Schedule
1
Amendments
Amendment
made: No. 4, in schedule 1, page 22, line 23, at end
insert—
‘ (1) Section 57
(intervention) is amended as
follows.
(2) In subsection (1),
after “an institution” insert “in
Wales”.
(3) In
subsection (2)—
(a) in
paragraph (a), for “the Secretary of State is” substitute
“the Welsh Ministers
are”;
(b) in paragraphs
(b) and (c), for “he is” substitute “they
are”.
(4) Omit
subsection (3).
(5) In
subsection (4), for “the Secretary of State” substitute
“the Welsh
Ministers”.
(6) In
subsection (5)—
(a) for
“He may” substitute “They
may”;
(b) in paragraph
(c), for “he thinks” substitute “they
think”.
(7) In the
heading, after “Intervention” insert “:
Wales”.’.—[Bill
Rammell.]
Schedule
1,
as
amended, agreed
to.
Clause
28
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
2
Repeals
Amendments
made: No. 5, in schedule 2, page 23, line 26, at end
insert—
No. 6, in
schedule 2, page 23, line 39, at
end
add—
|
‘Education
and Inspections Act 2006
(c. 40)
|
In
Schedule 14, paragraph 18.’.—[Bill
Rammell.]
|
Schedule
2, as amended, agreed
to.
Clause
29
Interpretation
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
I beg to move amendment No. 12,
in
clause 29, page 19, line 40, at
end
insert—
‘“accredited
voluntary body” means any voluntary body which is at the
relevant time accredited by a recognised organisation or by a body or
group of people approved by a recognised organisation for purposes
including the bestowal of such
accreditation;
“compulsory
school age” has the same meaning as in section 8 of the
Education Act 1996 (c.
56);’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments:
No. 13, in
clause 29, page 19, line 42, at
end
add—
‘“school”
means—
(a) a maintained
school;
(b) an
Academy;
(c) a city technology
college;
(d) a city college for
the technology of the
arts;
“young
person” means a person who
is—
(a) in his last year
of compulsory schooling; or
(b)
over compulsory school age but has not yet attained the age of
19.’.
No.
14, in clause
30, page 20, line 4, after
‘24,’, insert
‘[Assessment of students
in last year of compulsory schooling], [Mentors for young persons],
[Provision for young persons with special educational needs and
disabilities], [Community leadership
programmes],’.
No.
16, in
clause 31, page 20, line 24, at
end insert—
‘(3A) The
following provisions apply to England
only—
sections
[Assessment of students in last year of compulsory schooling], [Mentors
for young persons], [Provision for young persons with special
educational needs and disabilities] and [Community leadership
programmes].’.
New
clause 3—Assessment of students in last year of compulsory
schooling
‘(1) The Secretary of
State shall arrange for an assessment of every student to be carried
out at some time during the student’s last year of compulsory
schooling.
(2) An assessment of
a student under subsection (1) shall result in a personal profile
setting out an assessment
of—
(a) his educational
achievements to date;
(b) his
other extra-curricular
achievements;
(c) his post-16
educational and training aims and
requirements;
(d) the most
effective way of achieving his post-16 educational and training aims
and requirements; and
(e) his
other interests and
skills.’.
New
clause 4—Mentors for young
persons
‘(1) Every young person
shall be entitled to access to a person (“mentor”) who
shall have individual responsibility to give guidance and advice to the
young person.
(2) Where the young person is a student, the mentor
shall be nominated by the school at which he is a
student.
(3) Where the young
person is in training or employment, the mentor shall be nominated by
the person who provides the training or employment for the young
person.
(4) The mentor may be
selected from any accredited voluntary body which provides services for
young persons.
(5) Without
prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), the mentor’s
duties shall
include—
(a) assisting
the young person in preparation for undertaking post-16 full-time and
part-time education
qualifications;
(b) assisting
the young person in preparation for post-16
training;
(c) advising on
career development and employment opportunities;
and
(d) advising on acquiring
other skills and on other opportunities, including engaging in
voluntary work.
(6) The mentor
shall arrange meetings on a regular basis with each young person for
whom he is responsible.
(7) The
meetings referred to in subsection (6) may be held in person or through
other means of
communication.’.
New
clause 5—Provision for young persons with special educational
needs and disabilities
‘(1)
This section applies when a local educational authority maintains a
statement of special educational needs for a young person under section
324 of the Education Act 1996 (c.
56).
(2) A local education
authority shall arrange for the provision of advice and information of
the type described in subsection (3)
to—
(a) young persons in
their area with special educational needs or who are disabled;
and
(b) parents or guardians of
young persons in their area with special educational needs or who are
disabled.
(3) The advice and
information mentioned in subsection (2) shall include advice and
information about—
(a)
post-16 full-time and part-time
education;
(b) post-16
training;
(c) career
development and employment opportunities;
and
(d) acquiring other skills
and opportunities, including engaging in voluntary
work.’.
New
clause 6—Community leadership
programme
‘(1) The Secretary of
State may provide or secure the provision of services to encourage,
enable or assist (directly or indirectly) the creation of programmes
for young persons to develop skills and
qualifications.
(2) The
programmes referred to in subsection (1) shall in particular make
provision for the development of leadership skills and skills for
future employment.
(3) In
securing the provision of the services referred to in subsection (1)
the Secretary of State may, in
particular—
(a) consult
voluntary bodies which provide youth and adult training, training in
skills, management and enterprise, community projects, training and
employment schemes and services, including those for young persons with
special educational needs or those with
disabilities;
(b) make
arrangements with local education authorities and other persons for the
provision of such services;
and
(c) direct local education
authorities to provide such services, to secure the provision of such
services or to participate in the provision of such
services.’.
Amendment No. 10, in title,
line 6, after ‘training;’, insert
‘to make provision about post-16
education and
training;’.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
This group of amendments and new clauses
relates to improving the system of pastoral care created by supporting
and mentoring that exists for 16 to 18-year-olds who undertake some
form of training or education after 16, as defined in amendments Nos.
