Children and Families Bill

Lord Nash Excerpts

Wednesday 6th November 2013 Grand Committee

[Lord Touhig (Lab)]

My Lords, I will just add a few words. This multilayered system of appeal is absolutely insane and crying out to be altered. In Wales, we have a word, “dwp”, which means stupid or daft in the head. If a Nobel prize were awarded for daft bits of red tape, this would get it. Surely the Government must see the common sense and logic of reducing this down to one system of appeal and stopping all the battles that people who have children with special educational needs or disabilities, or children who are autistic, must have to appeal a decision that they think is not just, right or in the interests of their child.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments concerns appeals and mediation. I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I begin with Amendment 181, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Low.

As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, noble Lords will know that the Bill is designed to bring education, health and social care together, for the first time, in a joint enterprise to commission and make appropriate provision for children and young people with special educational needs. The child or young person and their family will be at the centre of the new arrangements and have an enhanced role in deciding what is in the EHC plan. That will improve the experience of children, their parents and young people, and the Bill will give them a more active role in agreeing the provision that should be made and ensuring that it is made. This is the joined-up system that the Green Paper talked about creating. We believe—and certainly hope—that this will make the system less adversarial and mean that fewer people will want to appeal to the tribunal.

This improvement in parents’ experience of the system is being borne out in the pathfinders. For example, in Hartlepool, the new process of assessment is wholly transparent, with children, parents and young people fully involved at all stages and able to contribute to the content of the EHC plan alongside professionals. It also includes a simplified complaints and comments procedure to help parents and young people seek redress across all areas of the process locally, if it should become necessary. That is just the sort of innovative local arrangement that we want to see, improving the relationships between parents, young people and local authorities, and facilitating local resolution of disputes. However, it would be silly to deny that, despite the improvements the Bill will bring, there will continue to be people who are unhappy about the provision set out in EHC plans. I quite understand that for those among that cohort who want to complain about two or more elements in the EHC plan, it would seem simpler to be able to appeal to one place, the tribunal, so having the tribunal as a single point of redress initially sounds attractive. However, there are reasons why I think this would be the wrong course to take.

It would not be right to expand the tribunal’s remit to cover all health and social care provision set out in EHC plans. We have already debated at some length, when dealing with earlier clauses, why it would not be right to create an individually owed duty for the social care provision in a plan. That could lead to the marginalisation of other children in need under Section 17 of the Children Act and harmfully affect local authorities’ ability to make the necessary social care provision across all children in their areas. Extending the tribunal’s remit so that it could deal with social care appeals could potentially mirror that unwanted consequence even if there was not an individually owed duty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes, said, we have rehearsed these arguments and I do not wish to go over them again, but I am sure that we will return to this issue on Report and I am very happy to discuss it further with noble Lords in the mean time.

I say that it would “potentially” mirror that unwanted consequence because including appeals about social care in the tribunal’s remit as the Bill is currently drafted would change the nature of the decisions the tribunal could take. Whereas the tribunal would be able to tell local authorities what special educational provision must be set out in a plan, without an individually owed social care duty the tribunal would be able to take judicial review-type decisions only about social care provision. That is, the tribunal would have jurisdiction to review only the local authority’s decision, with powers to quash and remit it for further consideration—consideration which might result in the local authority making the same decision.

Your Lordships may well be saying to yourselves, “There’s an individually owed duty in health under this Bill, so at least you should extend the tribunal’s remit to cover health”. However, that individually owed duty in health is a duty to make the health provision set out in a plan following clinical judgments taken in the light of the wider duties of clinical commissioning groups and the NHS to secure services to meet all the reasonable health needs of all children. Widening the tribunal’s remit to cover health would undermine these commissioning arrangements. It would establish unequal treatment of children with serious health needs by giving a privileged position to those with SEN. It would be difficult to justify children with SEN and health difficulties having stronger rights of redress than, say, children with cancer, neurological conditions, long-term conditions such as epilepsy or diabetes and mental health conditions who do not have SEN. To avoid creating these inequalities between children and young people, it would be better if the existing and well established routes of complaint in health and social care were used rather than the tribunal.

