Examination of Witnesses (Questions 270-279)
20 OCTOBER 2004
DR JOHN
BRENNAN, MS
MERRON MITCHELL,
MS JEANNE
HARDING, MR
DAN TAUBMAN
AND MS
CHRISTIANE OHSAN
Chairman: May I welcome our witnesses.
I can see from some of their faces that they were enjoying the
last session as much as we were. May I also say that my Committee
always groan when they find that there is yet another person that
I have known for a long time and who has Huddersfield connections.
Jeanne Harding and I go back a long way, because she was principal
of Huddersfield College before her present job at Dudley. I just
let the Committee know that, before they leap on the fact.
Jonathan Shaw: Do we groan now?
Q270 Chairman: You can groan now! May
I also say that this is a very serious inquiry and we were straining
at the leash, waiting to do this. It was interesting to hear some
of the names mentioned a few minutes ago, like Stephen Tumim and
others. I happened to be the shadow Minister for prisoners, Sir
Roy Hattersley's deputy, at the time all that was happening—and
the Woolf inquiry into Strangeways. If you get involved in prisons
and prisoner education, it is something that never leaves you
and you get this real commitment to it. Certainly I know that,
as Chair and the team here, we are as keen to make this as good
a report as we possibly can. That does not mean fiddling around
on the edges of the problem. Christiane Ohsan, Dan Taubman, John
Brennan, Jeanne Harding, Merron Mitchell—I am not going
to ask you all to give an introduction, because it would take
up the whole time. John, can I pick on you and ask whether you
want to say something to open on behalf of the team?
Dr Brennan: That would be very
helpful. We very much welcome the inquiry you are undertaking,
because we share the view that this is a very important but often
neglected area of learning. To give it some profile and to address
some of the issues is very important. I think that you know what
our credentials are in relation to this. Colleges are the overwhelming
providers of prison education. If I have counted it correctly,
24 colleges provide 126 of 137 prison contracts that exist. So
we have a very substantial share. AoC represents those colleges;
NATFHE represent the staff who work in those institutions. I would
want to emphasise that, whatever differences we may have on other
issues, in this area there is a considerable degree of commonality
of view between ourselves and NATFHE about the issues which exist.
I would like to make four points, if I may. The first one is to
emphasise that, as was coming out from previous witnesses, our
starting point is that offenders are some of the most deprived
learners. Whatever other characteristics they have, they are a
group who have very considerable learning needs. What we would
want to see, the kind of vision that we would have of the system
that we want to see created, would be prisons as a kind of secure
learning environment—a secure college, if you like—in
which offenders can acquire the skills they need, the knowledge,
the qualifications which will help them not just to secure a job
on release but also to equip them to cope with the complexities
of the lives they often lead; to give them confidence, raise their
own aspirations, shift them away from offending behaviour, to
becoming much more productive members of society. We do see that
learning has a key role to play in contributing to all of that.
In realisation of that vision, I think that we see three important
areas of issues that need to be tackled at the moment. One is
about what, to coin a phrase, we might call the personalisation
of the learning programmes. Our belief is that there has been
a bit too much emphasis on key skills, basic skills, as being
the sole vehicle in this area, and that we need to broaden out
that offer. We need to recognise that there are a variety of learning
needs, and that often the motivation of learners, even where they
have important basic skills requirements, can be better achieved
through integrating and embedding those basic skills activities
in a whole range of other learning opportunities. To some extent
the emphasis on basic skills, the key performance targets, and
so on, has distorted the programme. We think that we need some
rethinking about the way in which the prison education offer is
structured, in order to take that forward. Around that, we think
that there needs to be a much more comprehensive approach to assessment,
to planning of individual learning, to monitoring, and taking
that through into the post-release phase as well as in the institutions
themselves. In that context, we saw the attempt which was being
made through Project Rex, to bring together vocational training
with education programmes, as having that capacity to offer a
greater integration, and we would want to see that taken forward.