12, 13, 14 and 16 which seek additions to clause 29. The new clauses,
to which I shall relate most of my remarks, set out those four
improvements.
New
clause 3 would establish in law what is already best practice in a
number of schools and colleges, where a personal record of achievement
is given to students. However, what is critical, which is outlined in
the clause, is that it should not record academic achievement only, but
other skills that have been demonstrated, including any voluntary or
community work that has been undertaken. In addition, it would set out
the learning aims for post-16 education and training, and how those
aims can best be met, as well as, more generally, what the young person
wants to achieve in their future learning. The reason why this is so
important is that the degree of careers advice, the quality of that
advice, and the pastoral care that 16 to 18-year-olds receive, have an
important role in shaping the future career patterns of that young
person. If the school or college gets it wrong, it can have a
devastating impact, at least in the short term. I shall give a brief
example from my
constituency.
2.15
pm
A couple of
months ago, a young person and her mother come to my surgery. I am not
going to say which FE college she was attending—I do not want to
embarrass anyone—but the daughter was taking a diploma in health
and social care. She wanted a career in the caring professions, but for
reasons that no one can quite understand she was advised by the college
to do physiotherapy. She did not have the background or aptitude, or
even the wish, to study that subject.
When she came to my surgery,
she had been rejected by all the institutions to which she had applied.
Within three minutes I was able to understand that she wanted to do
social work, but by then it was too late in the applications process
for her to apply to study social work for the following year. As a
result, she is going to have to take a year out. That might be
character building for her, but it is not what she wants to do. It
points to a weakness that sometimes exists in the careers advice
available to FE colleges and schools. I hope to have demonstrated
through that example how important it is to have the best advice, and
for the person giving that advice to take the time to talk to the young
people and to be clear about what they want to achieve in their future
careers.
New clause 4
would give all young people undertaking post-16 study a mentor from the
school or business, or an appropriate voluntary-sector body, depending
on where the education and training is taking place. The mentor would
need to give advice on future training routes, on possible employment
opportunities and career development, and on how young people might
acquire other skills to enhance their life opportunities.
Such mentoring is important to
my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman),
who recently raised the matter in a private Member’s Bill. He
was most concerned, as am I, about the number of young people who are
not in employment, education or training. He argued that if, prior to
16 and immediately afterwards, young people could get a mentor to talk
to them about the importance of staying on in education or training and
advising them of the best routes, some of those who are not taking up
such opportunities might take them. It is a critical role and it would
require a skilled person to give such advice.
New clause 5 asks that the
provision of mentoring advice and support be made available to post-16s
in education. It applies also to those who have special needs. The
Minister will know that the review of special educational needs
undertaken last year by the Education and Skills Committee identified
the problem that young people with special educational needs do not
always get good advice or proper support to enter further education or
to undertake post-16 education in some other format.
There certainly seem to be some
weaknesses in the current system. It was found that more direct support
was needed to encourage young people with special educational needs to
take up further education opportunities. The argument behind the clause
is that if there was better careers advice, better mentoring and better
support for young people with special educational needs, they would be
able to take up more opportunities for post-16 education.
New clause 6
seeks to make a requirement of what I think is already best practice in
a number of schools and colleges—providing young people with a
range of opportunities to undertake voluntary work in their local
communities that would enable them to acquire and develop leadership
skills. The new clause argues for a wide range of opportunities to be
made available, such as a Duke of Edinburgh award scheme, or a limited
version of it that could take place locally. Thanks to a meeting that I
had recently with young people from some of the secondary schools in my
constituency, I know how much that is needed. They are very keen to
undertake some sort of community work locally, but they simply do not
have the connections with the community groups that would enable them
to do that. We have put a set of recommendations to local schools to
the effect that they should try to enhance the number of activities
that are available to young people to enable them to play a greater
role in their communities.
Jeremy
Wright (Rugby and Kenilworth) (Con): I am interested in
the proposals that the hon. Lady outlines, and I have two questions.
The first relates to new clause 6. Is she at all concerned
that the rubric that it sets out might limit the diversity of
activities available through the voluntary sector? In many cases, they
are attractive to young people precisely because they are delivered
through the voluntary sector without the overlay, consultation and
interest of the state. Secondly, has she any estimate as to what all
the proposals will cost?
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman
that activities would be limited. In fact, I believe the opposite. The
whole point is to spread to
schools that might not already provide them a range of
opportunities for young people to undertake
community work or some other activity that would benefit their local
community. That seems to be a sensible and laudable thing to do. To
answer his second point, I hope that the cost would not be prohibitive.
Some schools—in fact, a great many of them—already make
some form of provision, but it would help if they could focus their
efforts to ensure that the opportunities are available to all young
people.
Sarah
Teather:
Is the hon. Lady aware that Surrey has a scheme
that allows all schools to buy in to it? The Surrey school where I
spent a week shadowing last September has a scheme for sixth-formers
that is run and co-ordinated by the borough council. The range of
activities that it offers are partly structured and partly accessed by
young people through an introduction to opportunities to volunteer that
exist in other schools. It works well because it operates right across
the borough.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
I thank the hon. Lady. That is the sort of
best practice that we want to see extended elsewhere as a result of the
new clauses.
If our
proposals do not become law, what is the Minister going to do to ensure
that schools, colleges and others providing post-16 education adopt the
best practice on pastoral care that is created by mentoring and
community
activity?
Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): May I recommend to the hon.
Lady the project at Havering college called ROSE? That stands for
realistic opportunities for supported employment for students with
learning difficulties. It enables them to transfer from education to
employment with the help of local employers. Each student has a job
tutor who stays with him or her all day to start with, and is gradually
weaned off that relationship over, say, six months until independent. I
am sure that other colleges would benefit from sharing that example of
good
practice.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
The scheme that the hon. Lady outlines
appears to be an example of best practice relating to the employment
needs of young people. That is exactly what we would like to see
elsewhere.
