamental crisis in Canadian politics. That, I suggest, is another reason not to introduce comprehensive state funding.
Yes, it is true to some extent that the public want democracy and do not want to pay for it. Meanwhile, I happen to believe that it is entirely honourable to ask people to contribute to the political parties of their choice, provided that those who donate make it clear that they are donating.
The Secretary of State’s answers have been largely disappointing, apart from his answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead). I considered that answer encouraging, and urge him to go further. He referred to the political context—but it is a context in which public faith in politics is plummeting, and the McBride affair and discussion of our allowances just make matters worse. Does he not accept that the Political Parties and Elections Bill gives the Government an opportunity to do something now—something generous, something principled and something non-partisan? It is up to him to make proposals in that regard.
As for the Secretary of State’s comments about large donations and state funding, surely the Obama campaign has put paid to the myth that political campaigns can be funded only by large private donations or by the state. President Obama managed to do without both. [Interruption.]
As the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Bridget Prentice), says from a sedentary position, that was not strictly true. I do not think that we should necessarily look first to the United States for examples of total transparency in political funding, not least given the degree to which third-party organisations are used as back-door methods of campaigning, and particularly negative campaigning. Secondly, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) should not assume that it is only the Liberal Democrats who are interested in principles; we all are. He knows very well, however, that we can, and should, proceed only by consensus. I put forward a number of propositions and then negotiated with the other parties in order to reach a consensus. Some of the propositions I put forward did not find favour—that is called democracy—but if we are going to try to make progress and achieve a stable regime for party funding, we must do so by agreement.
Prison Privatisation
We receive regular representations from a number of sources on competition policy. My right hon. Friend the Justice Secretary made the Department’s policy on competition clear in the announcement he made to this House on 27 April.
In his statement on 27 April, the Secretary of State referred to Buckley Hall prison in my constituency of Rochdale. That prison has already had five changes of designation since it opened in 1996—from private to public, from male to female, and then back to male. Can the Minister please tell us what, if any, advantages such rapid change offers in terms of prison officers being able to deliver a proper service for the public?
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to tell him that, as I am sure he knows, Buckley Hall prison is a very high-performing prison, and is currently a level 3 prison, so the changes to date have, in fact, improved performance. He will also know that the contract for that prison is coming to an end and that, in the light of the Justice Secretary’s statement of 27 April, we will be putting the contract out to competition again. Both the public and the private sector—and, indeed, the voluntary sector—can compete for that contract, and I have no doubt that we will ultimately choose whoever can provide the best service to continue the good work that has been done to date at Buckley Hall prison.
Why are the Government so wedded to increasing the number of private prisons, given that we already have more private prisons—by which I mean a larger proportion of the prison estate run privately—than anywhere else in Europe, and there is no real evidence any more of cost savings from private prisons, but there are a lot of question marks as to how well they actually perform?
My hon. Friend will know that at present about 10 per cent. of the estate is private prison-orientated and 90 per cent. is in the public sector. Let us look at what the Labour Government have done to date. In the last 12 years, we have commissioned and built RAF Coltishall in Norfolk, which will be opening shortly as a public sector prison, and we have also opened HMP Kennet in Maghull on Merseyside as a public sector prison. What we said in our 27 April announcement is that the next two 1,500-capacity prisons to be built will be private sector institutions, but that we are not averse to the public sector being considered after that, because there is a need for an appropriate mix. The public sector does a good job, and the private sector can do a good job too; what we are interested in is the cost and efficiency of the prison service, and I believe that both sectors have their role to play. My hon. Friend will know, however, that the public sector overwhelmingly remains the major provider of prison services in England and Wales, and will continue to be so.
But does the Minister accept that reoffending rates are frighteningly high in both privatised prisons and public sector prisons? When he listens to further representations about prisons, will he concentrate his mind very much on what kind of prison provides the best resettlement programmes, enabling people leaving prison—who are often youngsters—to go into a home and a job and back into the community with a proper resettlement programme, as that is the best way to stop reoffending?
The hon. Gentleman makes extremely valid points. He will know that what happens in prison and how we re-enter people into society when they leave prison are the two key determinants as to whether reoffending behaviour occurs. I am deeply committed to trying to develop regimes in private and public sector prisons that achieve maximum outputs for both. To do that, we must not just look at prisons in isolation, but also look at them as transitional places from where people return to the community. That is why the hon. Gentleman’s points about housing, employment and skills development are the key issues that we need to continue to work on. I believe we have been doing some good work to date, but there is always more to do, and I hope we can focus on that, regardless of who happens to run the prisons in the future.
Parc prison and young offender institution in Bridgend is a private sector prison. Despite the best efforts of staff, it fails to provide an in-reach child and adolescent mental health service, it fails to provide education for more than 70 of its young people and it fails to meet its task as an adult training prison. What steps are being taken to ensure that if there is any expansion of private sector prisons in Wales, prisoners will have access to the same quality of provision as if they were serving their sentences in England?
My hon. Friend raises some important points, and I shall certainly examine those that she raises on the performance of Parc prison. She will know that there are differences between the provision in England and Wales on some of these issues, and that I have been in discussions, in particular with Edwina Hart, the Minister for Health and Social Services in Wales, to consider how we can examine the mental health services performance at Parc prison. Only last week we published Lord Bradley’s report on mental health, and we wish to take these issues forward with the Welsh Assembly Government to ensure that we reproduce and develop a very strong service in respect of all people who provide prison accommodation in England and in Wales.
The small print in this year’s Budget Red Book announced that
“all new-build prisons will be built and managed by the private sector”.
Despite the fact that several prisons, including HMP Garth in Lancashire, are now working to rule, and that industrial action may recur this summer over this and other proposals, can the Minister reassure the House that this policy has the wholehearted and unanimous support of his parliamentary party?
Give over, please! The hon. and learned Gentleman aspires to hold this position on the Government Front Bench—so I suggest that he focus and concentrate on how we deliver the best possible services to prisoners in respect of reoffending and prison build. He will know that this Labour Government have committed the most money ever invested in the Prison Service to build new prison services in the future. I feel that he is not really living up to the standards that would be expected on the Front-Bench.
Drug Courts
The two dedicated drug court pilots that we have provided in Leeds and west London have been shown to be good models on which to work, and we are therefore extending those models to a further four sites, which we will continue to monitor closely. My right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice was very pleased to launch one of these new pilots recently in Cardiff magistrates court.
I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I was very pleased that the Secretary of State was able to come to Cardiff in April to open the dedicated drug court, which is now meeting every Wednesday—and I look forward to seeing the results. Does my hon. Friend agree that the success of such initiatives depends on a regular review of offenders by the same members of the judiciary over a period, so that any progress made by the offender in respect of their drug use can be praised, and when things go wrong there can be sanctions? Does she agree that it is important to have the same people following such cases regularly?
My hon. Friend makes a good point, and the judges in those courts recognise exactly what she is saying. They make it clear that if offenders who come before them for the first time do not follow through the sanctions that they have been set, they will be brought back before the very same judge to be dealt with properly. They also make it clear that they will see such people personally, and that helps greatly in ensuring that offenders know that this is a serious situation, and that they must follow through the sanctions that the judge has set.
It is evident that most offenders with drug and alcohol problems have mental health problems too. Why, then, did the Government fail even to mention the need for mental health support in their last evaluation of drug courts, and why, despite Lord Bradley’s commendable report—sent to Ministers in February—expressing disappointment with this failure, was yet another criminal justice Green Paper published last week that does not address the vital mental health services needed for drug courts to work effectively?
The hon. Gentleman is mistaken in suggesting that the Government do not take mental health problems seriously. As the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), mentioned in response to an earlier question, the launch of Lord Bradley’s report last week was an important milestone in the policies that we are developing to deal with offenders. We are working closely with Lord Bradley and examining the results of his report to ensure that we take a holistic view of dealing with people who have both drug and mental health problems.
Reoffending
A much more robust measure of reoffending was established in 2000. This means that we cannot draw direct comparisons with data from before that date. Between 2000 and 2006, reoffending rates fell by 23 per cent. for adults and 19 per cent. for youths. In 2000, 189 further offences were committed per 100 adult offenders; in 2006 the number had fallen to 146. There is therefore no question but that reoffending has been reduced substantially under this Government.
The Secretary of State puts his finger on the problem by saying that there is a new system for making the calculations. If a policy is not working, the Government change the way in which the figures are calculated and, hey presto, they meet their targets. That aside, compared with Europe, we have some of the worst reoffending rates in the western world. Does the Secretary of State agree that the reason for that is the overcrowding and lack of rehabilitation in our prisons?
I do not accept any of the hon. Gentleman’s assumptions. The change was made in 2000 to make the data more robust, just as we have made two sets of changes to the calculation of the recorded crime statistics, which have had the effect of nominally increasing recorded crime. I introduced one of those changes 11 years ago, as Home Secretary—a change that my predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), had sat on and refused to implement because he thought that it would send up the crime figures even further than they had already gone up under the Conservatives. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) says, we have good and declining reoffending rates, and I do not know where he got his data about other European countries. Moreover, we have increased the amount being spent on drug treatment tenfold, and the amount spent on learning and skills threefold, since the Government whom he supported were in power.
Given what the Secretary of State has just said, what would he advise me to tell the people who work in the probation service in the north-east? How are they supposed to improve reoffending rates if, because of deficit cuts, they lose £1.6 million this year and £4.2 million in 2012, and do not employ the 24 trainee probation officers who have been trained over the last three years, at a cost of £2.5 million to the public purse? Surely that cannot be correct?
My colleagues and I are always happy to see my hon. Friend—and, if necessary, a delegation from Northumbria probation service—about their concerns. The probation service has had a 70 per cent. real-terms increase in funding in the last 12 years, compared with an increase of just over 50 per cent. in its case load, so it has had substantial additional resources. We are seeking to end the situation in which some of those resources have gone on unnecessary layers of middle management. Given the overall levels of funding, we are in no doubt that front-line delivery of probation services can be continued at its current level.
There is one figure on which we can agree, and that is that more than 50,000 offenders have been released early by this Government, including people convicted of terrorist, violent and sexual offences. It is bad enough that the Government have recklessly failed to build enough prison places, but can the Secretary of State now confirm that the £30 million in planned cuts to local probation services must mean even less protection of the public from serious offenders after their release?
I do not accept that. The nominal reduction in spending is belied by the fact that for the year that finished at the end of March—just over five weeks ago—the probation service underspent by £23 million. Interestingly, and somewhat to our surprise, given the concerns expressed by the probation service, there is no reason why probation services should not be able to manage within their budgets. What would the hon. and learned Gentleman do? After all, his policy is for much larger cuts than anything that we are contemplating.
I wonder whether the Justice Secretary has actually read his own guidance to probation trusts. In 2007, probation officers were required to provide a report every three months on those sentenced to life imprisonment and subject to close monitoring on release. Last month, probation officers were told to report every six months instead, because of the resources available. Can he confirm that that is indeed the guidance? Does he now accept that these cuts in front-line probation services must put the public at greater risk?
I am sorry, but I do not accept the basis of the hon. and learned Gentleman’s point at all. We have significantly increased real-terms resources to the probation service, so it is much better resourced than it ever was under his party’s administration. At any time, of course, adjustments may be made for different levels of offender. We want to see—and the public want to see—probation resources concentrated on the most serious offenders, especially when they are released from jail. That is precisely what we are doing.
One of the reasons for recidivism is that about half, or even more, of prisoners are functionally illiterate. I welcome the steps in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill, which we will be debating later this afternoon, to assist with education for young people in the secure estate. However, will my right hon. Friend tell me what more is being done to improve what has until recently been the pretty poor record of prisons in educating prisoners in basic skills and literacy?
I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says about the very low level of skills of the majority of prisoners. We are transforming the situation for the education and training of prisoners. The amount spent on offender learning just since 2001 has increased by three times, and has now risen to more than £175 million. There are 21,000 prisoners achieving skills for life qualifications and 70,000 achieving vocational qualifications. That is a dramatic change in the provision of education and training in our prisons.
Electoral Registers
The integrity of the register is crucial, and we keep this area under constant review.
Just before the last European elections, a national newspaper managed to register a fictitious person by the name of Gus Troobev—an anagram of “bogus voter”—in 40 different electoral registers. How confident is the Minister that that could not happen for the European elections next month?
We can never be complacent about any incident of fraud whatever. However, it is worth reminding the hon. Gentleman that just last week the Electoral Commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers produced a report on the 2008 elections, which concluded that they were
“free from major incidents of electoral fraud”.
The report conducted by the Electoral Commission and ACPO, shows that there is a steady decline in the allegations of such malpractice—but we cannot be complacent even about a single incident, and we are not. That is why, in the Electoral Administration Act 2006, we brought in a raft of measures to tackle fraud. It is also one of the reasons why we are bringing in individual registration. We will never be complacent about a single incident, but we have to accept—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this—that in this country, such incidents are, fortunately, few and limited.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the integrity and quality of electoral registers will not improve in areas such as Bradford as long as very little canvassing is done at local authority level? That is especially true in an area such as Bradford, particularly in my constituency, which is one fifth of that area, where many people do not have English as their first language.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to the importance for all electoral registration officers—in her constituency and throughout the country—of conducting their canvasses extremely diligently, and ensuring that every person in this country who is eligible to vote is registered to vote, and can therefore exercise that democratic duty. We are very concerned that when we bring in a system of individual registration—we are placing such measures before Parliament as we speak—there will not be a fall in the number of those who are registered to vote. That is why we are placing new duties on electoral registration officers and taking all sorts of measures to ensure that, in my hon. Friend’s constituency and everywhere in the country, everybody who is eligible to vote can do so.