That is one area. The second area I would want to highlight is
management. It was already coming out in your previous session—the
importance of a significant cultural shift in terms of the way
in which learning is viewed within prisons. There have been some
helpful developments in this respect. The appointment of heads
of learning and skills, and so on, in prisons is beginning to
change that. There are issues around that. There is often a lack
of clarity about the roles of those individuals and their real
authority, in terms of managing contracts and so on. There are
still lots of operational problems about giving prisoners access
to learning. Other operational requirements often override—the
fact that you have to appear in court, or prison officers are
not available to escort you to the learning centres, and so on.
There are issues about priority and attitude in all of that, which
we think do need to be changed. In doing so, we believe that will
eliminate some of the waste which is inherent in the present system—which
those kinds of disruptions create. There are some issues around
contracts, where we are not, in principle, opposed to some changes
in the way in which the system works, but the shifts of direction
over the last couple of years have not been helpful in terms of
managing and running those services. While we think there are
some benefits to be gained from a more localised approach in linking
prison education contracts to learning and skills provision more
generally, what we would see as being important is that we do
not go for something which is far too parochial and which loses
the expertise and skills, and the considerable strength which
has been built up as a result of the system that we have. So we
see it as important to try to preserve all of that. There is a
series of other management issues inherent in all of this. I would
just draw attention to one in particular, which is about the management
of learner records. It is very evident that the system does not
work effectively in that respect, and we need to get a lot better.
Electronic transfer is the means by which we could achieve all
of that. We need to put some emphasis on trying to create a system
in which, as prisoners move round the system, there is much more
effective transfer of information about them, and they do not
end up doing the same things over and over again—which may
boost the key performance statistics, but do not do a lot in terms
of taking those individuals forward. The final point I would make
is about the need to have proper resources to back all of that
up. We very much welcome the emphasis which government has given
over the last few years to boost resources in prisons but, after
you take account of inflation and the increased volume of people
in the prison system, the real investment in learners and in prisoners
is not that great. We think that much more needs to be done. There
is a series of issues round that, not least to do with staff pay
because of the pressures created by a contracting system which
drives prices down, and about giving prisoners incentives to want
to engage in learning. At the moment, the system is very much
tilted against encouraging them to engage in learning. A series
of issues of that kind, therefore, which we believe exist in the
system at the moment. We are happy to discuss any of those or
any other issues that the Committee would want to explore.
Q271 Mr Chaytor: I would like to ask
about the contracting arrangements, and particularly to flush
out the strengths and weaknesses of the old contracting system.
I would like to ask Dan and Merron to comment on what they thought
were the strengths and weaknesses of the old system, before we
go on to the new arrangements.
Mr Taubman: You mean the contracting
through prison procurement, rather than the pre-1993 local authority—
Q272 Mr Chaytor: Yes. The system that
was disbanded and should have modified into Project Rex.
Mr Taubman: I am not sure that
there were a huge amount of positives. Over the years, we have
built up positives. One of them is that we have built up a body
of expertise, particularly in further education colleges, around
the delivery of prison education. Some of the drawbacks were sometimes
very stretched lines of management; contracts that were based
on price rather than quality, and certainly that has had a very
negative effect on recruitment and retention of prison education
staff. My colleague Christiane Ohsan will want to talk more about
the insecurity of prison education staff. We would like to see
contracting and funding of prison education moulded to the type
of prison and the type of prisoner, because there are different
types of prison. Local prisons, for instance, have a very mobile,
fluid prison population. Prisoners come through either on remand
or going through to training prisons, and the kinds of assessments
that those prisoners need might be very different than in long-term
prisons. We are not wholly opposed to the proposals to contract
through the Learning and Skills Council, but we have some very
grave concerns. One is just how much the Learning and Skills Council
knows about prison education. Second—
Q273 Mr Chaytor: Before we go to the
new contract arrangements, could we focus on the other ones, and
maybe ask Merron about this issue of stretched lines of management—because
you would have some experience of this?
Ms Mitchell: Yes, I am representing
the providers, the colleges that deliver education in prisons.
