Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill

My Lords, this has been a very full and interesting debate, and I hope that I can respond to the points made by noble Lords. I made it clear in my speech that we propose to return at Third Reading with amendments that would require the transfer of information about educational progress to inform resettlement, which I think will pick up the concerns raised in Amendments 51 and 52. I want to be clear that I am very keen to continue the dialogue. I am very disappointed with efforts to provide the Committee, and now the House, with information. In some cases, noble Lords feel that there is not enough, and in other cases that there is too much. I appreciate that noble Lords want to see detail in the Bill. That is very difficult when we are looking at the length of guidance that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to, which is very draft, as he pointed out, and when we want to be specific about the "whats" that need to be delivered. We have to have comprehensive statutory guidance, so there is a difficult balance to strike in order to get the right detail in the Bill, but the full detail in statutory guidance, so that those in the system who are responsible for delivering education to young people know, in fuller detail, exactly what is expected of them. I appreciate that this is a complicated Bill—I do not disagree at all about that—but the objective here is to ensure that young people in custody receive education which is overseen and delivered in accordance with that which they could expect if they were in the mainstream education system. It is about making sure that we drive up standards for young people in custody and making sure that they are not left behind. The system of information exchange is key. It is about making sure that when young people enter custody, when their sentence planning is undertaken, that information about their prior special educational needs and attainment is taken into account and that, when they leave, that information is transmitted to those who have a duty—the home education authority, which is defined in statutory guidance. The noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is right: that must stand up to scrutiny. Those education authorities have a duty to ensure that those young people are not left behind when they come out, in resettlement, but that their education is picked up and carried on. Where there are duties to ensure that, in resettlement, young people’s special educational needs are met, they must be exercised. I have a few detailed comments. Amendment 51 would require a full SEN assessment for every young person entering youth custody, including a repeat assessment if they were to be moved to a different establishment, or on their release. Considering that SEN statements can take 16 weeks for initial advice and 10 weeks for the actual assessment, we do not consider that to be a practical solution. That is why we think that we need to do further work. We think that it is more appropriate to put requirements for assessments of literacy and numeracy in the Bill, because they are more easily definable and quantifiable. To pick up on a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, Amendment 52 stipulates that if a recent assessment is available, a reassessment should not be necessary. Our stakeholders have made it clear to us that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, said, repeated assessment can be extremely discouraging to young people in custody, as well as being an unnecessary use of resources. We are listening very carefully to the words of advice and wisdom from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, but we must ensure that we apply resources practically and effectively. As I said, we have made commitments to consider further and to come back at Third Reading. The Bill is about raising standards in YOIs and the secure estate for young people. As I said in Committee, the YPLA will receive funds from central government, which will be ring-fenced for the purpose. That is much more straightforward in education; the costs of the education and training provision in YOIs are already separate from the wider costs of custody, because the funding is currently being directed through the Learning and Skills Council, which holds the contracts with learning providers operating with YOIs. I offer that as reassurance to the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Ramsbotham, and others who are obviously concerned about the funding streams. As for the question of which Secretary of State is involved, I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to ensure that we see progress for young people in custody, that there is proper joined-up government and that we deliver real improvements in education provision in the system, which is already showing significant improvement. The guidance will be joint guidance and will be signed by the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and the Justice Secretary; Welsh Ministers will issue guidance for Wales. There will be clear accountability from the Secretaries of State. On the question of assessment of communication skills, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that that is key. Assessment of communication skills and disabilities in young people when they come into custody is extremely important, and they will to a large extent be picked up by the new literacy and numeracy assessments required under government Amendment 50 and—this is the important point—by the hidden disability screening that has already been developed by the Dyslexia Action organisation, to which we have already referred. Those important developments are taking place. To make a minor correction of something that I said in opening the discussion, I think that I said that Amendments 56 and 61 were minor and technical amendments. I should have said that Amendments 56 to 61 are minor and technical amendments. I apologise if I have caused any confusion. On the general thrust of what I hope that this group of amendments will achieve, we are amending the reading and assessment requirement passed in Committee, so that it is now a broader requirement for literacy and numeracy assessments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, for his welcome for that. We have removed the requirement for reassessment on release. I hope that I have explained why, although we continue to listen, we believe that it would not be an effective management tool, may not apply resources in the best possible way and could demotivate young people. We will issue statutory guidance that will cover what provisions authorities should consider when commissioning education and training. That will provide the detailed guidance about what is expected and what should be delivered. Governors will have a vital role to play in education in custody. I have here committed to amending regulations to make that absolutely clear to governors. I entirely accept the arguments made by noble Lords about the importance of that. As I have said—and I apologise if it has been at length—the Bill already contains strong information transfer provisions. Our statutory guidance, which will be detailed—and spell checked—will set out how that should work in practice. We intend that to be linked to both current planned information transfer systems within the youth justice system—which, I can reassure noble Lords, are strong and good—with the introduction of the new e-assets system. With those remarks, and my commitment to consider—