Ms
Angela C. Smith (Sheffield, Hillsborough) (Lab): I rise to
support the amendments and new clauses in the name of my hon. Friend
the Member for City of Durham.
It is worth bearing in mind
that the present provisions relate to the transition at the age of 16
from formal schooling and education to post-16 education—the
16-to-19 phase and above. As a country, we spend a lot of time focusing
on the needs of young people as they move from primary to secondary
school—from key stage 2 to key stage 3. The Government and the
Department for Education and Skills have recognised the problems of
transition, and a lot of new ideas are being implemented to deal with
the transition from key stage 2. Is it not therefore about time that we
paid more attention to what happens to young people at the end of the
key stage 4, when they leave school to move into the adult
world?
The idea that we need to do
something is supported by evidence showing that too many people still
leave school at 16, or nearly 17. They then become NEETs, which I
always think is an unfortunate name for those who are not engaged in
education, employment or training, because it sounds slightly
insulting. The other interesting point is that many of the young people
who end up as one of those unfortunate statistics do so after a further
year of formal education. It is when people reach 17, or in some cases
nearly 18, that the figures start to rise, and that is certainly the
case in my area. That says something about the lack of support that
exists for young people once they move on from formal school and
education. We therefore need to do something, and I am pleased to see
the proposals before us.
Let me briefly remind the
Committee of why we need to do something. It is not only that such a
situation represents a terrible waste of the talent and abilities of
the individuals concerned or of the opportunities available to society,
but that the country cannot afford to lose such abilities,
because—it is worth making this point over and over
again—we are competing in a global economy. This country can
succeed internationally only if its people are sufficiently skilled to
allow it to stay ahead of the field and at the competitive edge of
international markets. For that reason alone—to ensure the
future prosperity of our country and of all our young people as they
move through adult life—it is important that we put all the
necessary measures in place from year 10 onwards, and indeed earlier,
so that we get things right.
New clause 3 is particularly
useful because it implies that the measures outlined need to be clearly
in place pre-16, and I would argue that a seamless programme of support
should be available to young people from year 7 or 8 onwards. It also
implies the need for clear collaboration to ensure that crystal clear
career pathways are available to young people once they are in
secondary education so that they no longer have a sense of confusion,
as they often do at the moment, about what they should do next, what
options they should pursue from year 9 onwards and what they should do
once they leave school.
Clear career routes and
professional pathways are a critical part of a young person’s
education, and new clause 3 suggests to some extent the steps that are
necessary to ensure that we get all that right. Several local
authorities across the country are already working hard on the issue,
and the 14-to-19 work that is going on in places such as Knowsley,
Wolverhampton and Sheffield is fantastic. The Government need to learn
from all that, and they are indeed doing so, but they need to continue
learning and putting in place measures to address the issues as they
arise. To some extent, that is what new clause 3
does.
2.30
pm
New clause 4 is
equally important. It is not just that young people do not go on at 16
or drop out of full-time education or employment and training at 17,
they sometimes get on the wrong courses. That is a big issue in
FE.
I know that because I have been
there and I have seen young people on the wrong courses. I know of the
pressures that force tutors to encourage young people to take up places
on courses because they are desperate to make up their numbers. That is
just not on. In the end it is a short-term measure which unravels
because the young people end up dropping out. They are not in the right
place and they are not doing the right course. That is one of the
reasons why at age 17 the numbers of young people classed as NEETs
rise.
There is a need
for independent information, advice and guidance. Let us get the
concept of independence clearly on the table. It is extremely
important. It is important to have mentors for other reasons. Many
young people between the ages of 16 and 19 are incredibly ambitious.
They are much more ambitious than my generation ever was. They are keen
to earn money and to get the things that we never thought of having
until we were in our early 20s. A lot of young people want to buy a
car. They want to enjoy life. When I was 17 I thought that I would
enjoy life when I was a bit older and earning the money to do
it.
When I was a tutor
I often found that young people came into college in the morning
absolutely shattered. They were almost falling asleep because they had
been working at the local Morrisons on the night shift. That is a real
issue in many parts of the country. The education maintenance allowance
has done a great deal to address that problem, but let us not
underestimate how ambitious many young people are to have money in
their pockets. That is a very good thing, but we need mentors to ensure
that young people are advised about the importance of getting the right
balance between work, study and play.
That balance is encouraged very
well in university and higher education institutions, but it is almost
non-existent in FE. Usually it is down to the tutor to say to the young
person, “Come on, you are doing too much here. You need to hold
back a bit. Your studies are suffering. Cut down your hours and let us
get this sorted out.” That is a very difficult message to pass
on to a young person, especially one from a deprived background where
there is no parental income to supplement their lifestyle. These are
the people whom we need to help the
most.
New clause 5 is
very close to my heart. Young people with special educational needs and
severe disabilities are almost completely ignored by the post-16
education system. Improvements have been made in recent years, but they
tend to be piecemeal. In Sheffield, the special school for young people
on the autistic spectrum and with communication disorders has
established a relationship with the FE college and developed pathways
post-16 for a number of young people on that spectrum. However,
provision is not comprehensive, because the support mechanisms are not
in place for children post-16 with special needs. That area of SEN
provision that has been neglected for a long time, and the new clause
is a start to the process of looking seriously at the issue.
A great deal has been done in
recent years on SEN. In Sheffield, our special schools have been almost
completely rebuilt. The programme is almost complete, so I want it on
the record now that the Government
have done a great deal to help SEN education in terms of the buildings
and the range of options that we offer young people through to the age
of 16. Now, having congratulated the Government on that record, I say
that it is time to start thinking about that post-16 period, because it
has been neglected for a long time. The problem has not begun to occur
recently, because it has been happening for
generations. Attitudes
have moved on: 20 or 30 years ago nobody gave much thought to what
happened to young people once they left school at 16 if they were
disabled or had serious learning difficulties. It was all right for
them to stay at home watching television all day and for parents and
carers to have to cope with all that. Society has moved on, however,
and we are now not prepared to tolerate such a waste of a young
person’s life or the strain that such responsibilities can put
on parents and carers. It is now time to address the particular needs
of that section of the school
population.