In social care, Section 26 of the Children Act 1989 provides the framework for the complaints procedure for those under 18 which local authorities must establish. In health, the relevant legislation prescribes that a responsible body must acknowledge the complaint within three days and they must offer the complainant the opportunity to discuss the timing and procedure for resolving the complaint. Once that has been agreed, the complaint must be investigated and, “as soon as possible” after completing the investigation, a written report must be sent to the complainant explaining how the complaint has been considered, the conclusions of the report and any remedial action which has been taken or is proposed to be taken. This procedure could cover both what provision is set out in a plan and complaints about delivery of the plan. Of course, it is vital that the parents of children with EHC plans and young people with plans, particularly the smaller group who want to complain about more than one area of the plan, know how to do so. The Bill makes provision for parents and young people to be given information about the routes of complaint that are open to them. Clause 26, headed “Joint commissioning arrangements”, requires local authorities and clinical commissioning groups to work together to offer joined-up advice, information and responses to families and to establish a clear complaints procedure relating to education, health and care provision. The outcome of that work will be available through the local offer.

The new code of practice will require that impartial information, advice and support should be commissioned through joint arrangements and should be available through a single point of access with the capacity to handle initial phone, electronic or face-to-face inquiries. It will also encourage clinical commissioning groups to ensure that relevant information is available at this single point of access as well as to include information on their local health offer on their own website. A one-stop shop will be simpler and much more parent and young person-friendly than potentially having to go to more than one place for advice on a range of issues, including how to complain.

My noble friend Lord Storey made the point that the system may be confusing. I reassure him that we are looking carefully at the best ways of achieving a single point of access to address this, and I would be happy to discuss this further with noble Lords. We share noble Lords’ concern to ensure that parents can find their way to the right route of redress easily.

Amendment 182 was tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones. When this amendment was debated in another place, it was pointed out that some of the information requested by it is already published by the Ministry of Justice on its website, including the number of appeals registered against each local authority. We are happy to explore with the Ministry of Justice the idea of jointly publishing data on the SEND tribunal and, as part of this work, whether the information could be expanded.

However, some of the information that is being asked for by this amendment, such as the amount local authorities spend on defending each case, would just increase contention in the system rather than reduce it. Highlighting how much money was spent on legal representation could create real tension between parents and local authorities. We know, anecdotally, that each party often says that they engaged legal representation only because the other side did. If this amendment is designed to highlight poor practice by local authorities and to provide a basis for improving it, I believe the Bill already provides other avenues for doing so. Children, parents and young people will be able to highlight what they feel is inadequate provision through their role in the local offer. Local authorities will be jointly commissioning services with clinical commissioning groups to make sure that the right provision is available. The Bill is promoting better assessment arrangements, which, as I say, will mean that fewer parents and young people will want to appeal to the tribunal and the mediation will offer the chance to resolve differences before appeals are registered. In view of what I have said, I urge the noble Baronesses not to move the amendment.

Amendment 272, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, relates to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I reassure noble Lords who may be concerned that we have preserved the grounds for appeal and extended them to young people over compulsory school age. The appeal regulations set out clearly and in one place for the first time the mechanics for notices related to appeals, the powers the tribunal has when deciding appeals, time limits for compliance with tribunal decisions and what happens with unopposed appeals. We are currently consulting on these regulations and will take account of responses when we finalise them. They will be laid in the House for approval by negative procedure.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee recommended that the tribunal’s powers when deciding appeals should be in the Bill rather than in secondary legislation and asked for an explanation of why this approach is being taken. Alternatively, it suggested that the regulations should be subject to the affirmative procedure, as Amendment 272 seeks. We have put the tribunal’s powers in regulations to make them simpler for the reader of this legislation. Instead of having the tribunal’s powers to determine appeals scattered over the legislation, as they are in the Education Act 1996, we want to bring them together in one place, along with the mechanics for how we expect an appeal to proceed. Given that this is what we are seeking to achieve by these regulations, I believe that the negative resolution procedure is proportionate.

Government Amendments 183 and 184, regarding mediation, are in this group. It is important that the whole of the mediation process set out in the Bill is seen by parents and young people to be independent of the local authorities. There are two stages to the mediation process. First, the parents or young people contact a mediation adviser to be given information about the mediation process. Currently, the Bill makes clear that the mediation adviser cannot be someone who is employed by a local authority. If the parent or young person decides to go to mediation, the local authority must arrange it within 30 days. Currently there is no parallel provision in the Bill to make clear that the person who conducts the mediation must also be independent of the local authority. These amendments make the necessary changes to the Bill to ensure that mediators will be independent.

