(2 days, 1 hour ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, this is a short, two-clause Bill, but an important one, aimed at amending existing legislation underpinning new secure 16 to 19 academies, otherwise known as secure schools. It comes from the other place, where my honourable friend Emma Foody, the Member of Parliament for Cramlington and Killingworth, sponsored the Bill. In the other place, it enjoyed the support of all parties.
Secure schools are a new form of custody for children and young people. The last Government acted to establish secure 16 to 19 academies in legislation; this Bill will make further necessary amendments to the Academies Act 2010 to make specific provisions in that Act relevant to the establishment of new secure schools.
I will say a word about the background. In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his important review of the youth justice system. The report made a number of important recommendations, including the need, shared by all, to reimagine how we care for children who commit serious enough offences to warrant detaining them in custody. His proposal was to create a new type of custodial environment, focused on the delivery of education and offering children the opportunity to gain the skills and qualifications necessary to prepare them for their release into the community. The Taylor review made a compelling case for change. Transforming the environments in which we detain and provide care for these children is as necessary now as it was then.
The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 established secure schools in legislation as secure 16 to 19 academies under the Academies Act 2010, and secure children’s homes under the Children’s Homes (England) Regulations 2015. This Bill is now needed to make further amendments in the 2010 Act relevant to secure 16 to 19 academies. The proposed changes cover the termination period in which government continues to fund the secure school, should there be a need to end a funding agreement into which it has entered, as Section 2 of the Academies Act 2010 says, for a secure school. The Bill will also amend the duties placed on providers that enter into funding agreements with the Government prior to opening a secure school. These changes will provide for better and more integrated services.
The Bill consists of three measures. First, it will amend Section 2 of the 2010 Act to reduce the notice period for termination of a funding agreement under Section 2(2) of the 2010 Act from seven to two years for secure 16 to 19 academies. A two-year period will enable government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and have more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. Reducing this to two years in this case strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period, in which government would be committed to continuing to fund the secure school longer than necessary, and ensuring that secure school providers have the certainty of funding to avoid issues with recruiting and retaining the specialist staff required to work in this environment. The Government remain able to terminate funding agreements with secure school providers in the event of poor performance.
Secondly, the Bill will disapply Section 9 of the 2010 Act for secure 16 to 19 academies. This requires that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area. While it is of course important that secure schools are registered as academies to ensure they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different, as secure schools do not compete with other schools.
Thirdly, the Bill will amend Section 10 of the 2010 Act, which currently requires that an academy provider consults appropriate persons on whether a funding agreement should be entered into. We recognise the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. The Bill will amend that section to require the provider to consult appropriate persons on how the secure school should work with local partners, such as elected representatives or health and education services.
By supporting the Bill, the House would have an opportunity to create better services and thus strengthen the impact of secure schools on the lives of children within our justice system. I very much hope that colleagues across the House, as they did in the other place, will give this Bill their full support. I beg to move.
Lord Bates (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, for bringing forward this Bill and presenting it with characteristic clarity. He brings immense experience as a former Minister at the Ministry of Justice and as a police and crime commissioner. The whole House recognises that expertise.
There are several reasons to welcome the Bill and wish it a smooth passage through its legislative stages in your Lordships’ House. This is an example of legislative continuity in policy, which we need to see more of—especially in the criminal justice system, where change takes time because of the high risks of getting it wrong.
This slow pace is evident in the fact that the Bill, as has been mentioned, and the policy of secure academies were first proposed by the Taylor review in 2016. That review sought to address the problem that half of 15 to 17 year-olds entering young offender institutions had
“the literacy or numeracy levels expected of a 7-11 year old”.
In addition, 40% of those under 18 entering these institutions had not been in school since they were 14. This was a problem. In 2016-17, the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who inspects secure training centres and young offender institutions, observed starkly in his annual report that
“there was not a single establishment that we inspected in England and Wales in which it was safe to hold children and young people”.
The review’s conclusion was that
“education needs to be central to our response to youth offending”
and it proposed secure academies, which would be more a school with security than a prison with education. I am sure we all support this focus on education, which is the surest path to improving and transforming young lives—to give them hope and a future, which is what we all want for them.
We are now in 2025. So far, only one such academy is open, and the House of Lords Library briefing for this debate tells us that it has been temporarily closed because of security failings over locks and doors. I stress that this is not a criticism of Oasis Restore, which has an outstanding track record in education and courageously stepped up to take on this challenging new type of school, but rather a reflection of the slow pace of change. It is also a lesson to successive Governments that, if we want change, we need to get faster and more efficient in delivering innovation, less risk averse and more patient in paying attention to results.