City College is the largest, with 21 secure establishments across
the country. We have built up our portfolio of prisons during
the contracting rounds from 1993. I believe that there has been
a lot of good in those contracts. The initial contracting out
made so much difference—from the previous, individually
delivered by local education authorities. In those days there
was just a 5% handling charge to the local college. Then I became
part of a structured prison education service. I think that was
probably the start of a quality education contract, and I do think
it is important that we recognise the good that that contracting
out of education did. The second round of contracting certainly
ring-fenced education money and library money. That has made a
considerable difference, because we have been able to plan. We
have been able to plan education programmes. What we have not
been able to do is plan for the future as a provider, because
the original contracts were offered on a five-year basis with
a promise of a five-year extension if the governor of the prison
and the contractor were happy with that relationship. That did
not happen. Rex reared its head, and re-contracting and re-tendering
was going to go forward. I think that providers and deliverers
of contracts, having had a ten-year period, were disappointed
that we could not build on the success we had already made with
current contracts. We have had that fragmentation. We are now
in a position of not knowing whether this contract is going to
last for six months, one year, or up to three years, and we are
currently working within the current contract. I think that I
can speak for most of the providers—we are continuing to
deliver a quality education service. There may be barriers—and
we are going to explore the barriers—to make education more
accessible to more offenders; but I think that there was a lot
in the old contract that we need to build on. However, it was
input-based, not output.
Q274 Chairman: For the record, could
you tell us what Rex is all about?
Ms Mitchell: My apologies. I tried
not to talk in acronyms. At the end of the second five-year period
of contracting out, at the end of 2004, prison education was due
to be re-tendered. It was tendered on a competitive basis, on
quality and on cost. That decision was taken by Susan Pember and
OLSU. The Adult Basic Strategy Unit, the Government, DfES, decided—I
think the words were "quite courageously"—to withdraw
the competitive tendering process that was recommended by the
PriceWaterhouseCooper report, until they had determined the future
of prison education. During that period, contractors have had
the extension to their current contract extended on three occasions—1
month, 5 months and, now, for a period up to three years—during
this time we are now facing prototypes and new Pathfinder projects
through the LSC. So we are still in a slight limbo of not knowing
where the future of prison education contracts really lies.
Q275 Mr Chaytor: If we could move on
to the future and ask about the LSC, how do you view the prospect
of the LSC now being responsible for the contracting process?
Do you have any observations about that?
Ms Mitchell: Yes, I think that
it has to be the way forward. The LSC is responsible for post-16
education. The LSC work in communities, in the probation centres,
and in adult education. I think they will have a steep learning
curve, and I do hope—if I have one plea—that they
consult and take the advice of the current expertise that is delivering
well in prisons. I think we have a future of having the seamless
progression. We were talking earlier about resettlement and the
pre-release course. To me, resettlement and pre-release start
on the day of somebody's reception into prison. I think that we
should be working in education for the day that they are released.
That has to be seamless, and the LSC has a model that could actually
provide that. There may be some fine-tuning required en route.
The management information system, for example. At the moment
we are input-based. We are paid on hourly delivery of education
rather than the outcomes that the LSC usually request. That will
lead to a tremendous amount of personalisation of qualifications
for individuals, rather than a set number of accreditations, irrespective
of the need of that prisoner.
Mr Taubman: I would agree with
everything Merron has said. I have three points. First, the LSC
is not noted for its lack of bureaucracy, so I hope that contractors
are not drowned in yet more bureaucracy from that. Second, there
are parts of the Prison Service, parts of prison education. You
can understand going through LSCs in terms of follow-through,
aftercare—indeed, the non-custodial sentences that are coming
in—but there are various aspects of the prison regime that
perhaps do not fit that. I am thinking of the women's estate,
which is smaller, fewer prisons, more mixed ages, more mixed abilities,
mixed sentences, et cetera. One wonders quite how a local LSC
will deal with something like women's education or maximum security
prisons, category A prisons. The other problem is London and London's
offenders. Because there are a disproportionate number of them,
a lot of them tend to get put to prisons well away from London.
Then you would also have follow-up problems. We are going to have
to approach it with care, because ex-offenders sometimes do not
want to be tagged as ex-offenders. So follow-through work can
be quite difficult.
Q276 Mr Chaytor: When is the new contracting
round due to start? Is there a date fixed for the start of the
LSC contract?