Leaving aside, for the moment, implementation of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights that prisoners should be registered and able to vote, what arrangements does the Department offer so that people who are to be released from prison before a known election day are on the electoral register and can vote?
Of course, we are concerned to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is able to do so. That will be a matter for electoral registration officers in constituencies that harbour such people, and for those people themselves.
Has the Minister given any further thought to whether the electoral register should include prisoners?
The answer to my hon. Friend’s question is yes, we have given further thought to the matter. She will be aware that we have just published a second consultation paper—[Hon. Members: “Oh!”] Obviously, Conservative Front Benchers have very strong views on this matter; we look forward to receiving their representations.
Of course I share the concerns raised about fraud by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous). However, the issue of under-registration is worrying, too. All too often, those who need their voices to be heard fail to register, thereby disfranchising themselves from the electoral and democratic process. How confident is my right hon. Friend the Minister that what we propose in the current legislation will ensure that those who need their voices to be heard will be registered?
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the subject up again. It is absolutely crucial to the health of our democracy that everyone who is eligible to vote is registered, and can therefore vote. At the moment, our best estimate is that something like 3 million people in this country who are eligible to vote cannot do so, because they are not registered. That is a disgrace to our democracy, and we have to do everything possible to make sure that we do not let that situation continue. I think that the whole House agrees that a system of individual registration is desirable, both in principle and in practice. It has a lot of benefits associated with it, but there is a risk as well, to which my hon. Friend referred: when we move to such a system, there is a real risk—we saw this happen in Northern Ireland—that many of those who are eligible to vote will simply not be registered. That is why the legislation that we are putting before Parliament says that before we move definitively to a system of compulsory individual registration, the Electoral Commission must be satisfied that the register is comprehensive and accurate. That is why we put that provision in. I hope that that will provide some reassurance to my hon. Friend.
As the Minister knows, we enthusiastically welcome the steps that he and his colleagues are taking to bring in individual voter registration, for which we have called for over five years. We Opposition Members are never complacent about electoral fraud; this House derives its legitimacy from the integrity of the ballot. Individual voter registration is only part of the solution. Does the Minister agree that the integrity of the ballot will only be really secure when a potential voter is required to produce evidence of their identity when they go into the polling station to get a ballot paper? The Minister knows that that works in Northern Ireland. When will he take steps to introduce the system in the rest of the United Kingdom?
As I have said to the hon. Lady before in Committee, there seems to have been a policy switch by Conservative Front Benchers in favour of the advantages of identity cards, and I am glad that she seems to be endorsing that— [Hon. Members: “No.”] I simply say that the hon. Lady needs to be careful about which policy prescription she comes forward with. On her first point, she has advocated individual registration for some considerable time, but throughout that period she was silent on the need for the register to be comprehensive as well as accurate. I have to say that until this Government brought forward proposals that combine measures to complete the accuracy of the register and measures to ensure its comprehensive nature, individual registration carried as many risks as benefits. I would just ask the hon. Lady to reflect on that the next time she makes such comments.
My right hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right to insist on that twin track, because while none of us would approve of fraud by people who actively seek to pervert the electoral process, the biggest fraud in this country at the moment relates to the 3 million people who are not registered, and whose voices are not heard. We know that the Conservative party is not keen on doing anything about that, because it believes—rightly, I think—that it would be electorally disadvantaged by such a process. However, democracy depends on everybody having the right to vote, and the opportunity to cast that vote.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I would just say to the Opposition that this is the time, right now, for them to lay to rest the suspicion that they do not care and that large numbers of our most vulnerable—[Interruption.] Well, I am giving them the opportunity to do so. They can demonstrate it very simply—nobody has to come to the Dispatch Box now—by supporting the measures that we have introduced on individual registration.
Prisons (Mental Health Services)
Ministers and officials from both Departments meet on a regular basis, including on the provision of mental health services in prisons. Most recently, we worked together on Lord Bradley’s report, which was published with the Government response on 30 April 2009.
The Minister will be aware that more than 70 per cent. of prisoners have some sort of mental health problem. He mentioned the Bradley report, so presumably he is aware that it says:
“Where appropriate, there are significant benefits when individuals receive a community rather than a custodial sentence.”
What are the Government doing to ensure that prisoners with a mental health problem receive real help, rather than being banged up as a first resort?
We have made considerable progress in this area, as the hon. Lady will know. Since 2006, responsibility for commissioning prison health services, for example, has moved from prisons to the NHS. The Bradley review has been mentioned two or three times, and 102 mental health teams have been established to provide assessment, treatment and support to offenders, and there is a total of 360 extra staff. In 1997, not a single mental health team was working in that way. We have new systems to monitor and support individuals who are at risk. The list goes on, but I suspect that you would stop me, Mr. Speaker, if I continued.
My hon. Friend mentioned the fact that responsibility for mental health services in prisons has switched to the NHS. He will see in the Bradley report a recommendation that the NHS commissioners should ensure that those services improve. What discussions are taking place with the Department of Health and the NHS commissioners to make sure that that is carried out and that mental health services in prisons are improved?
There is much scope for improvement, and as a result of the Bradley review, we are about to establish a health and criminal justice national programme board, which will bring together the relevant Departments covering health, social care and criminal justice for children and adults. A national delivery plan will be put together later this year, and a national advisory group ensures the wider involvement of interested organisations. We will produce a progress report within six months, detailing strategy on mental health and learning disabilities, as well as broader health and criminal justice system strategy.
Having read the Bradley report, I believe that it provides important input into the whole debate. However, I expected one further recommendation in that report: the Government should undertake a detailed study of all low and medium-risk offenders with severe mental health problems who could be safely housed elsewhere, thus dealing with them more humanely and relieving pressure on the prison estate.
Individuals with mental illnesses are regularly transferred from prisons. Every year, approximately 900 people who meet the criteria under the Mental Health Act 1983 are transferred. We are trying to speed up the availability of beds for those individuals. In 2007, some 40 individuals waited longer than 12 weeks for a bed. By March 2008, the number of such individuals had been reduced to 24. We have a target of 14 days, instead of 12 weeks, and I am confident that we will meet that target. I believe that we can make better use of community orders and suspended sentences. In 2006, of the 203,000 requirements for treatment orders, only 725 were for mental health problems, and that can certainly be improved.
Suicide and self-harm, psychotic and neurotic activity, drug and alcohol dependency, and serious personality disorders, are all at significantly higher levels among prisoners than in the general population. How confident is the Minister that the most seriously ill prisoners are in an appropriate setting for treatment and that they should not be admitted to the nearest acute mental hospital?
As I have already stated, 900 prisoners a year are transferred where they meet the Mental Health Act criteria. The Bradley review focuses on intervention, prevention and early assessment. We have a medium-term goal that every police station and court will have access to liaison and diversion services, which will ensure that people who ought not to be going to prison in the first place are prevented from doing so, so that they do not potentially have a life of criminality.
The Minister is just beginning to get to the point. Is there not a real problem in that many people with mental illnesses who commit crimes are sent to prison when they should not be sent there at all, because of the absence in hospitals of adequate facilities—particularly beds—to deal with those with mental illness? Will the Minister address the fact that too many people are being sent to prison because of the absence of adequate mental facilities in the community?
Of course we could do more. It is important to state that year on year we have consistently increased funding in this area. For example, in 2007-08 and 2008-09 we have an extra £4 million for the development of mental health services in the prison establishments, of which £1.6 million is for child and adolescent mental health services within the young people’s estate. Since 2006-07, £20 million a year has been allocated for mental health in-reach services. I have already said that we have 102 teams that give such support, and I have stated twice that some 900 people a year are transferred. Of course there is more that we could do. To an extent, Bradley points the way forward in this area.
Reoffending
The latest figures show that the three-month reoffending rate of all offenders on probation caseloads in England and Wales during the period 1 October 2007 to 30 September 2008 was 9.88 per cent. out of approximately 172,500 offenders. Between 2000 and 2006, the reoffending of adult offenders commencing a court order under probation supervision fell by 23 per cent.
On the basis of those figures we can safely extrapolate that tens of thousands of people who should be in prison are out on the streets committing offences, and presumably tens of thousands more are committing offences but are not caught and do not show up in those figures. Does this not show the scandal of all forms of early release? Will the Minister undertake to ensure that people are not let out of their sentences less than halfway through as a result of a few bleeding-hearted social workers, and that they serve their sentences in full, as given by judges?
As ever, the hon. Gentleman’s supplementary does not relate at all to the question that he tabled, which was about probation supervision, but if he wishes to talk about prisoners being released, I can remind him that under the Government whom he supported, more prisoners were released on any single day than ever under any Government to date. He will know that I am concerned, as are all Labour Members, about reoffending rates. They remain too high, and we have to get them down. The work that we are doing on employment, housing and skill development is about reducing reoffending. I would much rather follow the line of attack of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) and the points that he set out today.
Prison Officers
I have no plans to change the terms and conditions of employment for existing prison officers over the next two years. We are currently consulting the trade unions and others on important but limited changes that will apply to officers appointed from 1 September.
Page 130 of the Red Book talks about “£82 million savings” from “core day standardisation” and
“allowing prison staff arrangements to be re-profiled”.
What does that mean in plain English? Is it a way of cutting weekend overtime by keeping prisoners in their cells? Is that what it really amounts to?
The core day has already been introduced. What those measures mean is that we have responsibilities to the taxpayer, who pays for the prison service. The prison service in the United Kingdom is not the most expensive in Europe, but it is one of the most expensive, and at any time, we must ensure that we are getting value for money, including from the prison service. On prison officers’ terms and conditions of employment, as repeated pay review body reports have shown, prison officers, by comparison with any outside comparable employees, are very well paid and have generous pensions. That is also illustrated by the fact that the wastage rate for prison officers is the lowest of any part of the public sector.
Topical Questions
The House will wish to know that, last Tuesday, I announced the establishment of an advisory panel on judicial diversity to be chaired by Baroness Neuberger, and on Wednesday I published the “Engaging Communities in Criminal Justice” Green Paper, a consultation document drawn up by my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, and myself. It includes plans for a website on court outcomes, 30 justice pioneer areas, community prosecutors, an expansion of citizen panels in respect of community payback, the introduction of community impact statements in courts and the greater use of community justice techniques.
I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. I recently met prisons representatives, and they are deeply concerned about plans to extend the prison privatisation programme. There is a valid concern that the prison-for-profit culture would make prisons more dangerous for the prisoners, the staff and the public. Will the Secretary of State confirm that this Government will not compromise prison security by further privatisation of the prison system?
We will never compromise prison security for any wider consideration. A number of National Audit Office reports have made it clear that the introduction of a very limited element of the private sector has helped to raise standards in the public sector. That may be an unfortunate conclusion, but it happens to be true.
As to the future, apart from the two entirely new prisons that will be built in the private sector, as I announced last week, all those that are being re-competed—the five so-called strategic level arrangement prisons that have been re-competed, one that came back to the private sector and the two new ones, Birmingham and Wellingborough—will have the opportunity through the public sector to compete against private and third sector arrangements. If they are successful, they will keep the contracts.
I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. There have been important improvements in the provision of prison health services, which are primarily mental health services, not least through the ending of the separate prison medical service; however dedicated its staff, it was, frankly, a second-class service. Furthermore, a few years ago this Government implemented the arrangement through which all health services in a prison are provided by the relevant primary care trust.
However, I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman said. The more that we do to divert the mentally ill from the prison system and police cells and into the proper mental health system, the better.
Of course, I fully acknowledge the concern of my hon. Friend and other hon. Members on both sides of the House about that issue. Consideration of the responses, of which we have received quite a number following publication of our paper on the way forward, is taking longer than we anticipated, because of the complexity involved. However, I certainly intend that we should come to conclusions before the summer recess.
First, given that the press now have access to the courts, we are relying on them to let us, as well as their readers, know about anything that they regard as a failure on the part of the courts to live up to the spirit of the changes. Secondly, we ourselves are monitoring the situation. Thirdly, as I have already made clear, this is only the first phase of the changes. The next phase is the introduction of legislation that will ensure that the reporting and admission regime for all levels of family court is put on the same foundation as that for youth courts. In other words, the press may report the substance of what they witness, but not any information that would lead to revealing the identity of the parties to the proceedings.
I am glad to hear that the courts are giving the lady in question the support that she requires. We are doing a great deal better in supporting innocent parties in forced marriages, but I am certainly ready to talk to my hon. Friend about the specific problems that she has identified, in case there is a gap in the overall support arrangements.
At the moment, the foreign national prisoner population in England and Wales equates to just under 14 per cent. of the total. According to independent data, that is significantly fewer foreign national prisoners than in any other country in the rest of Europe.
The hon. Gentleman’s point is important. We have already negotiated 100 prisoner return agreements with other countries, and we are working with other key countries. We are trying to address the issue in a key way. Recently, we have been considering, with the UK Border Agency, a service level agreement to ensure that there is extra help and support and that we speedily deport those due for deportation from the United Kingdom back to their country of origin.
There was an erroneous report today—I am very happy to correct it—about further offences being brought within the fixed penalty notice regime. We have no plans to extend the number of offences brought within the fixed penalty notice regime. The principal offence of dishonesty covered by the PND—penalty notice for disorder—system is shop theft. That was introduced for circumstances in which the courts were typically awarding fines of less than the value of fixed penalty notices or the police were issuing informal warnings and taking no effective or recordable action against offenders. However, I have always been uneasy about the inclusion of shop theft in the PND regime, and we are consulting the police and other interested parties, including retailers, as to whether, at least in the short term, we can reduce the scope of PNDs for shop theft.