In 2022, the National Audit Office produced a report on children in custody, HC 1257. It said that the estimated cost of converting the Medway Secure Training Centre into the new Oasis Restore secure academy was £4.9 million when it was proposed in 2016, but by 2022 it had risen to £36.5 million. That is 745% over budget. I do not know if £36.5 million was the final figure—perhaps the Minister can inform us in her response—but given that this was a new facility designed for around 40 people, the capital cost per person was close to £1 million. The revenue cost for secure training centres is already £156,298 per person. That compares with a pupil funding premium of £5,995 per year in mainstream schools. These sums are very large.
I do not mean to be critical of this Government, because this has been the policy of successive Governments. I also do not think anyone would flinch for a moment if this investment meant that the broken and vulnerable lives in these establishments could be restored and they could make a positive contribution to society in future. We live in a society where, rightly, we have judgment through which people are held to account for their actions, but we also need a society of the second chance, which holds out the possibility of redemption. We simply cannot write off the lives of children at the age of 12 or 13. Every life has potential.
This matters because these numbers matter. My fear is that, when officials and Ministers look at the future of secure academies and implementing this policy and legislation, they will be mindful of the costs of the Medway Secure Training Centre and the experience of the Oasis Restore trust. That could mean that we will see fewer of these secure training centres.
Officials implement policy, but Ministers develop it and parliamentarians are supposed to scrutinise it. We have had over 11 Lord Chancellors in the 10 years since the secure academy policy was introduced in 2016. Yet there is reason for hope, because the current Lord Chancellor, David Lammy, has immense experience in and real passion for this area, as demonstrated by the Lammy review, which was very influential. I am also delighted to see the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, in her place, because she brings immense experience and knowledge of the criminal justice system. There is hope for the future.
However, this is not the main focus of what I wanted to say. In reading up for this debate, I read a whole load of material on the youth justice system, and a number of things really surprised me. I want to focus on a more positive message around young people. One number that leaped out was that the number of children in custody reduced by 80% between 2011 and 2021—from 2,040 in 2010 to around 430 now. Noble Lords on this side of the House in particular, who always used to draw a correlation between the number of people in the prison establishment and the level of crime, might also be interested to hear what has happened to criminal offences proven to be committed by young people over that period of dramatic reduction. In 2010, the number of proven offences committed by children was 171,750. In the year ending 2022, that had reduced to 38,518. Why do we not hear more about these figures? Even with youth violence, which is prevalent everywhere you look, the number of violent offences proven to be committed by children and young people reduced from 35,000 in 2011 to about 12,000 now. These are remarkable statistics which we seldom hear. According to the NHS, last year saw the lowest number of admissions to hospital for knife-related assaults. We do not hear this positive news.
Fraser Nelson, the distinguished British journalist, wrote an essay for the Times, published on 8 August this year, titled “Violent, lawless, broken Britain? The facts tell a different story”. He is right. He points to the fact that most people, especially young people, get their news from social media, which often feeds on fear and exaggeration, and where bad news is amplified, drowning out the facts.
This matters. As the Violence Research Group at Cardiff University pointed out, serious violence in England and Wales has decreased substantially. This message needs to be better known, the group said, not least because of the fear of violence and the corrosive effect it has on individuals and communities. It makes children and young people feel less safe in our communities. To which I would add that it also erodes intergenerational trust, when the facts show that the current generation of children and young people is among the most law-abiding since the 1970s. Why do we not hear this more?
A report by Nacro, published in 2024, found that media coverage of young people is twice as likely to be negative as positive. Moreover, young people were labelled lazy, weak, selfish and dangerous, according to the report. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our current generation, I believe, is one of the most law-abiding that we have ever seen: they care more for the planet and care more for each other and for other people than any other generation in my living memory. Perhaps if young people read more of these affirming messages, they would realise how valued they are in our society and would be more positive about their future, and we might have even less need for these institutions in the future, too.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of this Bill, at the encouragement of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby, who regrets that she cannot be in her place today.
Noble Lords may be aware that we on these Benches have a team of Bishops—the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Derby, Gloucester and Lichfield—who regularly visit prisons across the nation, meeting with those in prison, prison chaplains and prison governors, to hear about ongoing challenges and successes. They in particular are pleased to see this Bill enjoy cross-party support and are heartened that so many noble Lords and colleagues in another place share the conclusion that secure academies are a more promising alternative to giving children a custodial sentence. They are, fundamentally, educational establishments at the heart of work to rehabilitate, not simply penalise and ostracise, children.
