Clause 49
5:15 pm
John Hayes (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; South Holland and The Deepings, Conservative)
I am delighted to be called to speak on this clause, Mr. Chope. No doubt the Minister will want to draw on her expansive notes to explain the purpose of the amendments and new clauses.
I want to draw new clause 17 in particular to the attention of the Committee. It will insert new chapter 5A, entitled “Persons detained in youth accommodation”, into the Education Act 1996. The new clause goes a considerable way towards addressing some matters that we raised earlier today, as the Minister is acknowledging. It answers some of the questions that I raised on clause 47 and is therefore welcome. However, I have a number of particular questions that I hope she will address.
Proposed new section 562B(3)(b) is of particular concern to the Standing Committee for Youth Justice, which highlighted the short period in which young people are kept in detention and the necessity of planning their reintegration on the first day of release. Will the Minister give guidance as to how that is likely to be ensured, given the wording that she is proposing is,
“where it appears to the home authority appropriate for them to do so, making arrangements for provision, on the person’s release from detention—(a) of education”?
That is an extraordinarily vague proposal when what is needed is clear guidance. Where it appears for the home authority to act appropriately does not assure me that the preparation for the release of the young person and a reintroduction into society is going to be dealt with the rigour and certainty that we would expect.
The second question relates to proposed new section 562C(3). We welcome provision for learners with learning difficulties but this again is quite weakly and, in my judgment, poorly worded. It says that,
“The host authority must use best endeavours to secure that appropriate special educational provision is made for the detained person”.
What precisely does the Minister mean by “best endeavours” and what does she expect the outcome of these best endeavours to be? Will statemented children with special needs and other children with special needs get the educational provision they so desperately need? Where and how will “best endeavours” be more clearly defined?
My third query concerns, in appropriately chronological fashion, proposed new section 562C(4)(c). This gives the power to the host authority to assess whether the special educational provision in a statement of a learner remains appropriate and to take amending steps as necessary. With no provision for updating the statement in this clause, how will the authority judge whether the existing statement is appropriate or accurate or, indeed, inaccurate? Does this not simply mean that local authorities will judge what is necessary according to what they can provide? There are real differences between authorities in terms of the number of statements they issue, the speed with which statements are dealt and the effectiveness of their provision. It seems the Bill will enshrine those vagaries in law in an unhelpful way. We need clear guarantees about how local authorities will behave and what will be expected of them. I am not sure that the Bill as currently worded does that.
My fourth question concerns proposed new section 562E(1). The SCYJ and the AOC have both highlighted the need for sharing information to ensure best provision for those in detention. With this in mind, why does the clause say,
“Any person who has provided education or training for a detained person...may provide information relating to the detained person to—(a) the home authority, or (b) the host authority.”?
Surely, the Bill should say “must” rather than “may”. Is this not again rather weakly and ineffectively worded? The provider should be required to share information or the weaknesses of those LEAs who drag their feet will have a detrimental effect on the interests of learners. If there remains uncertainty about LEA involvement of the kind that I highlighted in our discussion about clause 47 and if these Government proposals are designed to firm up the provision to respond to those criticisms—and I guess they would not have been tabled if that was not the intention—then surely they need to be fit for purpose. I am not sure that they are as drafted.
You will be pleased to know that this is my final question, Mr. Chope; the Minister will certainly be pleased. It deals with proposed new subsections 562G (5) and (6). We welcome the requirement on a host authority to notify the home authority if it believes that a child in detention in its area has special needs, but could the host authority not be given the right to assess those needs, in line with existing, well established statementing practices? In raising these questions we want to ensure that the Government’s proposals are sufficiently rigorous and robust to improve the legislation along the lines that most third parties and we, the Opposition, feel is necessary.