---

Education (Student Support) (Amendment) Regulations 2008

My Lords, I would normally start a dinner break debate by thanking the noble Lord for precipitating the debate. Even though this is a Prayer against the regulations, it is helpful to have this debate and for me to have the opportunity to answer these questions. As a former member of the Merits Committee, I can now feel from the other side the benefits of its work. I pay tribute to its members and extremely able chairman. I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that we take very seriously his concerns and the concerns of the Merits Committee. We also take the need for the rehabilitation of offenders extremely seriously and are supportive of the role that higher education, further education and distance learning can play in contributing towards that important cause. However, if the regulations were annulled, that would reopen the loophole that has enabled prisoners who are maintained at public expense also to receive student support. I do not believe that that is right or an appropriate use of public funds. It is right that prisoners, like other students, should be eligible for loans to cover the full tuition fees for higher education, and prisoners will continue to be eligible to take out such loans even with these regulations in place. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, pointed out, prisoners are already maintained at public expense. They have access to the learning materials that they need, such as books, through the higher education institution—many higher education institutions would, I am sure, advocate how brilliant their library facilities were—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, through the Prison Service, as well as support for travel and meals while they are away from the prison. It is therefore simply not appropriate for them to receive further financial support for maintenance. This academic year, the review identified that 44 prisoners have received some form of maintenance payment while in prison. As noble Lords are aware, all further maintenance payments to these individuals have been stopped. Where appropriate, payment of tuition fees to higher education institutions has been reinstated. The Government are committed to improving the skills of offenders, helping them to move into gainful employment and to break the cycle of reoffending. I do not accept the noble Lord’s assertion that we do not care. We care very much indeed. Offenders are encouraged to study at all levels, not only in higher education. The Government's commitment is illustrated by the significantly increased amount spent on courses in basic skills, further education and part-time higher education since 2001. In 2007-08, prisoners will undertake more than 1,500 Open University courses. I am sure that the noble Lord will welcome that. A smaller number of prisoners attend full-time higher education courses. They are mainly from open prisons and nearing the end of their sentences. They attend through temporary release from the prison, which is approved by the governor. Thorough risk assessments are carried out by the Prison Service, as well as regular discussions with the higher education institution, to make sure that the prisoner is suitable for release and is making appropriate progress. Yes, we take care to ensure that they are progressing. Detailed scrutiny of cases found by searching for prison postcodes in the Student Loans Company database shows that, from 1998-99 to 2007-08, 154 prisoners received some form of maintenance payment while full-time students. In total, as we noted in this debate, those prisoners received around £570,000 in maintenance loans. We expect those loans to be repaid, and they are being. They also received £160,000 in maintenance grants, which is not an appropriate use of public funds. In comparison, at the time of my right honourable friend John Denham's Statement on 7 February, preliminary investigations suggested that approximately 250 prisoners had received up to £250,000 in maintenance grants since 1998. We did have an idea about the numbers. We were concerned about individual cases and we appreciated the importance of understanding individual details, but we also felt that a Statement had to be made to Parliament, because Parliament needed to know. I do not wish to labour this point, but there is also evidence of maintenance payments made to prisoners between 1990 and 1998. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, suggested that insufficient care and attention has been paid to the effect of our amending regulations on prisoners who will be released this academic year. He is right to be concerned; I can fully understand the concerns about prisoners who are released and who need financial support to complete their courses. The number of cases is small; to date we are aware of 11 prisoners who were full-time students and have been released since the beginning of this academic year. A further 14 are eligible for release before August. Prison governors wrote to all prisoners attending full-time higher education to inform them that they would not be eligible for any further maintenance payments when the amending regulations came into force, and the Student Loans Company has written to released prisoners, informing them of the reasons for their maintenance payments being stopped. However, we should remember that those students have received some maintenance payments in the current academic year on which they could draw. If they suffer financial hardship, universities can administer the Access to Learning Fund, provided by the Government, to assist such students. Released and serving prisoners have been informed about the Access to Learning Fund. The amending regulations for 2007-08 are an interim measure. It was necessary for Ministers to act swiftly to prevent further maintenance support payments to prisoners undertaking higher education in the current academic year, as most will already have received more funding than we believe is right. From the academic year 2008-09, we are working to ensure that maintenance support for any student who has spent part of a year in prison is available on a pro-rata basis. Those regulations will be laid before the summer, as the noble Lord asked. My right honourable friend John Denham also made it clear that he will be considering how best to manage financial support for offenders in higher education in the longer term, based on recommendations from DIUS and Ministry of Justice officials. I am sure that noble Lords will be concerned that these regulations are looked at very carefully, and I am sure that the Merits Committee will think about them too. The noble Baroness, Lady Verma, asked about the role of the third sector. We are proud to work in partnership with the third sector, and I am pleased to pay tribute to the work that it does, particularly the Prisoners’ Education Trust, with which we work closely. We are committed to ensuring that we make the most not only of higher education opportunities, but also further education, the Open University and first-level skills. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, talked about students entering prison. The concern is that the majority of students in higher education who are prisoners are long-serving prisoners rather than the other way around. Of course we must be aware of those concerns as well. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has sharply highlighted his concerns over the welfare of prisoners and the need for them to be able to continue with their education. I hope that I have indicated that we have taken a great deal of trouble to understand the individual circumstances of prisoners directly affected by the withdrawal of maintenance payments. We are aware of the institutions they attend. We have ensured that they are aware of what support might be available, and have no reason to believe that any students have to date indicated that they would not be able to finish their courses. However, should that be the case, we have made efforts to ensure that they are aware of what additional financial support institutions—