Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chair: David Mundell

† Bloore, Chris (Redditch) (Lab)

† Chambers, Dr Danny (Winchester) (LD)

† Dakin, Sir Nicholas (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice)

† Entwistle, Kirith (Bolton North East) (Lab)

† Foody, Emma (Cramlington and Killingworth) (Lab/Co-op)

† Ingham, Leigh (Stafford) (Lab)

† Jameson, Sally (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)

† Jopp, Lincoln (Spelthorne) (Con)

† Martin, Mike (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)

Midgley, Anneliese (Knowsley) (Lab)

Shannon, Jim (Strangford) (DUP)

† Snell, Gareth (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)

† Swayne, Sir Desmond (New Forest West) (Con)

† Thompson, Adam (Erewash) (Lab)

† Vince, Chris (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)

† Wood, Mike (Kingswinford and South Staffordshire) (Con)

† Woodcock, Sean (Banbury) (Lab)

Dominic Stockbridge, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

Public Bill Committee

[David Mundell in the Chair]

Secure 16 to 19 Academies Bill

10:00:00

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. No food or drinks are permitted during sittings of the Committee, except for the water provided. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. If you wish to speak today, I encourage you to bob to catch my eye, like you would in the Chamber. My selection and groupings for today’s meeting is available online and in the room. No amendments have been tabled. We will have a single debate on both clauses. Clause 1 Secure 16 to 19 Academies (funding, impact and consultation) Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 2 stand part.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Secure schools are a new form of custody for children and young people. Secure 16 to 19 academies have already been established in legislation, with the first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, opening in Kent last year. The Bill will make further amendments to the Academies Act 2010 for the purpose of providing different requirements for securing 16 to 19 academies. In 2016, Charlie Taylor published his review of the youth justice system. The report made a number of important recommendations, including the need to reimagine how we care for children who commit offences serious enough 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 eventual release into the community. The Taylor review made a compelling case for change. The need to transform the environment in which we detain and provide care for those 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. As work has continued, and the first secure school, Oasis Restore, is now open, the Bill is needed to make further amendments to the 2010 Act in relation to secure 16 to 19 academies. The proposed changes cover the termination period in which the Government continue to fund the secure school, should there be a need to end a funding agreement for a secure school into which they have entered. The Bill will also amend the duties placed on providers that enter into funding agreements with the Government prior to opening a secure school. The changes will provide far better and more integrated services. With that background in mind, I turn to the clauses. Clause 1 contains three main measures. First, the Bill will amend section 2 of the Academies Act 2010 to reduce the minimum notice period of funding under a funding agreement from seven to two years for secure 16 to 19 academies. A two-year termination 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 it to two years strikes a balance between avoiding a lengthy exit period in which Government would be committed to continue funding the secure school longer than necessary, while 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. Secondly, the Bill will disapply section 9 of the 2010 Act for secure 16 to 19 academies. That will remove the requirement that the Secretary of State considers the impact of entering into a new academy funding agreement on other educational establishments in the area for secure 16 to 19 academies. Although it is important that secure schools are established as academies, in order to ensure they mirror best practice in the community, they are fundamentally different, as secure schools do not compete with other schools. As such, we do not expect them to have an impact on the viability of other local mainstream schools. The Bill would therefore disapply that duty for this particular type of school, to help any future secure schools open with minimal delay. Thirdly, the Bill will amend section 10 of the 2010 Act, which currently requires that an academy provider consult appropriate persons on whether a funding agreement should be entered into. I recognise the importance of considering the impact on local communities when opening any new school. Clause 1 will amend section 10 to require that the provider consults appropriate persons on how the secure school should work with local partners, such as elected representatives or health and education services.

I welcome the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. Does my hon. Friend agree that this part of the Bill will help to ensure that these institutions are better integrated with local services? I am thinking particularly about my hon. Friend’s opening remarks about the importance of ensuring that the young people who go to these institutions are better integrated into the community once they leave.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think that the success of these schools is absolutely dependent on them being properly integrated with local services, as he rightly says. Clause 2 establishes that the Bill will extend to England and Wales, but it will apply only to England, given that the academy system has not been adopted in Wales. Clause 2 also establishes that the Bill’s provisions will come into force two months after the day on which it receives Royal Assent and is passed. Finally, clause 2 establishes that, once in force, the Bill may be referenced as the “Secure 16 to 19 Academies Act 2025”. I commend clauses 1 and 2 to the Committee.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill, which replicates, in many ways, the provisions of a similar Bill that was introduced before the election and taken through the House of Commons stages by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson). As the hon. Lady says, secure 16-to-19 academies are fundamentally different to other schools, so it is appropriate that different requirements apply to them. This is a sensible Bill that modifies part of the framework around academies and disapplies some requirements that are simply not relevant to secure 16-to-19 academies. Therefore, as the official Opposition, we are very happy to support the Bill and look forward to it progressing.

