New Clause 2
Education and Inspections Bill
5:45 pm
Annette Brooke (Children & the Family, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities; Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
I am concerned about the education of all children and all adults. Obviously, I am concentrating on new clauses, because by not covering education for children in custody the Bill has a deficit.
New clause 2 seeks to address that deficit. I understand that section 562 of the Education Act 1996 effectively permits the Secretary of State, local education authorities and parents to opt out of any obligations under the Act if the child is detained by the order of a court, although the LEA may make arrangements for such a child to receive the benefit of educational facilities provided by it.
I do not apologise for referring yet again to the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. The UK’s second report to that Committee said that it was particularly concerned that children deprived of their liberty in prisons and juvenile detention centres do not have a statutory right to education, that their education is not the responsibility of the Departments responsible for education, and that they do not have support for special educational needs. I am sure that Opposition Members will be particularly supportive of this special educational needs aspect, which is heightened, yet again, among children in custody.
Prison Service order 4950 stipulates the requirements for prisons holding children. It specifies that education should be provided for all young people under school-leaving age for at least 15 hours a week but the remaining 15 hours of constructive activity that are not spent in education must be spent in accredited educative activities, which may include work-based learning. That is in line with the requirements of the Youth Justice Board with whose work much progress has been made. However, according to the chief inspector of prisons, in 2004, no juvenile establishment had yet succeeded in meeting the target of 30 hours per week in education and training.
I have further concerns relating to an answer provided by the Under-Secretary to a parliamentary question in July last year. It did not answer the question but it provided me with some useful material for today, for which I am grateful. A table shows the weekly average number of hours of education and physical education undertaken by 15, 16 and 17-year-olds at each young offender and juvenile establishment in 2004-05. On average, each institution provided just eight hours of education per child per week. If every child matters, surely we must do something about that. The situation needs to be addressed and it should not be omitted from the Bill.
A further point, raised by youth offender teams, is that when a child or young person is released from custody, it is difficult to reintegrate them into full-time education. It might take time to find a placement and there are gaps, all of which adds to the severe problems. Surely education in a secure estate should not mirror that provided in the main community; it should be better than that. Children in a secure estate often have been failed by mainstream education, and custody presents a valuable opportunity to make up some of those deficits. Why do we not make them up? I hope that we can establish a statutory right to education for children in custody and feel that we have made a great contribution, perhaps not in terms of large numbers but in the impact on the individuals involved and on society.
New clause 3 is, in many ways, designed to probe whether the duties placed on local authorities under the 1996 Act apply to children in immigration removal centres. This is a difficult issue, but what emerges time and again from inspections of such centres is that the provision for children’s education is unsatisfactory and depressing. A March 2005 report on Yarl’s Wood said:
“Accommodation for older children was poor, and the broad range of ages and abilities prevented effective work. There was an over-reliance on agency staff, insufficient resources and no system to measure the quality, rather than the amount, of teaching. Three children had been removed from school just before GCSE examinations, to the great detriment of their education.”
A report from Amnesty International has a case study repeating that important point. Jean
“was kept in detention with her son pending the granting of a travel document by the authorities of her country. Her son, who is of school age, received little education at Oakington. He had been assessed by an educational psychologist prior to being taken into detention after concern had been raised about his disturbed behaviour at school. No further steps had been taken because he stopped attending school as a result of being taken into detention.”
As a consequence, we have stoked up a large range of problems for that child.
The Amnesty International report also made the point that during detention children have a right to education, which should optimally take place outside the detention premises to facilitate the continuation of their education upon release. A September 2004-August 2005 report from Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons reiterates that point:
“M, aged 16, had been at his local college since 2001.”
At the time of his detention, he was
“due to sit his GCSE examinations imminently. Both he and his 13-year-old brother, removed from the school at the same time, had excellent records of school performance, attendance and behaviour.”
The college believed that his education
“had been seriously affected by his removal at such a critical stage.”
I am pleased to say that the family was released from detention after inspectors raised the case, but obviously inspectors cannot go in day in and day out.
That report makes the point that
“the quality and range of education provision for children also caused concern. Resources to support teaching were generally inadequate.”
The same point comes up over and over, but what are we doing to improve things? Teachers work hard to deal with groups that are very mixed in language needs, age and ability. In one establishment, one small, cramped classroom accommodated 12 young people aged between 5 and 17. That is what we currently provide. Save the Children’s report makes a further relevant point that we encounter in surgery cases: children whose age is disputed are treated as adults. That has a knock-on effect for education.
I have spoken at great length. I normally speak briefly in Committee, but these are such important and serious points. Both groups are in danger of being overlooked. There is evidence that education is not being provided at an adequate level, let alone a compensating one. We should be compensating in both cases. Will the Minister give some assurances that the right of children in immigration removal centres to education is safeguarded by their inclusion in the relevant local authority duties? That is important. If not, what steps could be taken?