The number of burglaries across the west midlands, as well as across the whole United Kingdom, has dropped dramatically in the past 12 years—further evidence that we are the only Government since the war to preside over a reduction in crime rather than an increase in crime.
As for the precise level of sentences that are issued, I inform the hon. Gentleman, in case he has not worked it out, that in this country there is a separation of powers between Parliament, which sets the overall sentencing framework—and Ministers within that—and sentencers, who are independent of the Executive. It is not me or anybody in this House who sentences individuals. Penalties for burglary are quite adequate; it is a matter for sentencers to use them within the guidelines.
One of the consequences of the affair concerning the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) is the indication that there is woeful ignorance among senior police officers and civil servants, and probably servants of this House and Ministers, about the implications of article 9 of the Bill of Rights. What will the Justice Secretary do to increase awareness of the implications of our own United Kingdom Bill of Rights of 1689, particularly in relation to article 9, with its ramifications for this place? Will he discuss this now, please? Article 9—you know about that, do you?
I do indeed remember article 9, although I was not here to witness its coming into force—[Interruption.] It was marginally before my time. [Interruption.] If I could have less levity from my ministerial colleagues, that would be helpful. Of course I understand my hon. Friend’s point. This has been a subject of considerable interest in the context of bribery and whether there should be application to Members of Parliament, which it is generally felt there should be. If he looks at our Green Paper on a Bill of Rights and responsibilities, he will see that there is a good discussion of article 9 and the privileges of Parliament.
I refer the hon. Gentleman back to the points made earlier in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). There has been, and will continue to be, an increase in resources and time spent on meaningful activity. We are trying to ensure that people who are in prison have employment skills and literacy and numeracy skills to equip them for life outside prison. The number of people attending those courses has risen significantly over the past 10 or 11 years and will continue to do so, with the sole objective of ensuring that when they leave prison they are better equipped outside than they were when they went into prison.
On 8 April, the High Court refused to extradite four Rwandan nationals who were wanted by the Rwandan Government to stand trial for crimes of genocide. Thanks to a loophole in UK law, they cannot now be tried in England for the crimes of which they are accused. May I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to work with right hon. and hon. Members and the all-party group on genocide prevention to close that impunity gap and ensure that the UK does not become a safe haven for international criminals?
I greatly applaud my hon. Friend’s work on this issue. I recently met her and her colleague on the all-party group, the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow), and they made a very powerful case for the inclusion of genocide as an extra-territorial offence within British law. I am currently giving it active consideration with relevant colleagues.
The hon. Gentleman will know that we have identified a need to drive that forward and are now putting in place extra support for courses, including several million pounds to get IPP prisoners across the line and ready for the Parole Board. He will know also that we have made changes to legislation to ensure that there must be a four-year sentence before an IPP sentence can be applied. Those two factors together will undoubtedly lead over the next couple of years to a reduction in the number of people who are post-tariff but cannot secure a proper hearing by the Parole Board. It is a slow and difficult process to get there, but we are doing what we can to expedite it as much as possible.
Point of Order
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Before the Justice Ministers leave the Chamber, can you tell us whether you have heard from any of them what action is going to be taken in respect of their response to the problem of protests in Parliament square, given that we were told that a response was imminent last October and that we now appear to have not one but two permanent protests in the square?
That is not a matter for the Chair, but the hon. Gentleman’s point and concern will no doubt be recorded and listened to.
Sale of Mobile Homes (Interviews)
Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the holding of interviews between site owners and prospective purchasers of mobile homes prior to any sale.
Along with the sponsors of the Bill, I am a member of the all-party group for the welfare of park home owners. The meetings of that group are extremely well attended by Members of Parliament, peers, representatives of park home site owners, representatives of residents and others. There is a great will among all of them to ensure that vulnerable residents are protected, to enhance the status and reputation of the whole sector by finding ways to address bad practices, and to get the right balance between business sustainability for site owners and the needs of residents. Park homes provide a useful addition to the supply of housing and would have even greater potential if we could improve that balance.
First, I emphasise that the points that I shall make are directed at a minority of park home site owners. There are excellent, well-managed park home sites in my constituency, and I do not wish to suggest that all site owners engage in bad practices. That is far from the case. However, there is one particular site in my constituency, the Silent Woman park near Wareham, where residents have had cause to raise many issues with me over the years. It is in an idyllic setting and residents should be able to live there without constant worries.
The Bill would prevent unjustified interference by a site owner when residents sell their park home. A park home site owner might quite reasonably wish to meet a prospective buyer or at least have some references supplied, but an interview without the seller or an independent witness present can provide opportunities for rogue site owners to make misleading or untrue statements. Examples of such statements from across the country include: “The home is in poor condition”; “The home is not worth the price you’re paying”; “The home will have to be moved to another pitch next year”; “I have a right to ask the court to let me take the home off in five years”; and “The park is being developed and the home will have to be moved.” Alternatively, the prospective buyer might simply be intimidated by real or implied threats and not want to be involved with the site owner in any way. The prospective buyer might understandably decide that he or she does not want to live on a park run in such a way, and/or by such an unpleasant person, and the sale will fall through. After that has been repeated a few times, the seller eventually sells the home to the park owner for a token sum.
In each case there are no witnesses and the prospective buyer is usually unwilling to give a witness statement. He or she simply wants to get away from the park. The seller does not usually go to court because there is no witness statement and the buyer is lost anyway. The incentive for the park owner is to buy the home for a small sum, remove it from the park, site a new and possibly bigger home on the pitch and sell it, thereby making a clear profit of perhaps £100,000. Rogue site owners currently have the ability to sabotage sales and can rely on the fact that many people who move to park homes are frail, vulnerable, elderly and easily intimidated. It seems perfectly reasonable for a site owner to be able to check out a prospective buyer, but how can we stop the abuse and possible fraud currently taking place? My Bill suggests that there should be an independent witness present at such meetings.
I would like to illustrate that further with a case from my constituency. The site owner wrote to my constituent on 4 October 2007 saying:
“Thank you for your letter…introducing the above young lady to me and seeking my approval for her to buy the above home.
Since taking over the park in 1999 we have always promoted the location as a retirement one for people over the age of 55. With that in mind I am unable to agree to”
Ms X
“purchasing your home and will not be endorsing her residency.
I now serve formal notice on you to remove the home, extension and conservatory as the alterations you have made to the home to accommodate the extension and conservatory have rendered the home immobile. In fact it is my belief that the original home would collapse in the event of it being moved. This situation contravenes the Mobile Homes Act, is detrimental to my Park and can no longer be accepted.
I have also engaged the services of”
a specialist
“in Mobile Homes to carry out an external survey of the home in order to verify my claim. My legal advisors have informed me that I do not need your permission for such a survey.”
A letter also dated 5 October 2007 was issued to all residents on the park saying:
“Since taking over the Park in 1999 we have always promoted the location as a retirement one for people over the age of 55.
My legal advisors have informed that this should be formalised within the Park Rules and I now write to advise you of the addition of the following rule.”
You have guessed it, Mr. Speaker:
“The Park is for retired/semi retired persons over the age of 55.”
The letter continued:
“In the event of anyone disagreeing with this rule please let me have your written objection within 28 days of the date of this letter.”
Representatives of the residents association on the site tell me that the prospective purchaser was originally prepared to make a statement about conversations with the site owner but, not surprisingly, she eventually decided to get clear of the whole situation. The residents believe that she was told that she had to be over 50, that the owner had the right to move the home, that if he did so it would fall apart, and that he would not be responsible for putting it back together again, and that he wanted to replace it with another home that could be sold for £150,000-plus. If that was not true, the site owner, too, would be protected under my proposal that an independent witness should be present during any meetings between a prospective purchaser and the site owner. That might be a solicitor, but the important point would be to have an independent witness; further consideration would obviously need to be given to communication by phone.
My constituents were offered £81,000 by the prospective purchaser. An earlier offer made by the site owner was for £15,000. The issue of extensions generally has been considered by the local authority and, while requiring certain important provisions regarding fire safety, the council decided not to enforce the removal of extensions on resale. The site owner wanted the council to enforce such removals and indicated great displeasure to me after the council made its decision. There are a number of extensions on the site that technically breach the 6 m rule. They were allowed over many years by default, with no action by the local authority or the site owner. Many owners purchase their homes with the extensions already in place, and have no knowledge of any problems relating to them. The site ownership has been with the same family for many years.
In this case, following the loss of a prospective purchaser, the owner tried to pursue a fraud case. There were enormous difficulties involved in getting the police to accept that this was not just a civil matter. The case was eventually taken up, but perhaps not in a wholehearted manner, and, in any event, it was not pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service. The all-party group on the welfare of park home owners recently had a useful meeting with the Minister responsible for policing. He was very responsive, and agreed to talk to the police about the need for existing legislation to be available to park home owners. Witnesses are needed, however, and on many occasions prospective buyers will just want to walk away and forget an unpleasant experience.
The Bill is about prevention. I hope that hon. Members will support it and thus protect vulnerable people when they come to sell their precious homes, often when they are moving on into more supported accommodation. The Bill would also protect site owners against any untrue allegations. I am pleased to say that it commands the support of hon. Members from all the main political parties in this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Annette Brooke, Richard Younger-Ross, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Gary Streeter, Andrew George, Natascha Engel, Mr. Richard Benyon, Mr. David Kidney and Sir John Butterfill present the Bill.
Annette Brooke accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 October and to be printed (Bill 92).
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On a number of occasions, you have raised the requirement for Ministers to answer written parliamentary questions appropriately. I asked the Prime Minister a question, the answer to which was published in Hansard on 30 April 2009 at column 1415W. I asked him whether the recording of his statement on hon. Members’ allowances that was uploaded to his YouTube channel on 21 April had required more than one take. The response was:
“The recording is available on the Downing street YouTube channel.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2009; Vol. 491, c. 1415W.]
That clearly represents a failure—some might call it a lamentable failure—to answer the question. What can I do to ensure that the Prime Minister will answer this question?
I think that the Prime Minister has answered the question in his own way, and I think that we could leave it at that.
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill
[Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Children, Schools and Families Committee, Session 2007-08, the Draft Apprenticeships Bill, HC 1082, and the Government’s response, HC 259, Session 2008-09; and oral evidence taken before the Committee on 9 July 2008 on the Learning and Skills Council, HC 960-i, Session 2007-08. The Seventh Report from the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills Committee, Session 2007-08, Pre-Legislative Scrutiny of the Draft Apprenticeships Bill, HC 1062-I, and the Government’s response, HC 262, Session 2008-09; and the First Report from the Committee, Session 2008-09, Re-skilling for Recovery: After Leitch, Implementing Skills and Training Policies, HC 48-I, and the Government’s response, HC 365. The Fourteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Legislative Scrutiny: Welfare Reform Bill; Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill; Health Bill, HC 414.]
Consideration of Bill, as amended in the Public Bill Committee
New Clause 14
Persons detained in youth accommodation: further provision
‘After section 562 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56) insert—
“Chapter 5A
Persons detained in youth accommodation
Provisions applying to detained persons
562A Application of Act to detained persons
(1) In its application in relation to detained persons, this Act has effect subject to modifications prescribed by regulations made by the appropriate national authority.
(2) References in this Chapter to a detained person are to a child or young person who is—
(a) subject to a detention order, and
(b) detained in relevant youth accommodation;
and, in provisions applying on a person’s release, also include references to a person who, immediately before release, was a detained person.
562B Duty to take steps to promote fulfilment of potential
(1) Subsection (2) applies in relation to a detained person who is not a looked after child.
(2) The home authority must—
(a) during the period of detention in relevant youth accommodation, and
(b) on the person’s release from detention in relevant youth accommodation,
take such steps as they consider appropriate to promote the person’s fulfilment of his or her learning potential.
(3) Those steps must include, where it appears to the home authority appropriate for them to do so, making arrangements for the provision, on the person’s release from detention—
(a) of education, or
(b) in the case of a person who is over compulsory school age, of education or training.
(4) Where the host authority make any determination as to the education or training to be provided for a detained person, the authority must have regard to any information provided by the home authority under section 562E for the purpose of assisting any such determination.
562C Detained persons with special educational needs
(1) This section applies where, immediately before the beginning of the detention, a local education authority were maintaining a statement under section 324 for a detained person.
(2) The authority must keep the statement while the person is detained in relevant youth accommodation.
(3) The host authority must use best endeavours to secure that appropriate special educational provision is made for the detained person while the person is detained in relevant youth accommodation.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3), appropriate special educational provision is—
(a) the special educational provision that, immediately before the beginning of the detention, was specified in the statement,
(b) educational provision corresponding as closely as practicable to the special educational provision so specified, or
(c) if it appears to the host authority that the special educational provision so specified is no longer appropriate for the person, such special educational provision as reasonably appears to the host authority to be appropriate for the person.
562D Appropriate special educational provision: arrangements between local education authorities
(1) This section applies where special educational provision is secured for a person in circumstances where section 562C applies.
(2) A local education authority may supply goods and services to—
(a) the host authority, or
(b) any other person making the special educational provision in question.
(3) Goods and services may be supplied under subsection (2) only for the purpose of assisting the making or securing of that special educational provision.
Provision of information relating to detained persons
562E Provision of information about detained persons
(1) Any person who has provided education or training for a detained person (whether before or during the period of detention) may provide information relating to the detained person to—
(a) the home authority, or
(b) the host authority,
for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision of education or training for the detained person.
(2) A local education authority must, on a request under subsection (3), as soon as practicable provide to the person making the request such information that they hold relating to a detained person as is requested.