We on these Benches are also encouraged by the Government’s aim to tailor the educational accommodation offer for children to the needs of each child individually. The teenage years are a crucial time in the emotional, mental and physical development of children. If they become disengaged from society at this critical juncture, it has a profound and enduring impact on the rest of their lives.
The Bill makes an important change to how consultation is carried out for secure academies. It does not, however, specify the appropriate persons to be consulted. We on these Benches would suggest that faith communities and chaplains should play a role in these discussions, as they have a pastoral and spiritual responsibility to the young people they serve. I know that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby is keen to follow progress regarding the temporary closure of the Oasis Restore secure school last month and the potential second secure school that the Youth Custody Service plans to open in the coming months.
I conclude by saying that any policy developed for children in custody must adhere to the principle that criminal justice for children should not, indeed cannot, simply follow a blueprint taken from the criminal justice system for adults. Children deserve their own separate care and consideration, and I am pleased that this Bill recognises that necessity.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this Bill is a decent addition to the statute book. The principal thing is the two-years as opposed to seven, because your client base is going to be there for only a couple of years, rather than the seven years that would be expected if you actually had an ordinary academy. It makes sense, so I do not see any objection.
I also follow the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in pointing out what is a historical fact and has been for many years: society is getting safer. I know that it does not sell many red-tops or make any nice reels on social media or programmes, but it is a fact. I remember someone once saying to me, “Why can’t we be safe, like we were in the time of Shakespeare?” It is then that one suddenly realises that the murder rate was about 20 times what it is now, because there was no police force and most people went around with a bladed weapon. It was de rigueur. So it is a trend that has been going on for a long time, but it is worth pointing it out.
The fear of crime is probably a bigger problem now. I totally endorse what the noble Lord said: it is something that should be said more often and by more people. The previous Government should also take some credit for lowering the rate of people being incarcerated—so congratulations, and please make sure all your colleagues point out that it is going down: that would be a really beneficial thing. One waits to see whether that will have any effect in the next interview on the dreadful state of youth crime in this country.
We must also note the client base here. The average person has not been in school since they were 14; most people I have spoken to have said the “scholars” were the ones who were there at 14. More often, it is earlier. That was a direct quote from somebody involved in the thing. Secondary school seems to be the cut-off, going through.
It would be almost incredible if I did not mention, with my background, alternative provision. It is accepted that everybody in there has a special educational need; that is the planning basis. What are we doing to make sure that we have a teaching staff in these institutions that can deal with the educational problems? If you are struggling in school and experiencing failure, which makes you more vulnerable to getting involved in the criminal justice system—it is a proven link—what are we doing to make sure that you are getting through and actually addressing this and making sure that your education process is acceptable?
The dyslexia group was the one I first met, because of my own connection. The autism group is another. Either they do not handle authority well or, more commonly, they are more easily led. These are just two that I have come across recently. Anybody who fails consistently in the education system cannot get employment, cannot work, cannot handle authority and cannot understand letters or messages. It is a fairly proven pathway. Are these schools going to make sure that they can address and educate the people they are getting? We need a specialist and focused workforce. Without that, it really will not make much difference because, if you have experienced failure in a classroom, being stuck in another classroom for another period of time is not going to improve your attitude to that institution. It has to be more relevant.
Somebody with dyslexia whom I met in one of these institutions said, “If I have to be told how to spell ‘cat’ again by somebody who doesn’t understand my brain just doesn’t work like that, I think I am justified in wanting to kill them”. I discouraged him from this attitude, but you can understand the frustration. I hope that, when the Minister replies, she will address this, or at least give us a chance to bring this out at another stage of the Bill—but I wish it well.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, please let me thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions on this important subject matter. As we have heard, secure 16 to 19 academies are a promising and innovative conceptual approach to improving the youth justice system. His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Prisons’ 2016 review of that system advocated for new institutions aimed at giving those who committed a custodial offence
“a bespoke and intensive programme of study and support in a therapeutic and well-ordered environment”.
When in government, we agreed with the Chief Inspector of Prisons and set upon that task to introduce secure schools. As a result of that work, the first secure school, the Oasis Restore, was opened with the intention of offering young people who have made poor choices in the past the opportunity to receive rehabilitation, support and education, in order that they may acquire the skills and qualifications needed to both better their lives and avoid the same mistakes in the future. These mainly young men and women deserve a second chance. As my noble friend Lord Farmer, who strives relentlessly for positive prison reform and improving outcomes for offenders, would confirm, with the right help and guidance, these youngsters can turn their lives around for the better.