Ms Ohsan: Currently, we have the
three prototypes, as Merron said. It could be at any time when
they are ready. Any one of them could be ready. The arrangements
will be, whoever is ready to run, they will implement it and others
would join as and when. That is the nature of how things are being
done. The date of January 2005 has been mentioned. The problem
we have is that we are not into the loop with the LSC when they
are doing those consultations.
Ms Mitchell: The proposal is that
all prisons will be ready to run the new prototype in September
2006. We do not yet know how that will be. You mentioned the local
and the regional—and this is perhaps a personal opinion,
having run a national programme of prison education across the
country—but I do hope that the LSC do not automatically
believe they have to procure their education on a very local basis.
As we heard from Bob Duncan earlier, the Prison Service is not
yet regionalised. We do release people from London who go back
to Manchester. Currently many of our Manchester prisoners are
being held in Haverigg, Durham and across the country, because
of overcrowding and moving on a category basis. I do hope that
the LSC looks at the cross-boundary and national approach, in
line with their procedures for preferred suppliers. I believe
that we are not just part of further education. We very much are
a specialist offender education team, and I think that we could
work on a preferred supplier basis. There are some LSCs who have
had no experience of working with prisons and do not have a prison
in their local area. I am professionally completing a 30-year
sentence in prisons, and I do remember pre-1991. There were a
lot of providers that had no interest in prison education and
no expertise. We have moved considerably from that standpoint,
and I think that the LSCs have a good foundation on which to build
the further education concept, by using current prison expertise.
Q277 Mr Chaytor: In the new prison education
contracts, will they be still purely for prison education, with
vocational training remaining the responsibility of the prison,
or will providers be invited to tender for both?
Ms Ohsan: I think that at the
moment they are still having discussions with members of the Public
Commercial Services Union, whose members were very anti the previous
arrangement proposed under Rex: that the vocational training and
education departments should come together. There are big concerns
for them, in terms of their salary, terms and conditions, and
pensions, which would not be protected—an issue which, unfortunately,
prison education department staff have gone through three times.
We have cleared some of these problems but there was a big problem,
and I believe they are having discussions with the OLSU and the
Prison Service to see whether they can explore other options—where
they could still work as Prison Service employees but more closely
with the education department staff. The discussion is therefore
not finished.
Q278 Mr Chaytor: What is NATFHE's view
from the educational point of view and the point of view of the
prisoner? Leaving aside the concerns of prison officers about
their pensions, which is the best model?
Mr Taubman: I think a model which
has very close integration between the vocational training and
the education. To an extent, who runs that contract is secondary.
Clearly colleges have experience in work-based training and could
deliver it, but the Prison Service has been delivering it as well.
Whatever happens, they have to be much more integrated, and both
of them integrated in sentence planning and other education, for
instance offender behaviour programmes.
Q279 Chairman: Could I ask what sort
of people provide the teaching? When we were in Scandinavia, we
were impressed that some of the teachers we met were teaching
in the prison in the day and would be in their regular college
in the evening, teaching non-prisoners. I take it that most of
the people you employ to do this work only teach with prisoners.
Ms Mitchell: A lot of them have
come from mainstream; a lot have come from the primary and secondary
sectors, and then adult education. Some do work in local colleges.
In Manchester we have people working in Manchester Prison, Styal
Prison, Risley Prison, who also work in the college and who also
work in the community. We do work in the approved premises and
we work in resettlement units. So, yes, we do have an integration.
As was pointed out earlier, once people work in prisons—I
transferred from the primary sector—they do bite the bullet,
enjoy it, and it does become part of them. We find that, despite
a lot of the fragmentation and uncertainty of prison staff, there
is a tremendous loyalty. People do have career progression. A
lot of us have worked through the system and become part of the
prison education management. So it is no longer the case that
prison education is the backwater of education, education in prisons.
People do see it as a career aiding social inclusion, and do enjoy
working in that environment.
Ms Harding: We have staff moving
both ways, particularly our visiting lecturers who are looking
to move to a full timetable and permanent work, who will perhaps
work 50% of their time in some of our local prisons and 50% back
in the main college. Similarly with the prisons that are further
away. That is perhaps impossible in terms of where they live,
but they will work in their local college as well.
|