(3) A request is made under this subsection if it—
(a) is made by a person within subsection (4), and
(b) asks only for information which the person requires for the purposes of, or in connection with, the provision of education or training for the detained person (including education or training to be provided after the detained person’s release from detention).
(4) Those persons are—
(a) any other local education authority;
(b) a youth offending team established under section 39 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998;
(c) the person in charge of any place at which the detained person is detained or is expected to be detained;
(d) any person providing or proposing to provide education or training for the detained person.
(5) The Welsh Ministers must, on a request by the home authority or the host authority, provide a copy of any relevant assessment report for the purposes of the exercise of any function of that authority under section 18A or this Chapter.
(6) In subsection (5), “relevant assessment report” means a report of an assessment of a detained person conducted (whether before or during the period of detention)—
(a) under section 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, and
(b) by virtue of arrangements made by the Welsh Ministers.
(7) In this section any reference to the host authority, in relation to a detained person, includes a reference to any local education authority in whose area the person is expected to be detained.
562F Information to be provided where statement of special educational needs previously maintained
(1) This section applies in relation to a detained person if, immediately before the beginning of the detention, a local education authority were maintaining a statement under section 324 for the person.
(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply where the home authority become aware (whether by notice under section 39A(2) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (detention of child or young person: local education authorities to be notified) or otherwise)—
(a) that the person—
(i) has become subject to a detention order, and
(ii) is detained in relevant youth accommodation, or
(b) that the person has been transferred from one place of accommodation to another place of accommodation which is relevant youth accommodation.
(3) If, immediately before the beginning of the detention, the home authority were maintaining the statement, they must send a copy of the statement to the host authority.
(4) If the home authority are or become aware that, immediately before the beginning of the detention, another local education authority were maintaining a statement for the person under section 324, they must notify the host authority—
(a) of that fact, and
(b) of the identity of that other local education authority.
(5) The local education authority who, immediately before the beginning of the detention, were maintaining the statement must, on a request by the host authority, send a copy of the statement to the host authority.
(6) Subsections (7) and (8) apply where the person is released from detention in relevant youth accommodation.
(7) The host authority must notify the following of the person’s release—
(a) the home authority, and
(b) if different, the authority who, immediately before the beginning of the detention, were maintaining the statement under section 324.
(8) If the home authority are not the authority who, immediately before the beginning of the detention, were maintaining the statement, the host authority must also notify the home authority—
(a) of the fact that immediately before the beginning of the detention a statement was being maintained for the person by a local education authority under section 324, and
(b) of the identity of that authority.
(9) Nothing in this section requires any local education authority to notify another authority of any matter of which the other authority are already aware, or to send a copy of any statement to another authority who already have a copy of it.
562G Release of detained person appearing to host authority to require assessment
(1) This section applies in relation to the release from detention in relevant youth accommodation of a detained person in relation to whom section 562F does not apply.
(2) Subsection (3) applies where it appears to the host authority that the detained person will, on release, be a child within the meaning of Part 4.
(3) If the host authority are of the opinion that the person has, or may have, special educational needs, they must, on the person’s release, notify the home authority of their opinion.
(4) Subsections (5) and (6) apply where, on release, the detained person—
(a) will be over compulsory school age, or
(b) will cease to be of compulsory school age within one year.
(5) If—
(a) the host authority are of the opinion that the person has, or may have, a learning difficulty (within the meaning of section 15ZA), and
(b) the home authority are a local education authority in England,
the host authority must, on the person’s release, notify the home authority of their opinion.
(6) If—
(a) the host authority are of the opinion that the person has, or may have, a learning difficulty (within the meaning of section 41 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 (assessments relating to learning difficulties: Wales)) and
(b) the home authority are a local education authority in Wales,
the host authority must, on the person’s release, notify the Welsh Ministers of their opinion.
Supplementary
562H Guidance
In performing their functions under this Chapter a local authority must have regard to any guidance issued by the appropriate national authority.
562I Interpretation of Chapter
(1) In this Chapter—
“beginning of the detention”, in relation to a person detained in relevant youth accommodation, means—
(a) the beginning of the period of detention in that accommodation, or
(b) where that period is part of a continuous period, comprising—
(i) periods of detention in relevant youth accommodation and in other accommodation, or
(ii) periods of detention pursuant to two or more court orders,
the beginning of that continuous period;
“looked after child” means a person who, for the purposes of the Children Act 1989 is a child looked after by a local authority; and references to the local authority looking after the person are to be read accordingly;
“the appropriate national authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;
“the home authority”—
(a) in relation to a child or young person who immediately before the beginning of the detention was, or at any time since then has been, a looked after child, means the local education authority who are the local authority looking after, or who have most recently been looking after, the person;
(b) in relation to any other child or young person, means the local education authority in whose area the person is ordinarily resident;
“the host authority”, in relation to a child or young person detained in relevant youth accommodation, means the local education authority in whose area the child or young person is detained;
“young person” includes a person aged 18.
(2) In determining for the purpose of subsection (1) where a child or young person is ordinarily resident, any period when the person is subject to a detention order is to be disregarded.
(3) Regulations made by the appropriate national authority may make further provision for determining where a person is ordinarily resident for the purpose of that subsection.”’.—(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government new clause 15—Detention of child or young person: local education authorities to be notified.
Government amendments 10 and 11.
New clause 14 inserts new chapter 5A into part X of the Education Act 1996. It further strengthens the provisions in the previous clause, particularly for young people with special educational needs, and with regard to information sharing. The new chapter 5A continues to place a duty on the child’s or young person’s home local authority to take steps to promote the fulfilment of the person’s learning potential while they are in juvenile custody and on their release. The new clause is an important mechanism for ensuring that one local authority—the home local authority—remains involved in the person’s education and training, regardless of where they are in the system, and can promote continuity and consistency of learning for the child or young person.
For persons in juvenile custody with special educational needs, the new clause provides a framework of duties that significantly strengthens requirements and that will, we believe, provide the most practical of arrangements to ensure their needs are met in custody and on their release. If a person had a statement of special educational needs prior to their detention, new section 562C requires the host LEA to use its best endeavours to secure that appropriate special educational provision is made for the detained person.
Will the Minister explain why the Government have chosen to make the host authority use “best endeavours” rather than a rather stronger duty? While she is answering that, will she also deal with the position whereby the home authority is required to
“take such steps as they consider appropriate”?
Both these phrases seem rather understated given that those currently in custody so rarely get the educational support and time that they need.?
I take the hon. Gentleman’s point and I shall come on to the detail of his intervention later. The point I made earlier about making practicable arrangements to ensure that needs are met is relevant; young people normally spend only a short time in custody, so the practicality of extending arrangements is important.
Taking the idea of “best endeavours” further, is it not the case that such endeavours will count only when the local authority has the budget to deliver ongoing support and education for a young offender in custody? Does the Minister welcome the Youth Justice Board’s moves to provide full information on budgetary costs of the custody of young offenders in the home authority? Would not the next step be to look at devolving those custodial costs so that the home authority has a sufficient budget to be able to deliver when offenders are out of custody, in custody and after custody?
Under the Bill, the budget currently held by the Ministry of Justice, which is responsible for education in custody at the moment, will be transferred to local authorities, and detailed guidance will be issued on how it will work in practice.
Section 562C also requires the authority that was maintaining the statement to keep a copy of it while the person is detained. Clause 51, which amends part 4 of the Education Act 1996, makes provision for the statement of special educational needs that was maintained before the person’s detention to be revived and reviewed on release. The new clause also strengthens requirements in relation to the transfer of information about a person’s education so that that relevant parties can exchange relevant educational information to help to ensure that education and training in juvenile custody can be tailored to meet the person’s needs.
The provisions may well be in the new clauses, but it has been a particular problem with young people in the secure estate that if they are moved, their educational records can take so long to catch up with them that they end up having to start all over again. If that happens twice—given that most of them have short sentences—they end up completing their sentence when they have had three first bites at the cherry but have never been able to complete a course, even though they would have had time to do so if the records had followed them promptly from one institution to another.
Information sharing is going to be particularly important. Because of a previous split in responsibility between the Ministry of Justice and local authorities, which applied before a young person went into custody and after, there was far more likelihood of what my hon. Friend referred to happening. We hope that under the new provisions, that process will be speeded up and will form part of the guidance that develops as we go forward. The guidance will include expectations of how LEAs should support the special educational needs of children and young people in juvenile custody, and we will use the guidance to be clear about the respective roles of the different local authorities involved in order to assure clarity of roles and expectations.
Concern has been expressed that all the needs of young people with special educational needs should be met while they are in custody, but it is necessary to be mindful of the significant constraints within the custodial environment and of the fact that, as I said earlier, young people generally spend only a short time in custody. It would be impractical to require local education authorities to commission specific provision to meet every need of every young person while they are in custody, because it would take time to commission that, and would be difficult within the context of delivering complex custodial regimes for an ever changing population. However, we consider the provisions in the Bill a significant step forward.
Our requirements for and approach to education and training for children and young people in custody will result in real improvements and better outcomes. This is the first time that requirements for education in custody will be set out in primary legislation, which will allow us to be clear about roles and expectations in statutory guidance. It will mean clear duties on a young person’s home local authority to maintain involvement in the person’s education and training, which we believe will promote greater consistency in young person’s learning and the support that they receive to help them to engage, progress and achieve.
With regard to young people with statements of special educational need, there are significant constraints to continuing SEN statements in custody, which outweigh the potential benefits. The SEN statement is a legally binding document that sets out the specific special educational provision that the young person must receive. The statement would be likely to include the name of the school the young person must attend and details of all the special educational provision the young person must receive. Therefore, if the statements were to be continued when a young person entered custody, the statement would have to be reviewed and reissued upon the child’s entering the custodial establishment and again on the young person’s release.
As I said, the average time spent in custody for young people is three to four months, which means that by the time the SEN statement had been reviewed and appropriate provision commissioned and provided, the majority of young people would be leaving the secure estate and the SEN statement would need to be reviewed yet again.
There are significant constraints on host LEAs being required to conduct SEN assessments for young people entering custody without a statement, if they consider an assessment might be needed. Again, that is because young people generally spend a short time in custody and may also move establishments mid-sentence, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris).
Does the Minister share the concern about constraints for home authorities in relation to the increasing distance between the home authority and the locations in which young people are housed in custodial establishments? Will she consider how the Bill squares with the decision of the Youth Justice Board to remove contracts in relation to secure children’s homes, which often house some of the most vulnerable young people? Indeed, in London there will be no secure children’s home; the nearest is in Southampton.
Again, information sharing between home and host local authorities will be really important. I still maintain that bringing the education system back under the local authority so that it, as a body, rather than the Ministry of Justice, bears the responsibility between a child’s entering and leaving custody, means that that continuity is much more likely to be maintained.
I am extremely grateful to the Minister, who is being most generous in giving way. Did she consider putting a time limit on the period during which either the host authority or the prison fails to provide for the educational needs of the child? Rather than just leaving it to best endeavours, did she consider putting on a limit of some sort, so that if the child does not move rapidly through the system but stays for some time, there will be some guarantee that they get the educational support that, probably, they badly need?
That is a valid point and something we could consider when we are putting the statutory guidance together. It is obvious from all the interventions by hon. Members that we all have the best interests of those young people at heart.
We propose that the best practicable solution is for a person’s SEN statement to be suspended while they are in custody and picked up and reviewed on their release, but I should point out that our current requirements for education and training for persons in juvenile custody already require that learning assessments of young people’s needs be conducted and used to inform individual learning plans and to meet personal needs. That will continue under the new arrangements.
I thank the Minister for the comment that was made on this very point in the letter sent on 29 April, but I should like to be reassured that that definitely happens in the case of every young offender. I should also like to know what monitoring is conducted to ensure that an assessment is made at what I consider to be the most important stage of the process.
I think we all want to ensure that this actually happens for young people. As in many cases, a statutory requirement is possible, but we need to establish how such a requirement is implemented in practice. I think that that, too, can be explored through guidance.
Of course we all have the best interests of young people at heart, and “best endeavours” matter immensely but, given the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes, will the Minister tell us specifically what mechanisms and procedures are in place to facilitate the communication that will be essential to the working of the new regime?
We will consult on the guidance, and we will ensure that all parties—including the Ministry of Justice and anyone concerned with children’s education—are involved in drawing it up.
I am a little worried about subsection (4)(c) of new subsection 562C. I fear that host authorities may use it to further their own interests rather than those of a child with special educational needs, and avoid their responsibility to provide appropriate special care. What guarantees can the Minister give that that will not happen?
It is certainly not the intention of the legislation that that will happen. While we do not accept that it is practical for the entire statement to be implemented while the young person is in custody, we interpret the phrase “best endeavours” to mean that the host authority will have to share information with the home authority, which will have to pick up the process when the child comes home.
In the case of someone who has been a looked-after child immediately before or at any time since the period of detention, the home authority will be the authority that has looked after the child most recently. Our policy is that the local education authority responsible for looking after a child should be responsible for the child, and we do not want the new duties in new clause 14 to interfere with that responsibility.
We believe that the information-sharing provisions will provide a consistent learning experience for young people, which will build on their earlier learning and educational experiences. Many youth offending teams and local partners already have information-sharing protocols which inform young people’s assessments, sentencing and sentence plans. However, the provisions in the new clause provide a clear legal framework to support those arrangements.
Inasmuch as new section 562E—entitled “Provision of information about detained persons”—relates to people under the age of 18, it provides for information sharing, but I cannot find any provision that enables parents to receive information about, for example, what training or education a child was or was not given while in the secure estate. Is that an oversight, or is the matter covered elsewhere in the Bill? It seems to me that parents ought to be able to obtain such information.