Mr.
Wilson:
I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady,
particularly with regard to the neglect to which she says young people
over the age of 16 have been subjected. Does she think that that is why
the number of young people not in education, employment or training has
grown since
1997?
Ms
Smith:
I have not said that. That section of the
population rarely had access to such provision in the first place. For
generations, its needs have been ignored, which is the whole point of
my argument. This Government have focused on special educational needs,
but it is now time for them to focus on the post-16 educational needs
of that section of the
population.
I should
like briefly to draw attention to new clause 6. The Duke of Edinburgh
award is successful in my city. Traditionally, it tended to focus on
schools in the richest part of the city, but it has moved forward in
recent years. It has worked well with the local authority, and it now
works in the vast majority of our schools. That partnership, as well as
the wider education partnership in the city, has attempted to reach out
to young people from deprived communities, who would not traditionally
have thought of achieving a Duke of Edinburgh award. That answers the
point that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth made about state
intervention in the voluntary sector. I understand his point, but a
sensible partnership between the voluntary sector and state education
can encourage and increase young people’s involvement in
voluntary
activities.
The Duke
of Edinburgh award is a sterling example of a programme that is not
only enjoyable for young people, but improves their employability. I
know for a fact that it is highly regarded by employers, although I do
not forget that a number of voluntary leadership and skills development
programmes are available to young people, which is important because
not every young person is suited to the Duke of Edinburgh
award.
I commend the
new clauses to the Committee. I look forward to the Minister’s
response to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for City of
Durham about the best practice suggested by the new clauses. I hope
that the Minister will feel able to tell us how that best practice can
be embedded in our education system.
Sarah
Teather:
I want to make a few broadly supportive remarks.
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for tabling these useful new
clauses. She is absolutely right about the patchy nature of careers
advice in this country; in some places, for some young people, it is
good, but for many others it is either difficult to access or not of
high enough quality, and it often lacks adequate ambition to push young
people forward. In my constituency, sadly, the options are often
tailored to the expectations of a particular type of young person and
do not reflect all the things that they might be able to
achieve.
The hon.
Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough spoke well about the importance of
extending access, particularly for young people with special
educational needs beyond the age of 16. During the course of the Bill,
many charitable organisations have raised with me the fact that it is
often difficult for such young people, especially those with physical
or learning disabilities, to access
provision.
There
are three issues that I would prefer to be separated—mentoring,
careers advice and volunteering. The details of the three issues are
slightly conflated. Mentoring is something that should extend to all
young people at all stages of education, and it should probably take
place within the school or college setting. Careers advice, however, is
different. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough has used the
word “independent” several times, and careers advice
should be independent. That is crucial, especially if one is trying to
raise expectations and give tailored advice to the young person. We
need to get away from the type of prejudices that, sadly, can occur
within a school, where people, over a long period of time, have come to
know the performance or behaviour of a young person. I would like to
see careers advice taken away from that setting. In a sense, therefore,
I would like to separate careers advice and mentoring. Mentoring is
about pastoral care. Careers advice will obviously include a pastoral
element, and a student may wish to discuss the advice that they receive
from a careers adviser with their mentor, but careers advice has to
happen independently.
Furthermore, 16 is far too late
for careers advice to start. I know that both hon. Members who spoke on
this subject, the hon. Members for City of Durham and for Sheffield,
Hillsborough, said that, but it needs to start at 11. Hon. Members will
have heard me witter on about the Tomlinson report at great length at
every opportunity. Certainly, my vision is a flexible approach for 14
to 19-year-olds, so that young people can move between vocational and
academic courses at all stages between 14 and 19. However, if we are to
have that type of system, there must be access to good, independent
careers advice from the earliest stage and right the way through the
system, because the system will not work without it.
With regard to the ideas about
volunteering, I am very sympathetic to the points that the hon. Member
for Sheffield, Hillsborough has suggested. Personally, I would not want
to see this matter dealt with in legislation, unless the legislation
were a good less detailed than this Bill and only enabling legislation.
Volunteering is the type of issue that can be dealt with perfectly well
by encouraging local authorities to set up their own schemes and
encouraging schools to collaborate. Volunteering does not tend to work
terribly well with one school, and it is often necessary to have more
opportunities that schools can explore by collaborating with each
other. That is certainly an issue that local authorities could take a
lead
on.
Mr.
Hayes:
This is a useful series of amendments and new
clauses, and it has enabled us to speak about the context in which the
Bill will fit. The speeches so far have made those contextual points
powerfully.
We should
be frank about the dilemmas that we face, not as party politicians but
as public policy makers. The first of three dilemmas that I want to
highlight during this short debate is the conflict between the
importance of investing early in a child’s life in the core
skills that are necessary for all other educational progress, and the
need to rescue those young people who have been failed by the
system.
Dealing with
that conflict is very difficult for the Government, because roughly
45,000 young people who leave school each year are functionally
illiterate and/or innumerate—they are not entirely illiterate or
innumerate, but they are functionally so. Many of those young people,
although not all of them, will become NEETs. Much of the
Government’s focus, therefore, has been on skills for life and
ensuring that those young people have a second chance, and one
understands why the Government have taken that view. Who could argue
otherwise, and why would we not want to bring those young people back
into learning? However, focusing on that problem prompts two questions.
If public policy attention and resources are focused there, does that
mean that there is less to spend on earlier education? Of course, the
answer is yes. Moreover, does it reduce pressure on schools to ensure
that those basic skills are acquired up to the age of 16?
My two little darling
sons, who are aged three and six, will be taken by the state and
educated for a long time; as their parent, I am legally obliged to
ensure that that happens. If, at the age of 16, they could not read,
write or count proficiently, I would feel cheated, and they would have
been cheated. If the Government have any duty, it is surely the duty,
in terms of education at least, to ensure that people end up with those
core skills.