I believe that all noble Lords, regardless of political persuasion, would agree that it is in Parliament’s power to facilitate institutions that will provide this, while at the same time being entirely realistic that it will be no easy task. The Bill is a further step towards that end, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition fully support it.
The concept of secure schools presupposes institutions which are flexible, short-term and have a high turnover. Young people are rehabilitated at a secure school and released back into society if and when that happens. There is no guarantee of the demand for such schools, nor the tenure of their occupants. Giving these places of improvement the same treatment as if they were regular schools, or prescribing them with the same regulations and requirements, is not practical. It is crystal clear that secure schools urgently require their own remit, given what we know about the extremely regrettable situation of events at Oasis Restore. Assaults and disorder were reportedly rife, in a chaotic and often out of control atmosphere. This is a country mile away from the intent behind a secure school. The fact that the pilot secure school is facing these early challenges is firm evidence that they must have a wider and more adaptable scope for action.
As was so eloquently put by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, decreasing the notice period from seven years to two years allows for current and any future secure schools to be as flexible as the context requires. In a similar vein, disapplying the requirement to conduct an impact assessment on local maintained schools is prudent. Secure schools are a wholly different type of institution from the average school. They are jointly custodial and educational establishments. They are not competing for the same intake of students as local maintained schools. Therefore, comparing schools is both unnecessary and irrelevant. Requiring further considerations creates an additional layer of administrative bureaucracy that slows down the process. It is that very process which we are trying to achieve with secure schools—namely, the rehabilitation and further education of young people, which suffers as a result.
We understand that future secure schools will be dependent on funding, as well as the future success of Oasis Restore. We ask that the Ministers, the noble Baroness, Lady Levitt, and the noble Lord, Lord Timpson, might consider diverting some resource from their respective departments to focus on making Oasis Restore a shining template for what can be achieved with the right strategy and know-how.
As my noble friend Lord Farmer and many noble Lords across your Lordships’ House agree, including the noble Lord, Lord Bates, it is entirely possible to save young people from reoffending and living a life of crime, with all of the incremental negative consequences to society that go with it, if the right provision is given as early as possible. It is on us to play a pivotal role in helping secure schools to succeed, and His Majesty’s loyal Opposition believe that the Bill achieves part of that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Baroness Levitt) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the positive and constructive debate on this important subject, and I congratulate my noble friend Lord Bach on bringing forward the Bill. I have been particularly struck by the emphasis of all those who spoke, including the noble Earl, on the fact that these are children and not just mini criminals.
It is the sad reality, however, that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty in order to protect the public. It is the Government’s responsibility to ensure that these children receive appropriate support in order to prepare them for their eventual release. We want to go further and ensure that when they leave a custodial setting, they are in a position to make a better life for themselves.
Secure 16 to 19 academies, also known as secure schools, offer an opportunity to transform the experience of children who are detained by the state, having been sentenced or remanded in custody by the courts, giving them the opportunity to gain skills and qualifications which will enable them to return to the community and lead successful and crime-free lives, thus protecting the public from them reoffending in the future. This is part of the route for damaged children—damaged usually through no fault of their own—to lead a better life, which is better for children and better for the public.
As noble Lords have observed, secure schools were already established by the Academies Act 2010, and the previous Government deserve credit for that. This Bill is necessary to ensure specific provisions in the Act are relevant to these new custodial settings. The Government support the Bill because these amendments will create better services and thus strengthen the impact of secure schools on the lives of those children within our justice system.
I turn briefly to why we need secure schools. The good news is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, the number of children in custody under the age of 18 has fallen drastically in recent years. He said 80%. I wish I could agree with that—the figure may be a little lower, at 60%—but the point is still an important one. That is 60% fewer children in custody than there were a decade ago. I say that is good news because this Government agree with the last—that we should deprive children of their liberty only as a last resort. This decline in numbers has rightly been commended as a success of the youth justice system.
However, for children who commit the most serious crimes, there is often no alternative but to protect the public by detaining them in custody. These children, now in custody, are among the most complex and vulnerable in society. They also present with very challenging behaviour, and the majority have committed offences of violence. It is a sad and depressing fact that children leaving custody have some of the highest reoffending rates in the justice system. The latest statistics show that 66% of children released from custody go on to reoffend within a year.