I hope that my response on all the issues that noble Lords have raised reassures them and that they will feel able not to move their amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Baroness said. It is true that the excitement of the Bill is in the bringing together of these three services, but the noble Baroness’s argument has not answered the Minister’s point about giving priority to SEN children over children who are very sick with cancer or other diseases. It is inherent in the system that that problem will remain. We cannot, just by will, say that bringing them all together will somehow stop there being a different route for SEN children from that for other children, and that point has to be answered.

[Lord Nash]

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, makes her point powerfully and well. I entirely agree with her about the necessity of changing the culture and that in some cases we may be dancing on the head of a pin and what matters is the practicality at the coal face. We need to make sure that we attempt to do this practically and fairly so that we do not unreasonably advantage one group of children over another, as my noble friend Lady Perry said. We will try to ensure that, with further dialogue between now and Report, we all understand where we are on this.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I did not quite follow the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, made when she talked about the danger of privileging children with special educational needs over other children. The fact is that we have a separate system that children with special educational needs can get into, and if they do not have them they cannot do so. However, for those who can get into the system it is surely right that it is the best possible system that we can make it and is immune from criticism on the sort of grounds that have been advanced this afternoon regarding the need for a single point of redress.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

183: Clause 52, page 39, line 15, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) the authority must—(i) arrange for mediation between it and the parent or young person,(ii) ensure that the mediation is conducted by an independent person, and(iii) participate in the mediation.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Addington, Lady Walmsley and Lord Storey for highlighting the importance of high-quality teaching for pupils with SEN. I hope to set out in my response to this debate how the Government are taking this seriously.

I will first speak to Amendment 195, which would require the SENCO to be a qualified teacher and to complete mandatory training on SEN. I entirely agree with my noble friends that this should be the case. The draft Education (Special Educational Needs Co-ordinators) (England) Regulations for Clause 63 were published on 4 October. They require the SENCO to be a qualified teacher or, indeed, the head teacher of the school. In addition, schools must ensure that SENCOs who are new to that role obtain the master’s-level National Award for SEN Co-ordination within three years of being appointed. That is mandatory, as my noble friend Lord Storey said. Since 2009, we have funded 10,500 new SENCOs to complete this award. These requirements mean that SENCOs are often among the most highly qualified and experienced teachers within a school, which is absolutely fitting for the importance of the role that they fulfil.

The current specification for the national SENCO award requires SENCOs to cover approaches to assessment and teaching for pupils with special educational needs. They must demonstrate that they understand the four areas of need as set out in the code of practice as well as implications of these for teaching practice. They should specifically demonstrate that they know and understand about high-frequency special educational needs, such as dyslexia, and know how to draw on expert external services to meet these needs.

Amendment 196, tabled by my noble friends Lord Addington and Lady Walmsley, would impose mandatory training in SEN and specific learning difficulties for all new teachers. There are no mandatory modules and no required curriculum for initial teacher training. Instead, ITT providers must ensure that their courses enable trainee teachers to meet the Teachers’ Standards. No trainee should be recommended for qualified teacher status unless they have met the standards. The Teachers’ Standards already state that teachers must,

“have a clear understanding of the needs of all pupils, including those with special educational needs”.

Teachers must also be able to adapt teaching to the needs of all pupils and have an understanding of the factors that can inhibit learning and of how to overcome them. Anybody who works in a school today knows that the identification of SEN is at the core of a school’s life. Ofsted inspects both the quality of initial teacher training and the quality of teaching in our schools. These standards, and the ability to adapt teaching to meet special educational needs, are central to these inspections.

As the noble Lord knows, we are focusing more teacher training on training in schools. Ofsted reports that 31% of SCIIT training was rated good or outstanding, compared with 13% for higher education institutions. NQTs trained through School Direct rate the quality of their SEN training more highly than other trainees. New teachers report that the quality of training in SEN has improved. In fact, it is the best ever reported. A DfE survey of 12,000 newly qualified teachers in 2012 found that just 7% of them rated their training in SEN as poor, and that 59% of primary and 66% of secondary teachers rated their training as good or very good in helping them to teach pupils with SEN. That compares to as few as 45% in 2008. The 2013 survey of NQTs on the same subject will be published on Friday. For reasons I cannot entirely fathom, I am not allowed to reveal the results today, but I will tell noble Lords—probably breaching some rule—that they are going to show a considerably improved picture.