All kinds of
factors affect people’s capacity to learn. Many come from
altogether less charmed backgrounds than the one that I enjoyed and
that I hope my children will enjoy, too. However, it is a mark of
failure that, barring extreme circumstances and particular special
needs, we still cannot ensure that all who enjoy a state education
leave school numerate and literate. Surely we have that
responsibility.
2.45
pm
The first
dilemma is about resources. Some in the primary sector will
say—I am sure that the Minister has heard it said, as have you,
Mr. Atkinson—“We are worried that the emphasis
on the 14-to-19 age group will de-emphasise the significance of younger
children.” I do not think that that is the Government’s
intention. As public policy makers, we need to have an honest debate
about it. I do not know the answer, but we need a serious, open-ended
and even-handed discussion about the matter.
The second dilemma is
highlighted in the Leitch report. In a slightly partisan fashion, may I
say how disappointed I am that the Government have delayed their
response to the report? We had expected and eagerly anticipated that
the Prime Minister in waiting—the Chancellor of the
Exchequer—perhaps the Minister and certainly the Secretary of
State for Education and Skills would this week furnish the Committee
and the House with their detailed response to the report, which was
published last December. We are now told that the response will come
later, but we do not know whether that is days, weeks or months away.
It certainly is not good enough that we still do not know where the
Government stand on the fundamentals of the Leitch review. I hope that
the Minister will say something about it today.
That is the partisan bit over
and done with; I return to my main theme. Leitch makes it clear that
the demand for unskilled labour is plummeting. Although it is contested
by some economists, I tend to share Leitch’s view; he argued
that the demand for unskilled labour will fall radically. Indeed, he
said that it will fall by 2020 to 600,000 jobs. Simultaneously, the
number of NEETs, which has been referred to by members on both sides,
has grown to 1.3 million—a growth of about 15 per cent. since
1997, as we heard earlier. If we take account of those young people
older than 24 or 25, and consider those aged between 30 and 35, there
is a substantial number of people not in work. Given the changing
macro-economic profile of Great Britain, we have little chance of
getting them into work unless we can get them skilled.
The second dilemma then is how
much emphasis should be placed on bringing those people back into
education and skilling, and how much we should concentrate on
upskilling and reskilling the existing work force. Given the
demographic profile, unless we do the second, we will not meet out
skills targets. That is another big dilemma for the Government, and a
big issue for public policy makers.
The third and final dilemma,
which is relevant to these helpful amendments and new clauses, is about
advice and guidance. I have come to the conclusion, in common with Lord
Leitch, that we need to disaggregate the careers service from
Connexions. Connexions does an important job for a particular group of
young people. It is true that some young people, particularly those who
are described as NEETs—not a terribly helpful term, I
agree—need a multifunctional service. However, I am not sure
that we have not lost something in the careers service by asking those
who run it to be Jacks-of-all-trades.
We should probably maintain a
service like Connexions, but have an all-age careers service running in
parallel. That could be cost-effective. The cost of the old careers
service was about half of what Connexions now costs us. As for the
throughput of people, there has been nothing like a doubling in the
number of clients. Taking into account what the Learning and Skills
Council spends in addition on adult careers, we could, within the
existing budget, reorganise the careers advice structure so as to
deliver much better advice both to young people and to those in the
work force seeking to upskill and reskill. That is why it will be
Conservative policy to develop an all age career service alongside
Connexions. Public policy makers will have
to address the dilemma of how much emphasis to place on the
multifunctional role—dealing with people with
problems—and how much to put on the careers role that is likely
to affect the majority of
people. In conclusion,
let me say a word about mentoring. We have heard a lot about it, and I
want to mention it in relation to apprenticeships. I am sorry to raise
the matter again, because I know that every time I do so, the blood
pressure of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Corby, of whom I
am immensely fond, rockets. I do not want to cause him any unnecessary
distress this late in our proceedings. However, I see that he is
getting his notes out; he is preparing his weaponry for a
counterattack. It is clear that there is not enough mentoring in
relation to apprenticeships. Most people think of an apprentice as an
eager young learner acquiring a key competence by the side of an
experienced craftsman, with a serious emphasis on workplace training.
It is not unreasonable to say that every apprenticeship that bears the
name should be employer-engaged and mentored, with a serious element of
workplace training.
When he talks
of mentoring, the Minister will tell us that that happens anyway. He
will say that much of my complaint is imagined. However that is not the
view of the adult learning inspectorate, which has said that it is
possible to complete an apprenticeship without ever having set foot in
a workplace. The inspectorate undertook a survey in which it found
examples of programme-led apprenticeships that were completed even
though they contained no significant period of time spent in employment
and little prospect of a job at the end of the programme. The survey
came across some engineering apprentices completing a full framework on
a six-month programme-led pathway with no period of employment and
little or no work experience.
Some apprenticeships, by no
means all and not in all sectors, are not mentored; many are
insufficiently mentored; some have no employer engagement; and many
have an inadequate workplace element. It is critical that the best of
the apprenticeship system should become typical. Indeed, it should
become the standard for the whole system. When we talk about mentoring,
let us talk about that, and let us once again, as public policy makers,
have an honest debate about it.
Ms
Angela C.
Smith:
The hon. Gentleman just
mentioned the best of the apprenticeship system. Did not his Government
dismantle the best of the apprenticeship system in the early 1980s,
much to the detriment of many young people of the time, including my
younger brother, who never got the opportunity to develop the skills
that he should have developed as an
apprentice?
Mr.
Hayes:
The number of advanced apprenticeship enrolments is
falling, and I have to tell the hon. Lady that it has been falling
since the beginning of the decade. Hon. Members can say what they like
about the hon. Member for Daventry—he has taken a bit of stick
today even in his absence—but I think that he is a splendid
chap. However, we cannot blame him for what has happened in the past 10
years. We need to deal with what has happened recently, what is
happening now and what is likely to happen. I make no apology or
defence for things that happened in ancient history. I
hope that the hon. Lady will make no apology or defence for things that
have gone wrong in recent history. We all have a responsibility as
politicians to be straightforward about these
things.