The children in custody are much more likely than their peers to have had a disrupted education. Government analysis shows around 90% of children sentenced to custody had a record of persistent absence. This means these children have lost out on months or years of learning. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates, said, many of them have not been at school for the last years that they were required to be there, and therefore they have lost out on that.
The evidence is clear about the importance of education as a factor preventing children offending. Secure schools offer an opportunity for these children to re-engage with education and to make the most of their potential. The secure school model has been developed in accordance with the best available evidence for what works in addressing the underlying causes of youth offending. That is why secure schools will offer children small environments, as homelike as can be achieved, with healthcare and education at their heart. As has already been said by others, including by the noble Lord, Lord Bates, these are not “prisons with education”; they are primarily schools, but within a protective, secure environment.
In them, children and young people will engage with integrated care, health and education services, which—most importantly—will be tailored to their individual needs. On entry, each young person has a full assessment of their needs, which will establish a baseline against which progress is measured and ensure that any hitherto unmet health and special educational needs are identified.
As the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said, many studies, including recent reports, have shown that, among children in the youth justice system, a disproportional number have special educational needs or are neurodivergent. Each child will therefore receive a personalised programme to build on their strengths and develop their potential, with the use of evidence-based interventions to help them build resilience and develop vital life and social skills to help them in the future. Education will take place in appropriately sized groups, including one-to-one where needed.
Children in secure schools have the opportunity to make educational progress on a par with their peers in mainstream schools, but, self-evidently, that will have to be proportionate to the length of their sentence. Secure schools work closely with youth offending teams, education, health and other community service providers, as well as young people’s families where appropriate. Planning for resettlement will start when a young person enters a secure school and be adapted to support transition to the adult estate where appropriate.
I turn briefly to why the Government support the Bill. Secure schools are a key reform in youth custody that best fit the evidence of what works to reduce reoffending and, ultimately, to protect the public by ensuring that there are fewer victims of youth crime. As noble Lords have heard, the first secure school was opened in August 2024. Your Lordships’ House will be aware—the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the right reverend Prelate alluded to this—that, unfortunately, the school is temporarily closed while repairs are being made to a number of doors on the site to ensure the children’s safety. We take this matter extremely seriously, and officials are working as hard as possible so that the site can reopen in early 2026.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and the noble Earl for their acknowledgment that these early problems do not invalidate the whole system; they are issues from which the Government can and will learn to ensure that, when this is rolled out further, they will not be replicated. These early operational issues do not detract from the need to ensure that we have the most effective legislative basis for secure schools to operate in the future. By ensuring that secure schools function well, with proportionate termination measures and efficient processes for opening new schools, we can achieve that goal.
As my noble friend Lord Bach said, through the Bill we have an opportunity to enable government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer while having more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. As other noble Lords have pointed out, engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection procedure for new custodial sites. Should there be a need to open new custodial sites, that will be dealt with through the normal planning procedure. The point is that we will be able to talk about how the delivery is managed rather than whether the site should be opened at all. I take on board the right reverend Prelate’s observations about the importance of faith communities.
This Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage with their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process that will seek to consult on how the secure school should work with local partners. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, asked about the cost of that. I am afraid that I do not have the figures with me but will, if I may, write to him with them.
I reiterate my thanks to my noble friend Lord Bach for bringing the Bill before the House. I thank the noble Earl for the characteristic generosity and good humour in his response from the Opposition Benches. I confirm, with great pleasure, that the Government support this important Bill, and I look forward to its passage through this House. I urge colleagues across the House to give it their full support.
Lord Bach (Lab)
My Lords, seldom have I heard such unanimity in this House in any debate at any time over many years. I warmly thank all those who have taken part in this important debate. It is important, because this is such a crucial subject for our country and our future. I particularly thank the Minister for her remarks and for the Government’s support for this Private Member’s Bill. Because of the unanimity, I want to say very little at this stage, except to say thank you.
I want to make just a couple of points. One is to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, whose speech I was particularly impressed by. The amount of work that had gone into the research that he had done into this subject was very impressive. The point about continuity in criminal justice policy seems one we have forgotten about for too long. Of course political parties must be free to discuss all issues that affect people, but in criminal justice, where there is automatic opposition from one side or another, it sometimes seems like a real barrier to progress. If we can act in agreement, as we have today at least, where all people of good will feel the same, then we should do so more often.
The only other point I want to make is that schemes such as this are expensive, obviously. They are bound to be and we should say that they are, but I think everyone in the House would agree that they are worth every penny if we can change the life of even one child—I hope many more than that—and give them every chance to lead a good, happy and successful life in the future. I beg to move.