My hon. Friend has made an excellent point. I cannot say off the top of my head whether the matter is covered elsewhere in the Bill, but I shall try to find out for him.
New clause 15 inserts a new section 39A in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, requiring youth offending teams in England and Wales to notify a child or young person’s home and host local education authority when it becomes aware that that person has been detained in, transferred from or released from relevant youth accommodation. There is no pre-existing legislative provision requiring a youth offending team to be notified when a young person is detained in custody pursuant to a court order. However, youth offending teams have a pivotal role in the youth justice system, and in particular in arranging the placement of a young person who is sentenced or remanded in custody. In practice, a custodial placement could not be arranged without the youth offending team’s involvement.
A member of the youth offending team must be in attendance in court when a young person is sentenced to remand or custody, and if for any reason a member of the team is not present, the court is required to complete a report on the outcome of the hearing which must be sent to a range of partners including the youth offending team. Therefore, in practice a young person could not be placed in custody without the youth offending team being aware of it.
New clause 15 extends this provision so that a notification duty is placed on youth offending teams specifically to notify the home and host local education authority when a young person is detained in, transferred within, or released from juvenile custody. The youth offending team must also notify any other LEA in whose area the team expects the detained person to live on their release. The new clause ensures that relevant home and host LEAs will know when a child or young person moves into and out of the juvenile custodial estate, and when they transfer.
These provisions will strengthen current good practice, and will ensure that the LEAs can fulfil their new duties under chapter 5A of part X of the Education Act 1996, as inserted by new clause 14. They will help to ensure that local authorities can arrange suitable education for children and young people, both while they are detained in juvenile custody and on their release.
These provisions are central to our plans to improve education and training for young people in youth custody. They bring young people in juvenile custody under primary educational legislative regimes for the first time, and they make local authorities, as the mainstream commissioners of services for young people, also responsible for young people’s education while they are in juvenile custody.
I welcome this new clause, but does my hon. Friend the Minister not share my concern that some local authorities do not follow up on much of the information they receive, in this case from youth offending teams? There has been clear evidence of that. The man in charge of Wandsworth prison recently told an all-party group that Wandsworth council simply does not respond when adults leave prison; it does not support them. What can we do to ensure that local authorities respond appropriately?
That is a similar point to one raised earlier about what we would do if a local authority did not put the interests of a child first. If it did not do so, it would be in breach of a statutory duty, and the Secretary of State has direction powers to compel an authority in that respect, which would be enforceable by the courts.
On the requirement for notification when a young person has been subject to a detention order, will the Minister confirm that young people on remand and not subject to any sentence of detention or training are also covered?
It is my understanding that that applies whenever a young person is within the secure estate, but if that is not right I am sure that someone will correct me before we conclude our proceedings today.
I hope that Members will agree that the new clauses significantly strengthen requirements in respect of young people in juvenile custody—especially those with special educational needs—and that they provide a robust and practical framework to ensure that the needs of children and young people in juvenile custody can be appropriately supported.
There is an element of déjà vu to this debate. The Minister is moving precisely the same new clauses that she moved in Committee on 17 March. Her arguments are the same, too; in fact, many of the words and phrases she has used are very similar, albeit today she has sought to explain matters more expansively. In a few moments, I will raise with her some of the questions that we raised in Committee on the new clauses, and I do not doubt that the Minister will respond with the same, or similar, answers to those that she gave on 17 March.
Why are we repeating a debate we had in Committee? Why is the Minister moving exactly the same new clauses that she argued for in Committee? She is doing so because the management of the Committee stage by the four Ministers charged with that responsibility was not handled with the deftness of touch that might have been expected; it was a case of too many Ministers spoiling the broth, and an example of the chaos that can occur on considering a joint Bill when there is no clear sense of who is responsible.
The following is what happened in Committee. New clauses 14 and 15 were meant to replace clauses 49 and 50, which meant that the Government Members of the Committee should have voted against their own clauses in Committee, but instead they inadvertently voted for them. However, a very kind Chairman of the Committee realised the Minister’s oversight and gave the Committee a second chance to vote; but, alas, those Members again voted the wrong way and voted for their own clauses. So, here we are repeating the Committee stage and voting on whether to undo the errors of wayward Ministers—and we will have to do that again later this evening as the Government try to reverse three defeats incurred in Committee on three technical Government amendments. Those defeats were caused by the fact that a number of Labour Members failed to turn up in time for a 9 am start.
On the substance of the new clauses, these are important provisions—[Interruption.] Well, we would not have to waste any of this time had this been handled properly in Committee.
My hon. Friend is rightly teasing the Government for wasting the House’s time. Does he know where the Government deputy Chief Whip is—he was omnipresent in Committee, so is he ill?
My hon. Friend makes a good point; the deputy Chief Whip was present throughout the later stages of our discussions. I have seen him today, looming around the Palace, so I am pleased to say that he is not ill; no doubt he will be joining us later.
There is no doubt that education is key to the rehabilitation of young offenders and, indeed, of all prisoners in our jails. Statistics for 2007 reveal that nearly half of prisoners had a reading age of 11 or younger, 65 per cent. had maths skills below those of an 11-year-old and 82 per cent. had handwriting skills at or below those of an average 11-year-old. Action for Children, which is a voluntary sector provider of children’s services, shares our concern about the quality of education for young people in custody, and it has stated:
“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.”
I wish to raise with the Minister the concerns about the wording of these new clauses that some of my hon. Friends have touched on and that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) in Committee. The first relates to proposed new section 562B(3) of the Education Act 1996, which new clause 14 would insert. Proposed new section 562B would introduce a duty on the home local authority of the young person in custody to ensure that both during the period of detention and on release it took steps to promote that young person’s educational potential. Subsection (3) would provide that the home authority must make arrangements for the provision of education or training for the young person when they are released, but includes the words
“where it appears to the home authority appropriate for them to do so”.
I want the Minister to answer the following question. Given the importance of education to young offenders in ensuring that they do not continue on the road to a life of crime, when might it not be “appropriate” for that young person’s home authority to make arrangements for the provision of education or training on that person’s release from detention? Is not the danger that the phrasing will provide a get-out clause that will allow indolent local authorities not to bother?
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but may I suggest that one point where it might not be appropriate for the home authority to act is mentioned in the new clause: in respect of people who are “over compulsory school age.”?
I do not accept that. Given the statistics that I have just read out, we need to put more effort into ensuring that prisoners who leave custody have those basic skills to enable them to get a job and to have a decent life. Local authorities should not be given an easy get-out from providing that education to those people.
I, too, am interested by the use of the term “over compulsory school age”. I thought that “compulsory school age” was a historical concept and that what we now have is compulsory education to the age of 18. Thus, this usage would appear to be inappropriate or at least ambiguous. Where does it leave 17-year-olds and 18-year-olds?
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is an anachronistic phrase—if one is to believe the rhetoric of Labour Ministers.
Our second concern relates to proposed new section 562C(3) of the 1996 Act, which new clause 14 would insert and which deals with young offenders who had a statement of special educational needs prior to going into custody. The provision says that the local authority where the young person is detained must use its “best endeavours” to secure special educational provision for that person while they are in custody. Again, it is the phrase “must use its best endeavours” that concerns us. Is not that another get-out clause for a local authority that does not want to incur the expense of ensuring that the youth custody facilities in its area provide that type of quality education?
Our third and final concern also relates to the proposed new section 562C and concerns the definition of what is to be regarded as appropriate special educational provision. In new subsection 4(c) it says that if it appears to the host authority that the special educational provision specified in the statement is no longer appropriate for the young person in custody, the host authority can simply provide that element of special education that it deems appropriate. Given that the new section does not provide for a new statement or assessments to be made, that also appears to be a widely drafted get-out clause for local authorities that do not wish to provide high- quality special education for young people in custody.
Policy in relation to children with special educational needs has not been well handled over the last 10 or 20 years, and much needs to be done to right those wrongs. Indeed, one might be forgiven for making a connection between poor policy making, the Warnock conclusions about inclusion and the fact that we are now discussing educational provision for young people in custody with special educational needs. Given the strong correlation between poor educational achievement and prison, it is not difficult to come to the conclusion that poor special education provision is having a similar consequence for some young people who have special educational needs.
These are important issues and I hope that the Minister will address them appropriately. I wish her all the best with voting these new clauses and amendments on to the statute book without any hitches.
I apologise for not joining the debate earlier, but I have been in a Select Committee meeting.
I have taken some interest in new clause 14 as part of my overall interest in special educational needs. I congratulate Ministers on these amendments. This issue is very important. Last year, on the Second Reading of the Education and Skills Act 2008, I pointed out the importance of trying to ensure that children with special educational needs were not excluded unnecessarily. This Bill follows through that aim very positively. One of the problems that sometimes occurs when we legislate is that the different Departments do not always get their act together. Given that this issue relates to the Ministry of Justice as well as to the Departments for Children, Schools and Families and for Innovation, Universities and Skills, one might expect that problem to occur, but it has not.
I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman as I know that he takes a great interest in these matters and speaks with authority, but I thought that the House might wish to note that the deputy Chief Whip has now joined us—I presume in order to ensure that proceedings go more smoothly than they did the first time.
I have nothing to add to that intervention and I shall continue my train of thought.
These amendments have rightly been informed by the concerns that have been expressed on other occasions. I refer especially to the Westminster Hall debate on adults with learning difficulties that took place earlier this year and to the comments on that occasion made by my hon. Friends the Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) about the number of adults in the system who did not get the right sort of advice or assistance. I raised that issue with Ministers subsequently in Justice questions.
These amendments are a strong attempt to join the circle through further provision and to link the concerns that have been expressed by the DCSF about the need to ensure that children with special educational needs are not unnecessarily excluded—as that might set them on a path that leads to delinquency and further criminal behaviour—with the situation in prisons. This is a very important step, which is widely welcomed. I expect—and very much hope—that it will make a significant contribution to what the Government have already been trying to do about prison education.
I, too, hope that our considerations today proceed smoothly and without a hitch. On the subject of these new clauses, it is really important to identify the roles of the home and host authorities. I believe that the Government basically have it right in their definitions of what the home authority should be doing and what the host authority should be doing. The difficulty, as all hon. Members acknowledge, is promoting liaison between those two authorities.
It is important that the Government recognise clearly that a high proportion of young offenders have special educational needs and, perhaps unrelated to that but possibly related to it, that many young offenders have been excluded from school. Obviously, education is key in rehabilitation and in tackling reoffending. Equally, we are aware of the particularly high rate of reoffending among young people, which can be as high as 80 per cent. I cannot emphasise enough how important I think that the proposals are, but I am concerned about their implementation, as I have already said.
I, too, share the concerns of the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) that the proposed new section 562C offers some convenient opt-outs for local authorities that mean that they might not endeavour to take the required steps to promote a person’s fulfilment and learning potential. Given the existence of those opt-outs, it is crucial that their use be tightly defined in guidance.
I would also repeat the point I made earlier: it is important that an assessment be made for all young people if they come into the youth justice system. That must be put on the record. I do not think that it is happening now, so it does not reassure me to have in writing, “Well, that’s all right because it is in such and such a plan.” The Government must come up with some firm schemes for monitoring the whole system implied in the new clauses; otherwise, they will be totally worthless and we will not make progress on this important matter, on which I think that the Government would be proud to have success.
I was not privileged to be a member of the Public Bill Committee, so I hope that what I say has not already been well debated before.
The concern is about young people in custody with special educational needs. Is it not the case that had we intervened sooner, they might not be in custody? I have argued many times, in this House and elsewhere, that we ought to provide better for younger people who clearly have special educational needs, and to do so at an earlier stage. I have some knowledge of this subject from relatives who have been teachers. Local authorities have been reluctant to statement young people, because it then costs money to do something about it. Even when those young people have been statemented, there is often a long delay before any action, during which time youngsters can fall more and more into trouble and difficulty. They might, perhaps, be excluded from school and then get into trouble. The end result is that they finish up in custody, with a criminal record or a custodial record and with a very poor educational experience.
The hon. Gentleman has just shared with the House his scepticism about local authorities’ willingness to go the extra mile for people with special educational needs. Does he share my concern that proposed new section 562C(4)(c) states that special educational needs provisions do not have to be applied by the host authority if that host authority feels that they are
“no longer appropriate for the person”?
My concern is that the host authority might consider the situation from the point of view of its own convenience, rather than from that of the interests of the individual. The authority might withhold the special educational needs provision because it is inconvenient for the host authority rather than because it is not in the individual’s interests. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should make sure that they monitor the situation carefully, and should ensure that they give extremely strong guidance on the matter?
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I shall come on to make the point that there is always a resource implication of such actions. The resource constraint sometimes deters local authorities from doing things that they ought to do. I have had cases in my constituency of people who really should have been in residential educational care, or whatever one likes to call it, at an earlier stage in life. The local authority resists, usually arguing that it is better to have the principle of inclusion to the fore, when the real concern is about the cost. If central Government were prepared to fund local authorities to provide that very expensive special provision for certain young people, local authorities would be much more enthusiastic about pursuing that option. That is, of course, true of the new clauses that we are discussing, too.
I support the clauses in principle, but if local authorities find ways of not doing what those clauses imply because it is “not appropriate”, it may be a resource constraint that is the problem. I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), and the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon)—to look seriously at making sure that local authorities have the resources to do what the clauses imply should be done.