Phil
Hope:
I have been trying to bite my tongue, but it has
proved completely impossible. The second sentence on the front page of
“Towards a Gold Standard for Craft”, the document
published today by the hon. Gentleman,
says:
“Much
training dubbed as an apprenticeship is not worthy of the
name.”
That is an
absolute disgrace. To respond to his specific point about programme-led
pathways, programme-led apprentices begin their apprenticeship in a
college and they complete those elements of the framework of an
apprenticeship that do not require employer involvement, such as key
skills. But—I want to put this clearly on the record and I
should like the hon. Gentleman to retract what he has been saying
repeatedly in the Chamber and now in Committee—they cannot
complete their apprenticeship until they have demonstrated occupational
competence. This can be achieved only in the workplace. The scenario he
described is simply not
possible.
Finally, it
should be noted that these programme-led apprenticeships are not widely
undertaken. In fact more than 90 per cent. of apprentices are in waged
employment from the very start of their programme. I appreciate that
Conservatives now, unlike when they were in government, have decided to
take a positive interest in apprenticeships. However, it would be
helpful if, instead of running down the apprenticeship system and
over-exaggerating any flaws there may be, the hon. Gentleman could see
his way to celebrating the tripling of apprenticeships in this country
and their 60 per cent completion rate—not the 43 per cent.
completion rate that his document describes—and for once stand
up for apprentices rather than trying to run them
down.
Mr.
Hayes:
Let us be clear about this. I enjoy these
exchanges. I know that the Minister’s intentions are good and
right. I do not deny that he wants this to work. But we need to be
straightforward. The 2007 figures from the Office for National
Statistics make it clear that the number of enrolments for advanced
apprenticeships—level 3 apprenticeships—and the number of
enrolments in level 2 apprenticeships are falling. That is not a cause
for celebration or complacency but for considerable concern.
When I cite the Adult Learning
Inspectorate it is on the basis of its work in 2006. There may have
been a dramatic improvement in the last few months. I bow to the
Minister’s greater—I will not say expertise—but
certainly his capacity to seek advice. I do not have civil servants
sitting behind me, although I have equally good advice from my hon.
Friends, who are immensely well informed about these matters. They do
not suggest to me that there has been that dramatic change in the last
few weeks and months.
The Adult Learning Inspectorate
said that it found that colleges were told to rebrand learners as
apprentices simply because they were working towards qualifications
such as technical certificates that were
also part of the apprenticeship framework. However, there was little
prospect of these learners progressing to full apprenticeships with a
work placement. The rebranding exercise enabled colleges to reach their
targets for apprentice enrolments, but of the 34,000 full-time students
designated as programme-led apprentices, only about 3,000 progressed to
full apprenticeships. Even allowing for that sleight
of hand, the number of enrolments has fallen. Goodness knows what would
have happened if there had not been that rebranding. Yet to hear the
Under-Secretary one would think that there was not a
problem.
The
Chairman:
Order. I remind the Committee that this is about
mentoring, not apprenticeships. Although we have had an enjoyable
debate, we should return to the subject
matter.
Mr.
Hayes:
I offered a short analysis of three dilemmas that
face public policy makers. I tried to do so in a reasonably even-handed
way. The Under-Secretary and I will continue elsewhere to debate the
issues that you have told us we must not debate any further here,
Mr. Atkinson. However in anticipating his response, I hope
that we can have the kind of bipartisan discussions about the way that
public policy is prioritised in the terms that this debate has allowed
us to explore.
I am
grateful for the opportunity to say those few words about my excellent
paper, signed copies of which will available by the end of the
Committee
sitting.
3
pm
Mr.
Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab): If the hon.
Gentleman thinks that those are a few words, I wonder what he thinks a
long speech would be. I am going to deliver a few words slowly. I
congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for City of Durham and for
Sheffield, Hillsborough on the amendments and new clauses, which have
been eloquently and articulately presented to us, in respect of further
education.
I am sorry
that the amendments and new clauses have been met by such quibbling on
the other side of the Committee—the Liberals quibble that we
should do this, but not that; and that we should do it this way, but
not that way—as well as the damned-by-faint-praise arguments
advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The
Deepings. I call him my hon. Friend because he and I are the little
fishermen. We went on a fishing expedition to Spanish ports to find
fish that were landed below minimum landing sizes to damn the Spanish
fishing industry. His Spanish was so bad that, after going directly to
the pilchard landings, which was the only thing that people could
understand with his Spanish, we never found any small fish. It was a
failed attempt to sabotage the common fisheries policy, but it was a
bonding
experience.
The other
side of the Committee is beginning to show signs of life. My hon.
Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings had reduced his
ranks to such a catatonic trance that they were totally
silent, until suddenly this issue came up and I saw eyes open, cash
registers begin to fly and figures appear—this is going to cost
money, “Kill, kill,
kill!”
Jeremy
Wright:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving
way; the Committee always stays awake when he speaks. The question that
I asked was not designed to kill the proposals, but it is fair to ask
what they will
cost.
Mr.
Mitchell:
That is the perennial question; not whether it
is right in principle, or whether it should be done or whether it is
going to make for a better society, but what will it cost? That is
exactly my point.
The
hon. Member for Brent, East has reduced her party by firm discipline
into total silence, although there were signs of life when this issue
came up. The Whip has asked me to be brief, and I always accede to his
requests, so I shall speak for only about a quarter of an
hour.
I want to
commend the principle behind the amendments and new clause. We had many
problems in raising the school leaving age to 16, and we solved them
inadequately. We will have more problems keeping people in education or
training until they are 18, unless we provide the kind of imaginative
framework outlined by my two hon. Friends
today.
We always cater
so well for academics, the middle class and the intelligent in this
country, but they tend to get on, whatever happens, through their own
ability. However, we do not cater for, support and sustain those who
are less adequate intellectually. I understand the desire to get out of
school and into adult life and to be free of school trammels, but such
people are, in effect, throwing away their futures in many cases,
unless they are helped adequately and are sustained for what is a
difficult period. I am sure that parents help, but such people need
some other support mechanism.