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill. By reducing the funding termination agreement period from seven years to two, the Bill aims to make secure 16-to-19 academies more cost effective and adaptable, giving the Government greater flexibility to close underperforming academies or repurpose them without being locked in for such a long period. These measures are welcome, not least because of the opportunity that they offer to reinvest into community-based youth services. The Liberal Democrats believe that any freed-up funds should be directed towards making youth diversion a statutory duty, ensuring that every part of the country has a pre-charge diversion scheme for young people up to the age of 25. We believe that that would deliver better outcomes for young people and reduce pressure on police and courts. According to the evidence, high-quality youth work has consistently been shown to help vulnerable young people escape the grip of criminal gangs. However, as we all know, youth services have suffered repeated cuts over many years, robbing young people of that support and contributing to antisocial behaviour and rising violent crime. By reinvesting savings into early intervention and support, fewer young people will fall into offending cycles, meaning fewer arrests, fewer custodial sentences and, ultimately, less need for these academies. We believe that the real long-term savings lie in prevention, rather than detention. That all being said, the Bill represents the opportunity to create a virtuous circle, a funding opportunity, and an opportunity to build safer communities, and the Liberal Democrats support it.

It is a please to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Cramlington and Killingworth on bringing forward this Bill. I have only one question for the Minister to answer in his summing up. On reducing the notice given to providers from seven to two years, I agree with the characterisation. In respect of the existing contract, however, has that had to be renegotiated— from the service provider’s point of view, obviously the Bill represents a significant change in the terms of the contract—and has that renegotiation cost the taxpayer any money?

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank the hon. Members who have contributed so far. On the issues just raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne, they are for the Bill as it makes progress. Assuming that it does progress, however, I am happy to write to him with an answer to those points, as they are pertinent. I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I add my wholehearted support to my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for promoting the Bill. I thank the Opposition and Liberal Democrats spokesmen for the pertinent remarks that they have made, which are helpful. A sad reality is that a small number of children commit offences so serious that there is no option other than to deprive them of their liberty to protect the public. In line with our safer streets mission, the Government’s responsibility is to ensure that children who find themselves in the youth justice system receive the support that they need to turn their lives around. Secure 16-to-19 academies, otherwise known as secure schools, offer an opportunity to transform the experience of children who are detained after having been sentenced or remanded to custody by the courts. Secure schools allow children to gain skills and qualifications that will help them to turn their backs on crime for good and, crucially, to protect the public from their reoffending in the future.

We have had Borstals and approved schools, neither of which were particularly successful at reforming those who were in custody in them. Is the Minister confident that this new architecture, this new arrangement, will be more successful?

The proof of the pudding is always in the eating, and we are at the start of a new venture. The former chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor, was enthusiastic about this line of development. The previous Government, to their credit, over a period of time developed the first 16-to-19 academy, which is now established in legislation. The first ever secure school, Oasis Restore, opened in Kent last autumn. I was pleased to visit the secure school in September last year to see it for myself. The school is not yet where we or Oasis aspire for it to be, but I am encouraged by the commitment and passion of those involved. We need to ensure that it works as described in the appropriate challenge of hon. Members.

The provision of 16 to 19 secure schools to ensure that young people have an opportunity to develop skills to prevent reoffending is absolutely something I welcome. Given that, however, I should declare my interest: I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth-form education. Given that 16 to 19 education now includes a lot of off-site learning for young people—such as through T-level placements or BTEC provision—can the Minister say how young people in a secure setting will be able to access the same educational opportunities as their equivalents in mainstream education?

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I am pleased that he chairs the APPG for sixth-form colleges, a group I previously chaired, relating back to my time leading a sixth-form college before I came to this place. I had a roundtable with external providers on how to challenge our system in youth-offending institutions. The Oasis Restore school was represented, as was the Oakhill secure training centre. It is important that we ensure that the best practice available outside our youth custody estate is levered into what we do, so that we can get the very best for the young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central is right to press me and the Government on that point. The Bill is necessary to ensure that specific provisions in the Academies Act 2010 are tailored to reflect the unique nature and needs of secure schools. The Government support the Bill on the basis that those amendments will provide for better and more integrated services. The Bill will enable the Government to prioritise value for money for the taxpayer and to have more flexibility should there be any need to terminate a funding agreement with a secure school provider. We also have the opportunity to remove any unnecessary administrative burden and to help future secure schools to open with minimal delay. Engagement with local communities is a key part of the Ministry of Justice selection process for new custodial sites. The Bill will give providers the opportunity to engage their local community, ensuring a more constructive consultation process on how the secure school should work with local partners. In closing, I reiterate my thanks to all those Members who have contributed to the debate, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Cramlington and Killingworth for her promotion of this important Bill. I confirm the Government’s continued support.

I thank the Minister for those remarks and for the support of the Government. Similarly, I thank Members from across the House for their constructive remarks and for their support of the Bill. I also take the opportunity to thank all the Clerks and officials who have helped in the preparation and progress of the Bill. I thank you, Mr Mundell, for chairing this sitting. Question put and agreed to. Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Bill to be reported, without amendment.

10:16:00

Committee rose.