Education and Inspections Bill

Having put my name to Amendment No. 26, I wish to add a warm word of support to those so cogently spoken by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and to the convincing support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, who referred to the debate on this amendment and to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on 24 February 2005. Today, I have just received an update from the National Children's Bureau on the statistics that were given earlier. The bureau still says that it is very difficult to access accurate statistical information and to understand whether the number of young people who end up in prison with special educational needs is because they have fallen out of the school system as a result of their learning difficulties not being identified. I hope that some of the amendments to the Bill will help in providing better training for teachers and support people, and in the identification of needs. I hope that my statistics will dovetail with those given by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, rather just being repetition. The DfES tries to clarify the legal position by admitting that, "““although Statements of Special Educational Need do not apply in custody, there is an expectation that SEN are dealt with according to the Code of Practice””." That is from the Offenders Learning Journey for juvenile offenders published by the DfES in 2004. The Youth Justice Board also says that it expects STCs and YOIs to comply with the code, but whether they do and whether the expertise of SENCOs is available to every juvenile custodial establishment is unclear. I have not given the Minister notice of that question but I hope that he may be able to touch on it when he replies. If not, perhaps he could write to me before Report. Interestingly, on its website the Learning and Skills Council, which has responsibility for education provision in YOIs, states that: "““The majority of 15 year olds in juvenile establishments have had little or no formal education or training. As well as low levels of basic skills, many of them have particular learning difficulties that need additional support””." As my noble friend Lord Listowel and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, have indicated, although the Youth Justice Board has prioritised the provision of education and training, health and mental health care, and support in finding accommodation post-release from custody, the way in which a secure regime works makes it difficult to offer consistent, targeted and meaningful services. Sentences tend to be short and transfers between YOIs frequent. For example, the take-up of education in different institutions ranges from 80 per cent in one to 39 per cent in another. My source is People leaving Young Offender Institutions, published by the Learning and Skills Council West Yorkshire in 2004. The same report concludes that, unsurprisingly, research shows that, "““the route to rehabilitation for most young offenders is through the attainment of normal milestones—learning to read and write, attending school, gaining qualifications””—" as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said— "““getting a job, entering further education and training, finding somewhere to live and maintaining stable family relationships””." I hope that the Minister will respond very positively to the amendment in his reply and that he will give serious consideration to the idea of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, who spoke of setting up a workshop and involving the organisations that have been briefing us on this subject. He said: "““We should probably invite some of the institutions with managerial responsibility for those issues so that we get in the skin of the current state of the system and how it is delivering””.—[Official Report, 24/2/05; col. 1450.]" I hope that we have a positive reply from the Minister.