I have argued on many occasions that there ought to be more residential provision for those with certain sorts of special educational needs, and particularly for those with serious behavioural needs that are difficult to accommodate in school. The young people concerned have difficulty coping with school. I am not suggesting that every time anybody misbehaves, they should be sent off to a boarding school, but some people’s behavioural difficulties are so serious that they really need a calmer experience in a residential setting, with specialist provision. I know that schools and colleges of that kind do exist. Some of them are private, and some are very expensive. If local authorities, in regional consortiums, made that sort of provision for those with special educational needs at an early stage—if intervention were quick and early—it would make an enormous difference to whether those people finished up in a custodial environment, and then went on to a criminal life, which would be wholly regrettable. Early intervention is absolutely crucial in such cases, as it is in the case of so many special educational needs. If we invested more in such special educational provision when people were very young, we would finish up with fewer people in custodial situations, and fewer people leading a life of crime.
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins). Uniquely, I found myself agreeing with almost everything that he said, particularly on early intervention. If one wants to look at the matter in purely financial terms, from the state’s point of view, early intervention and investment in young people who are clearly coming off the rails, as they are when in custody, will pay back. It will pay back handsomely if we can provide the educational opportunity to allow at least a decent percentage of those young people to get on to the straight and narrow, increase their confidence and so on.
I also agree with what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) said about the need for visibility on performance. We need transparency. Young people who go into custody often move between institutions. Sometimes they are moved far away from their home authority, and they are out of sight, out of mind. That is why the fact that the Government are today making an effort to improve the education of those young people is to be welcomed, but it is also why so many Members from all parts of the House have concerns about whether the measures that the Government are taking are strong enough.
I have already raised issues about the wording. The home authority must
“take such steps as they consider appropriate”,
and the host authority “must use best endeavours”. To say that an authority has failed in such a statutory duty is pretty hard to do. I therefore urge Ministers to consider tightening up that wording, even if, for now, it appears only in guidance. If we are to ensure that those young people receive education where it is practical to deliver it, perhaps we need a stronger commitment. That also picks up on another important point, in addition to transparency, about money; this is often a question of resources. Given plentiful quantities of money, host, home and custody authorities would be only too happy to provide more educational support for young people and, if they had the resources, perhaps they would be able to ensure a more settled time in custody, the better to provide them with education. I am concerned about the way in which the host authorities will access the money. I understand from the Minister that money will be transferred to local authorities, but will transparency apply to requests from host authorities to home authorities and to the responses that they receive? I should be grateful if the Minister explained to the House and to me exactly how the host authority may claim funding to ensure that the person it has assessed receives the education that that authority thinks is right.
On the subject of visibility, are the Government, like many on both sides of the House, keen on league tables? If necessary, could league tables on performance in looking after the education and the progress of young people in custody be published to shame authorities into improving their performance? At the very least, if they discovered that other authorities were doing a much better job, they could make contact with those authorities and try to find out what was required to help them improve.
It is important that we look at added value. People often start at a low base when they enter into the care of those education authorities, so we need to look at that component. Those people have already been failed by the system, so we must ensure that it then brings them up, at least to some extent. That may not be as measurable as some people would like, but it is important that an assessment is made.
I completely agree with my hon. Friend, and it brings me to my final point, about subsection (4)(c) of proposed new section 562C, which states that where
“it appears to the host authority that the special educational provision so specified”
by the former home authority
“is no longer appropriate”
it can be set aside, as hon. Members have said. However, if it is set aside, some form of formal assessment should be carried out by the host authority. That authority should not be able simply to declare that it deems that that provision is no longer appropriate. A formal process should be conducted to ensure that that decision is reached after a rigorous assessment, and is not made purely to suit the authority’s financial situation.
My hon. Friend has made a very good point. Given the indication that the statement of special educational needs would effectively be suspended, does he share my concern that not only does that change the duty of the home authority and put the onus on the host authority but it takes away parents’ rights regarding statements? No longer will they be party to any reviews or appeals: they will be cut out of the process of SEN provision for their child while he or she is in custody. Does he share my concern that the Minister has not adequately thought through that loss of contact and representation for parents?
My hon. Friend is quite right, and he has picked up a point made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris). It is ironic that we should consider these new clauses, which make no mention whatsoever of parents, on the very day on which the Prime Minister has declared that parent power should be the driving force to raise educational standards. That irony will not be lost on the Secretary of State who, in this particular regard, has failed his master. Perhaps he is about to catch up, and fall into step with him, and we will hear about that from the Minister at the Dispatch Box.
As hon. Members will know, I spoke on Second Reading and served on the infamous Public Bill Committee. A lot of fun was had, and I enjoyed spending a great deal of time with Members from all parts of the House—probably more time than I would have liked at times. It was an occasion that I will not forget in a hurry, and it will give me many happy memories in the years to come.
I wish to speak in support of new clause 14, and seek clarification from the Minister on a couple of aspects of the Bill’s implementation. As we know, a large proportion of young people who are detained have special educational needs and many of those are identified, but as the Minister is well aware, many are not. I am pleased that the new clause pays significant attention to children with special educational needs.
My contributions in Committee were intended to elicit reassurances from the Minister that the particular needs of children with disabilities and additional special educational needs will be met, but it should not go without mention that the Minister told me that expenditure on those with SEN has risen by the best part of £500 million since 2000. The specific referrals that will come about as a result of the new clause will further back up that commitment.
However, I am concerned that we still cannot identify the number of children or young people detained in juvenile custody who have an SEN, what that SEN is—I have campaigned long and hard on this, as Ministers know—or the number of those who are later given a statement. Although I accept that there is a duty on local authorities to monitor and provide for children for whom they are responsible, it is a cause for concern that yet again there is a deficit of information in an area in which a problem clearly exists. I wholeheartedly support the amendment, which places a duty on a host local authority.
I know that the hon. Lady feels passionately about these subjects, as do I. Would she acknowledge that one of the key aspects of that information is the specificity and quantification of the provision that is put in place to meet the statemented need? There seems to be some variability about that between authorities, and some problem with passing on that information in detail from one authority to another as a child, and later a young person, goes through the system?
I agree. As hon. Members know, I introduced a private Member’s Bill on special educational needs and the collection of information. The problem exists not only for children in custody, but for children as they move around the country, even when their parents are totally responsible for them. Often the information is not passed on from one local authority to another with regard to the specific needs of that child. I have had personal experience of starting again, in effect, when one moves to a new local authority. The amendment is welcome because, when a child or young person moves into a local authority area it will help inform the authority that they may need an SEN assessment or a statement.
I refer to new clause 14 and to what, if it is passed, will become section 562B of the Education Act 1996. Subsection (2)(a) reads:
“The home authority must—
(a) during the period of detention in relevant youth accommodation. . .take such steps as they consider appropriate to promote the person’s fulfilment of his or her learning potential.”
I wish to probe the Minister a little on resources for the fulfilment of that statutory commitment.
I confess that the last time I looked at per capita annual spending on the education of young people in the secure estate, compared to per capita annual spending on a pupil at a state secondary school, was probably five years ago, in the previous Parliament. Let us add to the equation the amount spent by many local authorities on a tiny minority of children with very severe emotional and behavioural difficulties who are put in secure accommodation not necessarily because of criminal acts of any sort, but because they are so disturbed that they need a very high level of support, to the extent that it is residential and often geographically outside the home local authority area. For example, Wolverhampton used to send children to somewhere in Devon. It is debatable whether that is good for the child. For most of them, it is better that they remain nearer where they live, although not in every case if they have a very disruptive family.
I would not want anyone to think that these are exact figures, but for purposes of comparison let me give the figures, very roughly, from a few years ago. For a child from Wolverhampton who was placed in such secure residential accommodation because of their emotional and behavioural difficulties, the average cost was £150,000 a year. For some, however, the cost was £250,000 a year, meaning that, if a child went into such an institution for four years, they could cost £1 million. It drained a huge proportion of the health budget and the local authority budget, albeit for children with very severe difficulties. Those were extreme figures.
The approximate spending per capita per year—I am talking about five years ago—on an average child in a secondary school was £4,000 a year. That was for a child who went to school for roughly six hours a day, five days a week, 39 weeks a year. By contrast, the figure for a young person in the secure estate was lower; it was in the low £3,000s.
It was difficult to form an idea of the figures, because, frankly, the Government did not keep them and one had to try to work them out as best one could. It was a bit of a back-of-an-envelope calculation, because the figures that the Government started with involved taking the number of places in an institution, such as Pucklehurst where Stephen Fry was as a teenager, and dividing that by the budget. Then one had the per capita figure, but of course that included accommodation—food, heating, lighting, security and so on.
The comparative figure was just over £3,000 a year, as far as I could tell, for a young person in a secure estate, as opposed to someone in a regular secondary school, who cost about £4,000 a year. That struck me as absolutely potty, given that, as I understand it, a large plurality, if not a majority, of young people in the secure estate have severe difficulties with basic learning—with the three R’s. It is one of the factors that can become an indicator of someone’s being in the secure estate. I must stress that I do not suggest that a young person aged 13 or 14 who is not functionally literate will necessarily end up in the secure estate, but a disproportionate number of young people who are not functionally literate do.
I am sure that my hon. Friend saw a recent documentary about young people being taught to read, and the transformation in the behaviour of one young person who had caused massive problems in school. They were successfully taught to read, and they were transformed as a person. They became happy and well integrated, and they led a productive life at school and beyond.
I agree because, at base, this is partly about self-esteem. It is also about whether such people are likely to offend upon their release because of their emotional state, their chances of getting a job and their level of basic skills.
Proposed new section 562B(2)(a) has resource implications and I hope that the Minister will assure me that those approximate figures from five years ago have been superseded. The Government have taken the issue in hand over the past five years, because of pressure from all parts of the House, and they have done much better on education for young people in the secure estate. However, I want reassurance from the Minister—perhaps not today, because it can be difficult to unravel such figures—that, per capita per annum, spending on the education of young people in the secure estate is more than what is spent on children in a regular state secondary school.
That was an interesting debate. There were some very good contributions by Members on both sides of the House. It shows the great interest that Members have in the issue. On the specific points, I turn first to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). He asked when it would not be appropriate for the local authority to make arrangements for persons released from detention. That would be when the young person or their parents had already made arrangements for their continuing education and training. In that case, the local authority would not have to step in.
There was another question about compulsory school age education and training. Obviously, there is compulsory schooling up to 16. Post-16, there is education or training, so, as the issue moves with the recommended participation age, the relevant provisions will apply.
Many of the other points come back to the answers that I gave before, in response to interventions. The issue is about getting the balance right between what can practically be achieved within the secure estate and our wanting the best for young people. As I said, in many cases, practical difficulties mean that it would not be possible to replicate the exact provision that young people enjoyed outside the secure estate. A special educational needs statement often includes a particular school that a young person should attend; obviously, that would not be possible in respect of a young person in the secure estate.
Another point, which came up time and again, was about monitoring and inspection. Ofsted will be responsible for the inspection of educational standards and the education that young people receive in the secure estate. On young people coming out of the secure estate, I should say that there will be a national indicator for local authorities to ensure that young people supervised by youth offending teams are in education or employment at the end of their sentences. A lot of that will be put together in the guidance.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) was an assiduous Committee member who made some very good contributions. I thank him for his support for the new clause. I agree with what the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) said: it will be for us to define tightly in the guidance what we mean by “taking steps” and what is appropriate. The issue of monitoring was also raised. In the youth crime action plan, we committed to review the performance management arrangements for young offenders’ education in custody as part of these education reforms. We are working with our partners so that that is taken on board.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Kelvin Hopkins) said that prevention was better than cure, and I agree absolutely. Again, the issue is about getting the balance right between what can practically be achieved within the secure estate and our wanting the best for the young people. On my hon. Friend’s comments about special educational needs as a whole, I should say that there has been considerable investment in education for youngsters with special educational needs. Furthermore, Ofsted is about to undertake a review, which will guide us on how we can go further on that.
I thank my hon. Friend for her reassurance on these matters. Has her Department made any attempt to look at the extent to which local authorities have prejudices or views about special educational needs which are now being shown to be inappropriate? I am thinking, for example, of those who believe in blanket inclusion rather than special provision when medical or mental health problems are clearly involved. Is the Department looking at local authorities and local authority officers who have particular prejudices on such matters?
I take my hon. Friend’s point. He will be aware that we have employed Sir Brian Lamb to review parental experience in the special educational needs system. Last week, we specifically asked Sir Brian to look at the exact issue that my hon. Friend has raised: whether local authorities are discharging their responsibilities and duties in a more consistent manner. Some local authorities work well in that regard, but others do not.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr. Stuart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) made points about parents. Parents are fully engaged in the sentence planning process. As for educational requirements, we will make sure that we put into the local authority guidance the fact that the current process by which parents are involved in the sentence planning also implies their involvement in the education.
Does the word “parents” include grandparents, or people who are in a parenting role? Sometimes people who are not the immediate parents take on a parenting role, and they are often excluded when decisions are made about the young people involved.
In general, the parent or guardian will be the statutory person, but there is no reason why we cannot look at that when we consider the more detailed part of the guidance.
Can the Minister explain at exactly what point in the process parents will be involved?
As we work with partners on the guidance, we can consider at what level parents will be engaged in the education process—whether it will be a replica of what happens in the sentence planning process or whether we want to do something particularly for young people with special educational needs. Parents are closely involved with those provisions.
Two questions were asked about funding. Funding will go to the Young People’s Learning Agency and then to the host authorities. We are considering how best we can ensure that the funding designated for education in custody is spent on that and how we get equality of spend across the system. We will work closely with all the partners to agree a model for how we can make that happen. In England, the funding will flow from central Government to the YPLA to the host LEAs, which will then use it to secure education and training for juveniles in custody. In Wales, it will be slightly different—the funding will be re-routed from the Youth Justice Board’s budget to the Welsh Assembly Government and then distributed to host LEAs, which will receive additional funding to carry out their new responsibilities of securing education and training in juvenile custody.