Taking the slight digression, as she called it, of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, about unqualified teachers’ SEN training and her general point about unqualified teachers, I shall make two points. Although I entirely acknowledge that the previous Government invested heavily in teacher training, they did not go as far as making SEN training mandatory for all teachers, so there is a slight inconsistency in her position. That is as nothing compared with the inconsistency in the shadow Secretary of State for Education’s position the other night, when nine times he declined to answer a question from Jeremy Paxman about whether he would send his children to a school with unqualified teachers, but let us not digress any further.

Following similar concerns put forward in another place, we have also strengthened the expectations on schools as set out in the SEN code of practice. The new code makes it absolutely clear that schools should ensure that teachers are equipped to meet pupils’ special educational needs. The code requires that teachers’ ability to meet SEN is included in the school’s approach to professional development and in their performance management arrangements. Section 6.5 of the code requires schools to review,

“teachers’ understanding of strategies to identify and support vulnerable pupils and their knowledge of the special educational needs most frequently encountered”.

I know that my noble friend Lord Addington has a long-standing interest in dyslexia and will be particularly keen to ensure that teachers are equipped to tackle this issue in schools.

The Department for Education is funding a range of specialist organisations covering autism, communications needs and dyslexia to provide information and advice to schools on implementing our reforms. The Dyslexia-SpLD Trust, for example, is providing an online professional development tool for teachers to help assess their current knowledge of dyslexia and access further training. The trust will also be providing a toolkit to help teachers identify and respond to literacy difficulties and dyslexia.

I hope that I have made clear that the Government recognise absolutely the importance of high-quality teaching for pupils with SEN and that we are determined to ensure that they get an extremely good deal. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, I listened to my noble friend and he seemed to be saying that more or less everything other than making my proposal compulsory for teacher training is fine. That might be understandable but provision has been made in Scotland, which has a compulsory unit that was agreed among the universities that carry out teacher training. I had a conversation with Dyslexia Scotland, which was of the opinion that Edinburgh had the best provision at that time—but all such universities have a unit. It does not hurt anyone and I ask my noble friend to have another look at this. Will he consider what can be provided to make sure that the average teacher has every incentive and opportunity to at least get a basic awareness component into their knowledge base? I am assured that units have been prepared by numerous people and other bodies in relation to conditions such as autism. There should be an awareness programme that means that classic mistakes are not made; in dyslexia, the one I know best is, “Just work harder”. That will not work. Even if you do synthetic phonics, you will still learn at a slower rate. It is a little like making a small man carry large sacks of coal; regardless of how well he does and how he builds himself up he will never match the bigger guy and will always be at a huge disadvantage. He will be more tired, slower and learn less well.

The standard response to, “Let’s not forget the rest of the class” is either to disappear into the middle of it or to disrupt at the back, so they are not exposed to something unpleasant. If you can get to that pupil and give them some support and help, they are less likely to make life difficult in the classroom and for those around them. On average, three people in every class being taught will be on the dyslexia spectrum. You could probably stick a couple of other hidden disabilities in there as well. So an awareness package is something that we should look at. My noble friend does not look like he wants to respond now but we need to look at this later on.

I shall have to look my noble friend’s response on Amendment 195, and have a word with advisers to make sure that it covers most of our points, but it seemed to be a better response. I hope that we can have another look at this issue and at least clarify where we think the weaknesses are. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 206, 207 and 208 and I will just say a few words about both sets of amendments. In relation to Amendment 206, the current draft code of practice is actually written in fairly good, plain English, as far as I am concerned, and is relatively understandable. I commend those who put it together because it is a very good document and meets many of the comments that I know were made at an earlier stage. It is still subject to consultation and obviously there is still room for improvement.

In relation to Amendments 207 and 208, I will just endorse the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Hughes. Rather than there just being consultation with those whom the Secretary of State thinks appropriate, the code should be publicly available for consultation. That is something on which we would all put a lot of emphasis.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I shall speak to this group of amendments on the SEN code of practice for 0 to 25 year-olds. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Low, the noble Baronesses, Lady Hughes and Lady Jones, and my noble friend Lady Sharp for tabling these amendments and raising this important matter. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. I have listened carefully, and it is important that we ensure that there is a good understanding of and confidence in the code of practice. It is vital to the success of the new system. I hope I can reassure noble Lords in my response.