The SEN students from
Sheffield, to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,
Hillsborough has referred, will find it difficult. I constantly have to
argue about the ending of courses at the institute in Grimsby because
they do not lead to a diploma and therefore do not qualify for finance
that would provide a specialist for each student. We must have an
imaginative framework to help these people, because a skill, an
education or an involvement is a platform on which to build life. Those
people who are deprived of those things live a second-rate existence
and it is our job, in providing training and higher and further
education to see that people are sustained through the system and
helped to seize opportunities, rather than being cast into the dustbin
of life, as I would put it; that is, being cast out unsupported and
unhelped. It is a little impractical to include such ideas in this
Bill, but I hope that those are the lines that the Government are
thinking along as we go in for this all-important
transition.
Bill
Rammell:
We have genuinely had an exceedingly good debate,
and I would particularly like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member
for City of Durham on introducing the new clauses. When we first saw
the new clauses in the Department, one of my officials, totally
unprompted, said, “This person clearly
knows what they are talking about.” Through their contributions
today, both she and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,
Hillsborough have adequately and emphatically demonstrated
that.
The Government
are sympathetic to the intention behind these new clauses. Indeed, key
elements of the proposals are already being developed as part of
Government policies through, for example, the “Every Child
Matters” and “Youth Matters” strategies. We are
also considering them as part of our own proposals on raising the
participation age. Given the circumstances and the changes that we are
considering, however, now is not the right time to create additional
legislation for young people aged 16 to
18.
Having said that,
let me address each of the proposals in turn. New clause 3 seeks to
place the Secretary of State under a statutory duty to arrange for an
assessment resulting in a personal profile for all students in their
last year of compulsory schooling. Progress files—a similar
concept—were recommended by the Dearing report in 1996, and
indeed they are now modelled as part of best practice across the
system. Most schools already have such measures in place in ways that
reflect the individual circumstances of both the young people concerned
and the school. I think that that is better than the one-size-fits-all
approach to
legislation.
On school
leavers, head teachers are already required under the pupil information
regulations to prepare a report briefly setting out details of progress
and achievements during the final year in curriculum subjects and
activities. Again, I think that that answer responds to the concerns
that have been
expressed.
New
clause 4 goes to the heart of the debate. It stresses the importance of
giving information, advice and guidance, but I do not believe that
further changes in legislation are necessary at this stage. At the
moment, any young person in the 13-to-19 age range can already access
an individual professional for advice and guidance through the
Connexions service. That is not a static situation, and it is evolving.
The Connexions service holds detailed assessment information about the
needs of young people, and Connexions personal advisers are trained
professionals who are responsible for providing information, advice and
guidance to the young people
concerned.
Connexions
and schools agree arrangements for making services available to young
people; in many cases, that involves Connexions having a direct
presence in the school. However, I would be the first to admit that we
need to do more. That is why this summer we are planning to publish a
set of standards for young people’s information, advice and
guidance.
3.9
pm
Sitting
suspended for a Division in the
House.
3.24
pm
On
resuming—
Bill
Rammell:
As I was saying, I would be the first to
acknowledge that we need to do more. We are planning to publish this
summer a set of standards—covering information, advice and
guidance—to ensure that all young people benefit from high
quality advice and
guidance wherever they are, and that the standard of the services with
which they are provided is consistently high across the country,
although they will be differentiated to meet the needs of individuals.
We are keen to spread best practice.
Funding and responsibility for
Connexions is migrating from the Connexions partnerships to local
authorities, a process that we expect to be complete by next April.
That, combined with the introduction of quality standards for
information, advice and guidance, will further strengthen the services
that young people receive.
That was the most important
part of the debate. Let me now respond to some of the specifics,
particularly mentoring. One example of effective practice that we want
to encourage is that of transition mentors. In that model, an adult who
has been supporting a young person in school stays with him across the
transition, continuing to work with him at the start of post-16
learning. A number of areas are already using that approach. The mentor
can be based in a school, college, Connexions service, local business
or community.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough raised some important
issues in terms of transition at the end of key stage 4. One of the
most significant things that we have to consider—as she knows,
we are doing so—is raising the compulsory education and training
age. For far too long, we have allowed 16-year-olds to lose all contact
with the world of education and training. That is crazy. We have to
ensure that we make the right offering available. That is why the
expansion of apprenticeships and the roll-out of diplomas is crucial.
When one considers that education and training until the age of 18 was
first proposed in this country in 1918, and that it appeared in
Butler’s Education Act in 1944, the fact that that is still not
the situation today is lamentable. That is why we are pressing for it
so strongly.
Other
hon. Members have talked about information, advice and guidance. We
need to ensure in that regard that we lay a responsibility on the
further education provider to consult not only existing learners but
potential ones—those who are not yet in the system—to
ensure that college provision, courses and the way in which the system
operates genuinely cater for their needs. The hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings made the point that functional illiteracy and
innumeracy do not amount to people not being able to read, write and
add up. That is important; sometimes such terms are misunderstood. He
also, rightly, called for further improvements in the school system. I,
too, want improvements to continue. However, we need to acknowledge the
progress that has taken place. I have observed it particularly in my
constituency, where 10 years ago 28 per cent. of young people gained
five A to C grades at the age of 16. Today, the figure is 58 per cent.
That represents thousands upon thousands of young people whose life
chances have improved.
The hon. Gentleman also asked
specifically about the Government’s response to Leitch. I assure
him that that response will come very soon. However, we were right to
separate the response to Leitch from the important announcement that I
have been involved with elsewhere in London during the gap between
Committee sittings—along with the Under-Secretary of State for
Education and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby, the
Chancellor, the Secretary of State and Digby Jones. That was the launch
of the skills pledge, the incredibly important process by which
employers up and down the country sign up to commit to educate and
train their employees to level 2. That will be hugely important in
changing the culture of education and training in this country, and I
hope that it will be welcomed across the House.
