Clause 6
Education and Inspections Bill
4:00 pm
Sarah Teather (Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Skills, Education & Skills; Brent East, Liberal Democrat)
I shall speak to amendments Nos. 149 and 64 together and then amendment No. 150.
Amendments Nos. 149 and 64 make the point that local education authorities do not necessarily have to provide all the positive leisure services themselves. In some cases, authorities might deliver efficiency and choice—that most important of words that we have devoted so many of our hours to discussing—more effectively by commissioning those services from the private or voluntary sectors. It is important to place that on the record because, despite extensive rhetoric about dividing the commissioner and provider roles between local education authorities and schools, the implication appears to be that, although local education authorities should not provide schools, they should provide leisure facilities. We are merely probing the Government on that matter to get some points put on the record.
I can think of many examples in boroughs of services being bought in for one reason or another, such as the buying in of swimming facilities from local leisure services. I can think of many other instances in which youth facility services might be bought in from the voluntary sector. That often works extremely well—indeed, it might work better than if those services were provided directly by the local education authority.
Amendment No. 150 is intended to ensure that positive leisure-time activities are accessible to disabled young people. The amendment is supported by Mencap, which tells me that eight out of 10 young people with a learning disability do not attend any after-school club, that seven out of 10 children or young people with a disability were made to feel uncomfortable at their local leisure service, and that only one in five after-school clubs have any young person with a disability attending.
What do we mean when we talk about accessibility? We mean accessibility to the building, but we mean much more than that. The amendment is important because it is not simply about ensuring that there is adequate wheelchair access; it might also be about ensuring that there is appropriate signage or symbols so that disabled people know where everything is. For example, if they have a learning disability, it might be important to have signage for certain rooms, toilets or specific activities.
The amendment would also ensure that there was a safe environment for young people with a learning disability. Such young people are particularly vulnerable to bullying, for example, which often prevents them from taking part in after-school activities. The amendment would ensure that those young people were given the support that they needed, from their staff or their peer group, to access all the activities that take place. We have a concern that if that is not clearly stated in the Bill, local education authorities might provide or commission leisure activities that are suitable for the majority of young people in the area, rather than make sure that all those facilities are accessible for young people with a disability.
The hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) made interesting wider points, particularly about the need to make sure that we benefit from the opportunities the Olympics provide. That is dear to my own heart, as I come from the borough where Wembley stadium is located—if it ever gets finished. It might have many opportunities to provide sporting facilities and to ensure that there is wider accessibility for young people in the area. The hon. Gentleman made good points about the role that sport can play in giving young people more opportunities to take part in sporting activities, and thereby in driving down petty crime. I am very supportive of the sentiments he expresses.