Turning first to Amendment 206 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Low, we are in complete agreement with the intention behind it. I think all noble Lords would agree that if the new code of practice is going to be a useful document and one which parents, young people and professionals can work with it needs to communicate its meaning clearly and be readily available. While any document which has to describe the law accurately may contain some text which has to be read twice, the department has striven to make the draft code as easy to read as possible.

We trust that we have abided by the principles of plain English as much as possible, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Sharp for her comments, which I will pass on to all officials who have been involved in its drafting. However the draft code is currently out to consultation, and we are keen to receive suggestions for making any parts of the text easier to understand and will look carefully at any text which readers say they find difficult. Noble Lords may be aware that the current code of practice is accompanied by a Plain English Campaign Crystal Mark publication Special Educational Needs (SEN)- A Guide for Parents and Carers. We intend to publish a similar document for parents and young people along with the new SEN code of practice.

Turning to the second element of this amendment regarding the availability of the code on the internet, publication on the internet is now the department’s main method of publication, and I can reassure noble Lords that the new code will be available on the internet. We will also make sure that the code, like the consultation draft, is published in a web-accessible format, so that, for example, readers with visual impairments will have access to it.

I now turn to Amendments 207, 208 and 209 which relate to Clause 68, which is headed,

“Making and Approval of Code”.

The SEN code of practice is fundamental to the SEN framework and the noble Lord, Lord Low, is right to raise the issue of its approval, an issue which I know is of great importance to SEN organisations and many noble Lords. As noble Lords will be aware, ahead of the introduction of this Bill into the other place, the Education Select Committee carried out pre-legislative scrutiny on Part 3. One of the recommendations of the committee was that the code should be approved by Parliament through the negative procedure. We were in agreement, fully recognising the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the code of practice, and we accepted the Select Committee’s recommendation. Indeed, we are now going further in response to a recommendation from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We have tabled Amendments 210 and 211 to ensure that on the first occasion the new code is approved, it will be through the affirmative procedure, and for subsequent revisions, it will be through the negative procedure, recognising the significance of the new code in reflecting the new legal framework we have been debating.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I admit to being a member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Will the Minister explain why he has rejected an affirmative instrument in the second case?

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful for the noble Countess’s question. I shall explain. On 24 October, the DPRRC published a subsequent report in response to the Government’s Amendments 210 and 211 which reaffirmed its recommendation that the code should be approved by affirmative procedure on the first occasion and whenever it is revised.

We are in complete agreement with noble Lords on the importance of the SEN code of practice, particularly to parents, and I understand why the supporters of this amendment want to maintain the current arrangements for approval. I would like to set out why we do not think that this would be in the best interests of those who use the code, and why we think it vital that we keep the ultimate users of the code in mind during this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Nash]

210: Clause 68, page 48, line 19, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State may not take any further steps in relation to—
(a) a proposed code unless the draft is approved by a resolution of each House, or(b) a proposed revised code if, within the 40-day period, either House resolves not to approve the draft.(5) Subsection (5A) applies if—
(a) both Houses resolve to approve the draft, as mentioned in subsection (4)(a), or(b) neither House resolves not to approve the draft, as mentioned in subsection (4)(b).(5A) The Secretary of State must issue the code or revised code in the form of the draft, and it comes into force on such date as the Secretary of State may by order appoint.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friends Lord Addington, Lord Storey and Lady Walmsley for tabling the amendments in this group and giving the Committee the opportunity to discuss this important issue. I also thank other noble Lords who spoke.

We have given Clause 70 considerable thought since it was discussed in the other place and following the informative debate in this House at Second Reading. I understand the concerns raised today, which were prompted by this clause being included in the Bill. I assure noble Lords that there was never any intention for this clause to suggest that the Government are not concerned with supporting this vulnerable group of children and young people. I am very clear that I want to use this Bill to improve the support we provide to children and young people in custody with special educational needs. This is an issue I have been concerned with ever since, 42 years ago, during my university course on criminology and penology, I spent three weeks in what was then called a borstal. It was probably the most eye-opening three weeks of my entire education.