There has
also been a lot of reference to NEETs. It is important to make it clear
that the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds not in education, employment
or training has remained fairly constant at about 10 per cent. for the
past 10 years. We have made progress: more than three quarters of
16-year-olds are in full-time education or training. That is the
highest proportion ever. However, the situation is not
static—those in the NEETs category include people on gap years,
mothers looking after children and young people between jobs and
courses. We cannot simply say that there is a permanent 10 per cent.
who are excluded from the system. Nevertheless, there are causes for
concern, and we are setting ourselves tough and challenging targets to
reduce the figure further.
Mr.
Hayes:
To save my putting down a series of incisive
written questions, which will cause the Minister no end of difficulties
and his civil servants still more, will he write to the
Committee—or to me directly if he prefers—giving the
breakdown of the number of NEETs? I think that he is right; it is a big
total, and it includes gap-year students and all kinds of other people,
some of whom have perennial difficulties, such as mental health
problems or addictions. A good breakdown of that figure would enable an
intelligent debate. I hope that he takes up the gauntlet that I have
laid and drops me a line about that.
Bill
Rammell:
I will be more than happy to respond in that
vein. This is one of the most complex social and educational policy
challenges that we face. Too often, the tabloid headlines do not do it
justice.
The hon.
Gentleman talked about the Connexions service and the position of the
Conservative party on that issue, which, he will forgive me for saying,
has not always been crystal clear. I remember the debate on widening
participation in education that took place on the Floor of the House a
couple of months ago. His hon. Friend the Member for Henley
(Mr. Johnson), when challenged on the Conservative
party’s policy on Connexions, said that it was to abolish the
service, at which point the hon. Member for Havant (Mr.
Willetts) started pulling at his jacket. Literally five minutes later,
the Hon. Member for Henley was forced to stand up again and say that he
should have said that he would reform the Connexions
service.
3.30
pm
Mr.
Hayes:
Just to reassure the Minister, I conveyed our
policy on the careers service, having cleared it through the shadow
Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant. That is the
Tory party’s policy-making process; it is not made on the hoof
by anybody.
Bill
Rammell:
The implied rebuke for the hon. Member for Henley
was clearly heard all the way across the Chamber.
My hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills eloquently put the
case in response to the points on apprenticeships that were raised.
People can play with figures, but the reality is that today, we have
250,000 young people in apprenticeships, compared with 70,000 10 years
ago. Completion rates have gone from 28 per cent. to 60 per cent., just
behind the performance of Germany, which has always been seen as an
exemplar in that regard. I am the first to admit that we can and should
do more, but given what happened to apprenticeships in the 1980s and
1990s, we should not take lectures from the Conservative party. In
response to documents written by the right hon. Member for Wokingham, I
say that putting skills training in his hands would be like asking King
Herod to manage the Sure Start
programme.
New clause
5 deals with the transition from school to post-16 provision and adult
life of young people with special educational needs and disabilities.
It is an important issue for the Government. The 2005 report of the
Prime Minister’s strategy unit highlighted the difficulties that
young people face in their transition to adult life. It is crucial that
we do more. I am sympathetic to the sentiments behind the new clause,
but arrangements to provide those young people and their parents and
guardians with advice and information to help with the transition are
already in place, along with the statutory transition planning
arrangements, under the Education Act 1996, for young people with
statements of special educational needs. Crucial in that regard is the
annual review meeting, following which a transition plan is drawn up. A
special educational needs code of practice gives the Connexions service
responsibility for overseeing its implementation and liaising with the
young person, their parents or carers and post-16 providers. To my hon.
Friends, I say that we need to keep transition planning for those with
special educational needs under review. I have been discussing the
issues with campaigners recently and I hope that we can continue to
move forward on
them.
New clause 6
seeks to give the Secretary of State the power to
“provide or secure the provision
of services to encourage, enable or assist...the creation of
programmes”
to develop
young people’s skills and qualifications,
“in particular...for the
development of leadership skills and skills for future
employment.”
I agree that
it is important to help young people to develop those skills, which are
key to supporting the transition to adulthood and to success in the
modern workplace. The new clause is not needed, however, because there
are already sufficiently broad statutory powers for the Secretary of
State to arrange that kind of provision. Sections 2 and 3 of the
Learning and Skills Act 2000, for example, give the LSC statutory
functions in relation to securing the provision of facilities for
post-16 education and
training.
The third
sector, to which a number of hon. Members referred, also has a crucial
role to play. Schemes such as the Duke of Edinburgh award, the scouts
and guides and the Prince’s Trust do invaluable
work in that regard. The third sector is also a key partner with local
authorities in delivering youth opportunity and capital
funds. A wide range
of opportunities to develop skills for leadership and work is already
available to young people aged 14 to 19, such as functional skills in
English, maths, information and communication technology, and personal,
learning and thinking skills. This has been an important debate. We
have had a good exchange of views. Many of the changes that have been
called for are already in train through particular strategies that we
are pursuing or ones that are under consideration. I hope that my hon.
Friend will therefore feel able to withdraw her
amendment.
Dr.
Blackman-Woods:
When I tabled these amendments and new
clauses, interesting though they are, I did not expect them to spawn
such a wide-ranging debate. I was pleased by the comments of my hon.
Friends the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough and for Great Grimsby,
emphasising the importance of transition-stage support. I am grateful
to the hon. Member for Brent, East for her concise and focused comments
about the need to have clarity about which type of advice and support
we are talking about.
I want to thank the Minister
for his helpful comments. I note that the Government have done a lot to
support young people in further education and training and to expand
opportunities in post-16 education. I am pleased to hear that guidance
is in the pipeline which might help to put a greater focus on some of
these issues. When his Department looks at extending the compulsory
school leaving age I urge him to ensure that these issues are high up
the agenda and that some opportunity is given to extending the range of
support that is available. I hope that he will keep a review of the
Connexions service in mind and consider whether it is the correct body
to provide all of this support. With that, I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
29 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
