The Justice Minister's latest wheeze

Sorry, that should be from 15 to 18

Whilst I can see the advantage of giving them some structure to their day it is useless if the days themselves are not also structured. As you say education and training mixed in with some physical activity is needed.

Yes. I heard this on Today. Someone said many of these boys have mental health problems and condemning them to long hours of darkness is cruel. Stupid idea. And far too early. 10.30! I ask you!

Yes. It might be fine for boys at public schools whio have spent all of the afternoon on playing fields.

Couldn't they run apprenticeships in prison to teach the boys skills that would stand them in good stead when they leave?

Fruit and veg plots to help grow their own food (could also be a future business if they like it).

What about sporting teams with trophies to be won each time? Rewards for all who take part could be watching a film, a takeaway type meal, a night of comedy (with a comedian).

I don't think that the 10.30 is a bad thing to teach them - I am frequently amazed at how many youngsters think 10.30pm is too early for bed on a worknight - but complain how tired they are and have trouble getting up in the morning.

Good idea, HollyDaze. And I'm sure there are plenty more. But, let's face it, turning off the light at 10.30 is will save money, while setting up apprenticeships and so on will cost.

I am sure there will be people in society that may volunteer to teach their skills - I volunteered for over 20 years! Many people do, maybe this is something that could be considered? It would require a certificated examiner at the end stage to see if they have 'passed'.

I do feel concerned about youngsters being locked up with little to fire their imaginations.

Sadly, that is quite unrealistic. Apprenticeships need to take place over time to have a valid outcome. They need expensive workshops and and equipment. They need suitably skilled and qualified people to teach the apprentices and they need prison officers to supervise. And that's just the start. Even those who volunteer to do prison visiting need to have extensive checks and supervision and undergo an extremely rigorous vetting procedure.

There is supposed to be educational/vocational training on offer and many institutions are criticised by the Prison Inspectorate as unacceptable because of the lack of such provision. Last October Ofsted published a damning report that disclosed not one single prison had achieved an 'outstanding' grade for education and only one in three was even rated 'good'. Ergo two thirds of prisons provide a less than good education. Research shows that being in employment is one of the key factors that can reduce the risk of re-offending by between 30% and 50%, so it's good economics to help people to improve their employment chances through education/training.

I understand that basic literacy and numeracy are often lacking in young offenders. These should, obviously, be a priority for those youngsters who need the skills, though vocational skills, short of apprenticeships, could be taught. What about food and nutrition, gardening (as has already been suggested), painting and decorating, most of which could be taught with minimal equipment.

Here we have another minister sounding off with a pet policy written on the back of an envelope - where have we heard all this before? Sigh.

There are a lot of constructive things that prisoners, especially youngsters, could do with their time, but will it be prioritised in the budgets? Youngsters out of prison struggle to get apprenticeships - we do not want a situation where you can only get an apprenticeship if you commit an offense!!!!!

It is all about priorities.

Theseus (DH) chaired the IMB (Independent Monitoring Board) at YOI Rochester until we moved down here. During that time, he wrote several reports, all of which noted the lack of "things to do" for the boys - including occupations, physical activity and more education than was on offer. Good to see that someone has at last noticed this lack of structure and facilities.

Often the lives of these young people has been unstructured to say the least; if would be a service to them and the communities to which they will return if they experience full and productive days. Maybe the repeat offending rate might drop?

They are Anno. There are a number of reasons for this, amongst them dreadfully poor attendance at school as their families do not see education as anything other than a nuisance or mental illness or mental disability ( much more common than many suppose - about 75% of all prisoners).

Basic literacy and numeracy is just more of the same which they have hated and failed at when at - or not - as the case may be, when at school. The level of disengagement is huge, it would take a teacher of stratospheric skill to overcome those challenges.

The other huge issue is the length of sentences. For any meaningful impact to be made at least a year of consistent training / education is needed with continuation training on release. But a year in custody means that two years custodial sentence will have been imposed. This is quite rare.

I'm sure Whenimsixtyfour will be able to flesh out these matters.

They need suitably skilled and qualified people to teach the apprentices

There is a wealth of untapped, skilled talent in British society that has been deemed 'too old' or unsuitable in some other way - it would at least be worth trying to see what level of interest there would be.

Ariadne

I am interested in your post as you have a knowledge of the problem, I must admit to not having, am I correct to think you have a belief this could be a reasonable proposal put forward?

May I ask when your DH wrote the 'reports', presumably when he was the Chair of the IMB. I am really interested to know as it does feed into my trying to understand the proposal and to establish a fair hearing of facts before I make a decision as to whether it is a good or bad move, I simply can't make my mind up. I don't want to be a band wagon hopper.

I just think that these superficial ideas like bed at 10.30 pm are window dressing, when what is really needed is serious thought and study of the research which translates into budget priorities.

Of course troubled youngsters need some structure in their lives - it is often the lack of this that has landed them in trouble in the first place. But there is more to it than that.

Preventative measures that help youngsters from troubled families to have some stability in their lives and a decent education are what is needed. Not easy and always expensive, but that is where the government should start.

It usually comes down to money. So many competing interests demanding where the money should be spent.

As others have said, a 10.30 lights-out policy may be a way of establishing the routines that might have been absent from young people's lives. But I feel this is only acceptable if a large portion of the day is also structured so that young people are engaged in meaningful activities throughout it - which is not the case at the moment.

I feel that there should be more basic skills education but also sporting activites and gardening/animal welfare (if possible). Activities that do not require reading and writing skills - such as art and drama - might also provide an outlet for imaginative self-expression and perhaps lead to a greater sense of self-worth and achievement.

Many offenders have had several difficulties in their lives, which might include dysfunctional/chaotic/impoverished backgrounds, growing up in care, learning difficulties, mental health issues, etc. I feel that imposing strict routines alone may lead to more anger and disruptive/aggressive behaviour, both during their detention and after their release.

Of course, many knowledgeable and experienced people have also put forward similar views, but what it all comes down to is an unwillingness to spend the increased amount of money that would undoubtedly be necessary.

There are also large numbers of the non-offending population who believe that offenders should be harshly treated and as little as possible money and resources allocated to them. Governments don't want to alienate these voters by seemingly "going soft" on criminals.