Clause 70 is included to play an important technical function by disapplying duties which would be impractical to deliver while a child or young person is in custody. For example, it would not be possible to allow a young offender to choose where they are educated or to give them a personal budget. We have been considering how we can introduce provisions that will ensure continuity of education and health support while a young offender is detained.

In Amendment 214, my noble friend Lord Storey has set out how Clause 70 could be replaced, and I listened to his thoughtful contribution to the debate today. I hope it reassures my noble friend and others that legislation exists in Section 562C of the Education Act 1996 setting out how education and support for those with special educational needs is delivered in custody. That legislation places clear duties on local authorities to use their best endeavours to deliver the special educational provision that is set out in a statement of special educational need. The consequential amendments in Schedule 3 to the Bill will place the same duties on local authorities for young offenders aged 10 to 17 in custody with education, health and care plans. However, we all agree that more needs to be done.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, proposed a way forward in his Amendment 213 which seeks to amend existing provisions in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. I thank the noble Lord for this amendment, which I know draws on his considerable experience and expertise in this area. The noble Lord has spoken with knowledge and passion throughout this Committee’s debate on Part 3 of this Bill, and I am particularly grateful for his contributions. As I have discussed with the noble Lord, the intention behind this amendment is in many ways similar to the solutions we have been considering.

Ensuring continuity of support already set out in EHC plans for those children and young people moving into, through and out of custody is exactly what I want to achieve. I am also considering whether we can enable children and young people in youth custody to have the right to ask for an assessment for an EHC plan where special educational needs are identified for the first time.

However, as I have discussed with the noble Lord, this new clause does not achieve all that we might want. For example, it is important to ensure that duties are on relevant health bodies rather than local authorities. Concerning the point my noble friend Lord Storey raised on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, it is essential that we properly consider what the role of the home local authority should be as well as that of the host local authority. As many in this debate have said, this is a great opportunity to make a difference, and it is important that home local authorities maintain their involvement with children and young people who are in custody so they are aware of progress and can make sure that appropriate provision and support is available when a young offender returns home on release. This is important if we are to reduce further the risk of reoffending.

I thank noble Lords for the debate today. We will carefully read the contributions from noble Lords between now and Report as we reach a decision on how best to amend Clause 70 to achieve the aim of improving provision for children and young people with SEN in custody which we are all agreed on. I recently met the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, to discuss how we might do this, and I would like to continue to work with him and others as we develop amendments to be tabled ahead of Report.

I turn to Amendment 212 and the issue of screening those in custody for dyslexia. I agree with my noble friends Lord Addington and Lady Walmsley that we must support young offenders who have hidden disabilities such as dyslexia. I should like to assure my noble friends that assessments to identify such needs already take place in the youth secure estate. Education providers assess all young offenders’ levels of literacy, language and numeracy on entry to custody. They also use a variety of tests such as the hidden disabilities questionnaire developed by Dyslexia Action to screen all young offenders who show signs of having a learning difficulty or disability. These assessments are extremely important because they allow providers to identify a range of learning difficulties, including dyslexia. Once their needs have been assessed, all young offenders in custody receive an individual learning plan that follows them through the course of their sentence. Of course, if we are able to ensure continuity of EHC-plan support, then young offenders with plans will already have had such needs and relevant support identified. Education providers in young offender institutions are also contractually required to have a workforce trained to identify and support a young person’s individual learning needs.

Of course, despite the current legal and contractual protections, we can always do more. The Transforming Youth Custody Green Paper sets out how we want to put education at the centre of youth custody, thereby ensuring young offenders are equipped with the skills, qualifications and self-discipline they need to stop offending and lead productive lives on release. The consultation included a question on how best to support young offenders with special educational needs. The consultation ended on 30 April this year. Since then, the Ministry of Justice has been reviewing the responses received and carefully considering the next steps to transforming youth custody, and plans to publish the response to the consultation shortly. We want our amendments to complement the MoJ’s reforms and are working with it to achieve this.

With those reassurances, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw or not move their amendments.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

My Lords, I apologise for asking a quick question. How does the virtual school head that this Bill puts on a statutory basis keep track of a looked-after child who enters the secure estate? Many of them will have special educational needs. There is no need for a response now but perhaps it is a matter that the Minister can think about for us to discuss at some point.