I am trying to understand this process. I thought that the home authority was going to play a role, but obviously not—the money will flow between the YPLA and the host authority. Will the allocation to the host authority be based on a standard assessment of need, and to what extent can that be constrained by the budgetary position of the YPLA?
We are looking forward to agreeing that model as we bring it forward. The home LEA is involved because the Bill proposes that host LEAs should be able to recoup the cost of SEN provision from home authorities, because they are not providing it while the young person is in custody. We need to get the model right and ensure that all the partners are involved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Mrs. Hodgson) is a seasoned campaigner on behalf of young people with SEN. Her Bill was very important because, as she rightly says, information flows are vital.
Can my hon. Friend assure me that the YPLA, which will be the funding body for the host authority, will have sufficient funds? Will it be charged with the responsibility of providing a higher per capita annualised figure for the education of a young person in the secure estate than the average figure for what one might broadly term a regular secondary school student, so that extra moneys will go into the education of young people in the secure estate, many of whom, although they do not have statemented special educational needs, have what we might call, in lay terms, particular educational needs, often in catching up with the basic three R’s?
I cannot give my hon. Friend an assurance on whether that average is right without having the figures in front of me. It is certainly something that we are looking into. We expect that host LEAs will receive additional funding to carry out these responsibilities. I cannot comment on the figures that he quoted, which are from five years ago. I undertake to write to him with the information. [Interruption.] I have just seen that the amount of funding that the Government give to local authorities for the education and training of young people in custody will be based on a per-bed price that is agreed centrally by national partners at the start of the commissioning process. Funding for special educational needs is relative to the child, which is why we have to get the model right to ensure that they get the appropriate amount.
I hope that hon. Members will agree that the new clauses are an improvement, and that the whole Bill is an improvement, for young people in custody. We hope that if we can get education and training right, that will prevent the reoffending that hon. Members have mentioned.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 14 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 15
Detention of child or young person: local education authorities to be notified
‘After section 39 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) insert—
“39A Detention of child or young person: local education authorities to be notified
(1) Subsection (2) applies where a youth offending team becomes aware that—
(a) a child or young person has become subject to a detention order and is detained in relevant youth accommodation, or
(b) a child or young person who is subject to a detention order has been transferred from one place of accommodation to another which is relevant youth accommodation.
(2) The youth offending team must as soon as practicable notify—
(a) the home local education authority, and
(b) the host local education authority,
of the place where the child or young person is detained.
(3) Subsection (4) applies where a youth offending team becomes aware that a person has been released having immediately before release been—
(a) subject to a detention order, and
(b) detained in relevant youth accommodation.
(4) The youth offending team must as soon as practicable notify the following authorities of the release—
(a) the home local education authority;
(b) the host local education authority;
(c) any other local education authority in whose area the youth offending team expects the person to live on release.
(5) Nothing in this section requires a youth offending team to notify a local education authority of any matter of which the authority is already aware.
(6) In this section—
“home local education authority”, in relation to a child or young person, means the local education authority which is the home authority in relation to that person within the meaning of Chapter 5A of Part 10 of the Education Act 1996 (persons detained in youth accommodation);
“host local education authority”, in relation to a child or young person who is detained in relevant youth accommodation, means the local education authority for the area in which that person is detained;
“young person” includes a person who is aged 18;
and references in this section to a person subject to a detention order and to relevant youth accommodation have the same meanings as they have in the Education Act 1996 (see section 562(1A) of that Act).”’.—(Sarah McCarthy-Fry.)
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 21
Further education corporations in England: co-operation and promotion of well-being
‘(1) The Further and Higher Education Act 1992 (c. 13) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 19 (supplementary powers of a further education corporation), after subsection (8) add—
“(9) A further education corporation may provide advice or assistance to any other person where it appears to the corporation to be appropriate for them to do so for the purpose of or in connection with the provision of education by the other person.”
(3) After that section insert—
“19A Duty in relation to promotion of well-being of local area
(1) This section applies to a further education corporation established in respect of an educational institution in England.
(2) In exercising their functions under sections 18 and 19, the corporation must—
(a) have regard, amongst other things, to the objective of promoting the economic and social well-being of the local area, and
(b) in doing so, have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State about co-operation with a view, directly or indirectly, to advancing that objective.
(3) In subsection (2)—
(a) the reference to the well-being of an area includes a reference to the well-being of people who live or work in the area;
(b) “co-operation”, in relation to a further education corporation, means any form of co-operation, including consulting, seeking advice or assistance from, providing advice or assistance to, or collaborating or otherwise participating in joint working with, other educational institutions, employers or other persons (who may be, or include, persons outside the local area).
(4) In this section, “the local area”, in relation to a further education corporation, means the locality of the institution in respect of which they are established.
(5) Nothing in this section is to be taken to affect the operation of section 49A.”’.—(Ed Balls.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 22—Targets for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children.
Government new clause 23—Local Safeguarding Children Boards: lay members.
Government new clause 24—Local Safeguarding Children Boards: annual reports.
New clause 20—Children visited by key workers—
‘After section 16 of the Children Act 2004 insert—
“16A (1) A Children’s services authority shall secure that, when any child who is the subject of—
(a) an investigation under section 47 of the Children Act 1989; or
(b) a child protection plan agreed by the Local Safeguarding Children Board
is visited by his or her key worker, the child shall, if practicable and reasonable in the circumstances, be seen separately from his or her parent or care-giver.
(2) The key worker referred to in subsection (1) is—
(a) in the case of subsection (1)(a) of this section, the lead social worker appointed by the children’s services authority; and
(b) in the case of subsection (1)(b), the key worker appointed by the Local Safeguarding Children Board.”’.
New clause 29—Chairman of local safeguarding board—
‘A Children’s Services Authority in England must ensure that the Local Safeguarding Board established by it has a chairman who is independent of that authority.’.
Government amendment 18.
Amendment 54, in clause 187, page 100, line 26, at end insert—
‘(ff) a short stay school within the area of the authority;
(fg) a Sure Start Children’s Centre within the area of the authority;
(fh) a representative of an extended school provider with authority;
(fi) general medical practitioners within the area of the authority.’.
Amendment 15, in clause 188, page 103, line 43, at end insert—
‘(6) A Children’s Trust Board must have regard to the need to implement the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when preparing a children and young people’s plan.’.
Amendment 67, page 104, line 7, at end insert—
‘( ) allocate clear areas of responsibility and accountability for each section of the plan to relevant persons and bodies;’.
Government amendments 19 and 20.
Over the past few days, people around the country will have been horrified to read that one of the defendants found guilty in respect of the death of baby Peter has also committed another vile and disgusting crime against a small and vulnerable child. There is nothing that we can do to take away the suffering caused by such terrible crimes, but it is our responsibility to do everything that we can to ensure that there are the best possible child protection arrangements—in Haringey and across the country.
In November last year, I asked Lord Laming to provide us with an independent progress report on child protection across the country. In my statement to the House on 12 March I confirmed that we would accept all Lord Laming’s recommendations and set out the immediate action that we were taking to implement them. In his report, Lord Laming concluded that the Every Child Matters reforms provided
“a sound framework for professionals to protect children and promote their welfare.”
However, he also stated that there now needed to be
“a step change in the arrangements to protect children from harm.”
He challenged us to do more to ensure that leaders of local services accept their responsibility to
“translate policy, legislation and guidance into day-to-day practice on the frontline of every service.”
As I said in my statement to the House a few weeks ago, in that report Lord Laming made a series of detailed recommendations to ensure that best practice is universally applied in every area of the country, to improve local accountability and to provide more support for local leaders and the front-line work force. Tomorrow we will set out our detailed response to Lord Laming’s report and our new vision for the new national safeguarding delivery unit, as well as the first recommendations of our social work taskforce to improve front-line social work practice.
Today, we have tabled three new clauses that will help us to go further towards implementing Lord Laming’s recommendations in this Bill, and I thank Opposition Members for their co-operation in agreeing to the new clauses coming forward on Report. They will introduce new statutory targets for safeguarding and child protection and require local safeguarding children boards to appoint two members drawn from the local community and to publish an annual report on their effectiveness.
New clause 22 will insert a new section into the Children Act 2004 to allow us to introduce the statutory targets that Lord Laming recommended in his report, to ensure that safeguarding and child protection are the top priority in every area. Of course, there is a national role in the setting of those targets, but the vital thing is for local agencies to be consulted on those targets and then to ensure that they are properly driven forward locally. That is why they must take account of local performance and circumstance and why we expect local authorities to consult all local agencies and to propose challenging targets to us. We will bring forward secondary legislation to address the details of how those targets will be set, alongside the review of the range of safeguarding targets, and will publish a new framework in the autumn.
I have some concerns about consultation. The Secretary of State has just made it clear that there will be consultation on the details, perhaps following the enactment of the new clauses, but how much has he undertaken in advance of their introduction?
In preparing his report, which I asked him to begin in December, Lord Laming held a wide range of meetings all round the country with practitioners and professionals. It was on that basis that he recommended the proposed statutory targets. We have obviously consulted our key partners, as well as Opposition Members and Departments, on the fact that we intend to implement that recommendation. When Lord Laming issued his report in March, I said that we would implement his recommendation, and today we are taking the power to do so. The detail of how we will do that—that is, both the content of the secondary legislation and, importantly, the detailed statutory targets—is something on which we will consult over the coming months and in the autumn. There will therefore be a full consultation on how we enact those powers, but the fact that we are enacting them is a consequence of Lord Laming’s consultation and his report.
Government new clause 23 amends the Children Act 2004 to require local authorities to open up the child protection system to greater public scrutiny by ensuring that two members of the general public are appointed to every local safeguarding children board in the country. An important part of our response to Lord Laming’s report was to say that we needed greater transparency and public involvement, not least because safeguarding children is the responsibility of us all, not just professionals. Government new clause 23 will allow best practice to become common practice and will ensure that we can implement that recommendation in a sensible manner.
In line with Lord Laming’s recommendations, we have already said that we will revise our statutory guidance in “Working Together” to set out our presumptions that the director of children’s services and the lead member for children’s services will always be members of both the children’s trust board and the LSCB. The chief executive and the leader of the council will have an obligation to confirm annually that their local arrangements comply with the law. Government new clause 24 will require the local safeguarding children board to publish an annual report and to submit it to its local children’s trust, in order to provide an honest assessment of how those arrangements are being implemented and ensure that resourcing, organisation and co-ordination issues are being properly addressed by all agencies in the children’s trust, thereby allowing proper and effective scrutiny.
I display my ignorance here, but I see that the annual report will go to the local children’s trust board. I appreciate that some matters covered may be delicate, but to ensure the scrutiny to which my right hon. Friend has referred, will those annual reports be publicly available, so that people can read what is going on in their area?
The reports will be public reports, issued by the safeguarding children board. All the experts who are involved in overseeing safeguarding arrangements in an area are on the safeguarding children board. They will report to the children’s trust, which is responsible for ensuring that those responsible in every local area for leading individual agencies—whether the local authority, the police, health services or other agencies more widely—are putting in place both the senior management time and the resourcing to ensure that the challenge of safeguarding is being properly implemented. That allows the children’s trust to ensure that safeguarding is being done properly and it allows the safeguarding board to ensure that individual agencies are playing their proper role. That must happen in public. An important part of our proposed new clauses is opening up the process to proper scrutiny.
I fully accept the Secretary of State’s good will in bringing forward the Government’s new clauses, which I welcome. However, does he agree that they rely to some extent on his issuing strong guidance and on monitoring performance to ensure that local authorities comply with that guidance? What assurances can he give that he will indeed give that strong guidance and conduct robust monitoring?
The recommendations in Lord Laming’s report challenge us to do just that. The combination of the new national safeguarding unit and the strengthened inspection regime through Ofsted is important. In the end, however, the issue is about ensuring that we have proper leadership, resourcing and scrutiny, both locally, in every one of the 158 areas where safeguarding is co-ordinated, and across a range of different agencies. Our challenge is to make best practice universal, across all parts of the country. As I have said, we will revise our new guidance on safeguarding to each area to reflect not only the changes in the law, but the wider recommendations in Lord Laming’s report. It is vital that we have clear direction from the centre, but far more important will be the quality and commitment of leadership at local level, and that is where we must ensure that we have proper and effective scrutiny. That is why the new clause’s proposals to open up accountability at local area level, through lay members and annual reports, is as important as the setting of statutory targets and guidance, for which the Bill also makes provision.
New clause 21 and amendments 18, 19 and 20 reflect some progress on the debates that occurred in the Public Bill Committee which, sadly, I was unable to be part of. On the basis of the debate so far today, I regret that very much indeed. I understand that there was agreement among hon. Members on both sides of the Committee on the need for local employers to work together with local colleges. That is obviously vital in the current climate, and we are expanding the number of apprenticeships and getting more skills into the adult work force as well.
The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) made a strong case in Committee for greater clarity on the inclusion of employer bodies in co-operation arrangements. The Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Simon), said in that debate that we were fully committed to employer engagement, and that we would look at that matter further. Rather than imposing the duty to co-operate as a funding condition, we have decided instead, through new clause 21 and the consequential amendments, to place a duty on colleges to follow statutory guidance from the Secretary of State on co-operation, including with employers, alongside the new duty in the Bill to promote economic and social well-being in the local area. I hope that that will provide greater clarity and flexibility, and that the provisions make it clear in a way that all hon. Members can agree on that there will be a proper, clear basis for employer—
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; I appreciate that he is in mid-flow. We welcome that change. It reflects the discussion in Committee that he described, and reaffirms the cross-party view that the relationship between educators and employers is critical, particularly at this time. I guess that this illustrates our Committees working at their best.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
We believe that this is a better way of ensuring that we can have more effective, clear and flexible co-operation between colleges and employers. We are hoping that we will receive a reply today from the shadow Children’s Secretary on whether he and his party will match our September guarantee on funding for sixth forms, because, without that clarity, we will not have proper cross-party co-operation on ensuring that employers and young people get the support that they need.
I echo the Secretary of State’s sentiment that every right-thinking person in this country will have been absolutely horrified at the further revelations that have come out of the baby P affair. That makes it even more urgent to acknowledge that the measures that we all bring in—not just the Government, but all the other agencies involved—are very necessary. We can always clamp down, but we can never eliminate altogether those people who are intent on doing evil things to children. However, the duty of all of us is to make that as difficult as possible for them by eliminating as many opportunities as possible, and to keep a strong watching eye on the people who are minded to do these horrendous things to children.
We are waiting eagerly for the rest of the measures that the Secretary of State will introduce in response to Lord Laming’s report, which he will announce tomorrow. I presume that we will have proper opportunity, through an oral statement, to scrutinise some of those measures. We also await the interim report from the social work taskforce, which forms an integral part of this whole exercise.
I want to comment on most of the amendments and new clauses in the group. I shall first comment on our amendment 54 and then on Government amendments 18 and 19 together with the accompanying new clause 21. I shall then comment briefly on new clause 29, tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Subsequently, I will come to the main motions, which I view as Government new clauses 22, 23 and 24, and I shall want to speak to them in greater detail.
Amendment 54, which was tabled by my hon. Friends, is about the duty to co-operate. It is effectively about the membership of children’s trusts and the definitions of who constitute the relevant partners that form those trusts. My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs. Miller) raised the issue in Committee, explaining that in our view, the list of those relevant partners is not as exhaustive as it should be. Hence the purpose of the amendment is to add further names of agencies to clause 187. They are the further relevant partners who should be consulted and form part of the children’s trusts network.
The four additional agencies that we would like to see added to the Bill largely reflect the results of the Government’s own consultation. These four agencies are, first,
“a short stay school within the area of the authority”—
effectively the pupil referral units, which are now being renamed. The second is
“a Sure Start Children’s Centre within the area of the authority”.
The third is
“a representative of an extended school provider with authority”—
very much a movable feast in respect of who exactly it will be, as extended schools are rolled out and encompass more and more partners. That is why it is so important for this provision to be built directly into the Bill. Fourthly and particularly—this is another issue that came out of the Government’s consultation—there are
“general medical practitioners within the area of the authority.”
It was found that engaging GPs with children’s centres and some other partners had proved particularly challenging, which is why we think there is a case for naming them directly in the Bill. Amendment 54 is thus straightforward in making more explicit the relevant partners that should be named within the legislation.
Let me turn briefly to deal with Government new clause 21 and the corresponding amendments 18 and 19. I welcome the Secretary of State’s comments and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), who now seems to have dismissed himself, on the pressure he brought to bear in Committee, where it was felt that the burdens placed on colleges were slightly onerous and that the duty to co-operate—not now on a funding condition—was a welcome remodelling of the thrust of this part of Bill, without undermining its credibility. Further education colleges already do a lot to support and promote well-being throughout communities. If anything, we should be giving them more freedom to pursue those aims even more and to promote good practice.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that our further education colleges do a really good job, but they are often let down. In my constituency, for example, the Learning and Skills Council has not only wasted £12.5 million on running itself into a lease that it now has to get out of, but has withdrawn £40 million from a huge further education project—at Oaklands college, which will now probably fail. The Government might talk wise words, but they do not always deliver—
Order. I remind the hon. Lady that we are discussing the content of the new clause rather than the withdrawal of funding.
My hon. Friend has done well to make that point, getting in almost under the radar. There is an opportunity to take it further during tomorrow morning’s Westminster Hall debate, when the complete shambles that has been the LSC and the Government’s handling of further education funding can be explored in more detail, and in order.
We welcome what the Government have done in respect of the new clause and the amendments, and will support those measures.
The Liberal Democrats have tabled a number of proposals, which I will allow them to speak to for themselves, but I want to touch on new clause 29— [Interruption.] The reason why I am letting them speak to those proposals for themselves is that some do not add up, in particular new clause 29.
You are thinking about yours.
I would be delighted to defer to the hon. Gentleman to allow him to comment on our single amendment.
New clause 29, tabled by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, requests that a
“Children’s Services Authority…must ensure that the Local Safeguarding Board… has”
an independent chairman. Actually, those boards already can, and in many cases do, so I am slightly at a loss as to why primary legislation is required to bring that about.
Indeed, when the issue of baby P and serious case review handling by local safeguarding children boards came up back in the autumn, Conservative-run authorities were advised to ensure that they had chairmen or chairwomen of those boards who were independent, and that the boards were no longer chaired by the director of children’s services, as had been the case in many authorities.
All Conservative-run authorities had either made moves to bring that about or were in the process of making such moves. They have led the way and pre-empted a recommendation that it became inevitable Lord Laming would make. It will be interesting to hear from the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) how many Liberal Democrat-run local authorities have followed that advice—not that there are many, but we can at least have a good stab at finding out how much they have done already to put their principles into practice.
The Government’s main proposals are new clauses 22, 23 and 24, which are important. I think that the Secretary of State would acknowledge that we have been proactive and positive in supporting child protection legislation post-Victoria Climbié, and have been constructively critical in many examples, but we have always supported those measures that we think will lead to greater protection of children. Alas, too many of those measures have not had the desired effect—for a host of reasons that it is not appropriate to go into now. We had a debate on child protection a month or two ago.
I am keen to learn from the Secretary of State in greater detail why he thinks that these particular measures will improve the quality of the outcomes, by which I mean that more children will be better protected and fewer will end up meeting the horrific end of baby Peter and other children who have died at the hands of parents or carers in recent years.
I am not interested in the quantity of legislation. I think we have concentrated too much on quantity in the nine years since the death of Victoria Climbié. We must focus much more on the quality of the legislation, particularly the quality of the outcomes that it achieves.
I have enormous respect for Herbert Laming, who was one of the patrons of the Conservative commission on social worker practices, but part of the criticism has been that the 108 recommendations made in relation to Victoria Climbié have added to the bureaucracy, which can be said to have made the job of social workers rather more difficult. My problem, therefore, is how many of the 58 further recommendations being made in Laming 2 will add yet further to the bureaucracy, with Herbert Laming having himself acknowledged how too much bureaucracy has grown up in child protection and is becoming, in some cases, self-defeating.
The hon. Gentleman is focusing on the additional bureaucracy arising from Laming 1, and possibly Laming 2 as well, but is not the real problem a massive case overload? We need more resources for social work, and more and better social workers, to ensure that the events that we are discussing are not repeated.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We need fewer case loads heaped on to individual social workers, we need more permanent social workers—as opposed to agency or short-term social workers—and we need to free up more of social workers’ time, so that they can get on with their job of protecting children and vulnerable families and meeting them face to face rather than being shackled to their computers and assessment forms. That is what Laming, Unison and all other dispassionate observers say is now happening. Some surveys estimate that social workers and child protection workers spend up to 80 per cent. of their time in front of computers and doing paperwork for assessments.
We must judge the Bill according to the extent to which it helps, or hinders, our ability to counter the problems that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. That is why I want to concentrate on bureaucracy. So far we have heard no details of the targets mentioned in new clause 22 from the Secretary of State, but I fear that that new clause, in particular, will heap more targets, and potentially more bureaucracy, on top of performance indicators, rather than replacing them.
The performance indicators currently in use for the safeguarding of children are inadequate to the task for which they were designed, which came across clearly in Laming 2, which said:
“Discussion with local authorities suggested that this was because of concerns that current indicators focus on processes and timescales, are not helpful in creating shared safeguarding priorities amongst statutory partners, are unclear in their impact upon positive outcomes for children and young people, and do not drive improved services.”
That is what Laming said in the opening of his report. Let us look at what others have said about the bureaucracy that has crept into the child protection system, and which I fear may be behind some of these new proposals. Mick Brookes, head of the National Association of Head Teachers, has said:
“Government should immediately act to lift the burden of bureaucracy on our public services, much of it imposed as a result of incessant reform.”
Christine Blower, head of the National Union of Teachers, has said:
“The solutions to preventing future tragedies such as ‘Baby P’ lie not in top-down bureaucracy but in the provision of proper resources, back-up and training for frontline services such as social work, and in enabling local authorities to construct effective co-ordinated services in the knowledge that they will face tough action if they fail.”
That view has been reflected in the observations of a number of commentators who are closely involved in child protection.
The 58 recommendations in the second Laming report underlie these new clauses, and will underlie further proposals which the Secretary of State will no doubt unveil tomorrow. Those proposals may or may not require primary legislation, but they will certainly be contained in various regulations. An awful lot of what is being proposed amounts to further bureaucracy rather than the achievement of qualitative outcomes. One example is the establishment of a national safeguarding delivery unit.
The national safeguarding delivery unit will report to the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Families, Children and Young People. Earlier, the Secretary of State exalted the merits of greater transparency and public involvement. The problem is that the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Families, Children and Young People is shrouded in secrecy. In response to a question that I tabled to the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Sarah McCarthy-Fry), asking what reasons were given
“not to disclose information relating to proceedings of the Cabinet Sub-committee on Families, Children and Young People; and when the Sub-committee last met”,
the Under-Secretary of State replied:
“Information relating to the proceedings of Cabinet Committees, including when, how often and for how long they meet, is generally not disclosed; as to do so could harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion.”—[Official Report, 30 March 2009; Vol. 490, c. 862W.]
So we do not know what that Sub-Committee actually does, nor how it will respond to the proceedings of the national safeguarding delivery unit. It therefore seems to be an extra bit of bureaucracy, whose merits in achieving qualitative outcomes are questionable—but in any case we cannot question it, because it meets in secret and its minutes are not published. That is a good example of the lack of transparency that some of these proposals will create.
Other recommendations underlying the new clauses include the following: that there should be statutory targets for safeguarding and protection, alongside the existing statutory attainment and early-years targets, to be produced as quickly as possible; that the Department of Health must clarify and strengthen the responsibilities of strategic health authorities; that directors of children’s services and primary care trusts must regularly review all points of referral; and that all directors of children’s services must appoint a senior manager within their team with the necessary skills and experience, and organise regular training and needs assessments. Therefore, a lot of extra bureaucracy will be added to the child protection procedures as a result of following the recommendations of Laming 2, if that is what the Secretary of State is going to do—and given that he has already committed himself to accepting all those recommendations in practice and that we have the first few of them here, it appears that that is the route down which he will go.
The hon. Gentleman asks for transparency. As I want to respond clearly to his remarks, I must say to him that so far his comments have been obfuscatory and very unclear. He began by praising Lord Laming, but his subsequent remarks have left me very confused, and I need to know the following so that I can respond clearly. Lord Laming has made a series of recommendations, and I said in a statement to the House a few weeks ago that I accepted those recommendations and would implement them. Lord Laming recommended the following: that there should be an annual report to the children’s trust and the local safeguarding board; that there should be a national delivery unit reporting to the Sub-Committee; and that there should be new statutory targets. I am implementing Lord Laming’s recommendations—some of them through this Bill—because I support them. Do the hon. Gentleman and his party support Lord Laming’s recommendations—yes or no? I ask that because what the hon. Gentleman has so far said has been very confusing indeed.
The simple answer is no. If the Secretary of State had listened, he would know that I absolutely respect the job Lord Laming has done and the objectives he is trying to achieve, but I absolutely question whether these 58 recommendations in full will make the system less bureaucratic and achieve what Lord Laming and I—and, I am sure, the Secretary of State—want to achieve. Many of these recommendations are good, and we will certainly support them. Taken as a whole however, I wonder whether they will add to bureaucracy, which would be counter-productive. I think I have made it absolutely clear that we support most, but not all, of them, and that we question the extra bureaucracy that might be created. I think I have made that clear.
indicated dissent.
The Secretary of State does not seem to think that that is clear, however. The fact that I do not support every single recommendation does not make me unsupportive of Herbert Laming. We certainly do not support the setting up of a national safeguarding delivery unit, for all the reasons that I have given.
Lord Laming makes it absolutely clear in his report that he sees the national delivery unit as central to ensuring that children are safe. He sees its reporting to the Sub-Committee as central to keeping children safe, too. He also sees the serious case review full report being kept confidential, and the establishment of ContactPoint and new statutory targets, as central to keeping children safe. On each of these recommendations, we have heard from the hon. Gentleman that he and his party do not support what Lord Laming says are necessary actions to keep children safe. On this basis, it is clear that the Conservative party does not support the body of recommendations to keep children safe that are in Lord Laming’s report. There is no point in coming along with warm words. Lord Laming has produced a report. We are implementing his recommendations. The Conservative party does not support all the key central recommendations of the Laming report, and it is essential for public scrutiny that that point is laid clearly before us.
I think that I have made it absolutely clear that we do not support one of Lord Laming’s central recommendations: that there should be a national safeguarding delivery unit. We have said that right from the beginning, so our position should not cause any shock or horror. We just think that that is the wrong way to go about things. Lord Laming does not say that ContactPoint is essential for child protection—he has never said that. If the Secretary of State were to reread the Climbié report, he would find that Lord Laming does not say that ContactPoint is an essential component of child protection; Lord Laming is a supporter of ContactPoint for reasons other than the idea that it is an essential part of child protection.
indicated dissent.