Clause
4
Appropriate
full-time education or
training
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Hayes:
The explanatory notes say that the
clause
“defines
appropriate full-time education or training as efficient full-time
education or training suitable to the person’s age, ability,
aptitude and any learning difficulty they have, provided at a school,
college of further education or
otherwise.”
My hon.
Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton drew this to my
attention. We want the Minister to comment on "otherwise". It is
certainly true that some full-time education and training currently
provided would struggle to meet the definition in those explanatory
notes.
We have talked
about the test for the kind of education that we discussed at length
today—vocational education in particular—as being its
likelihood to provide the trainee with increased job opportunities and
greater employability. That seems to me to be a test on which the whole
Committee can agree. If a qualification does not confer real competence
and does not teach and test practical skills,
it does not meet the definition in the clause. There is evidence that a
substantial number of qualifications do not add to
employability. I
wish at this juncture to highlight the effect that certain training has
on the employability of young women. There is a substantial disparity
between the outcomes for young women and for young men in
pre-apprenticeship training and apprenticeship training itself, as the
Minister will know. Some academic research, including that by Professor
Lorna Unwin, who gave evidence to the Committee, suggests that there
may be no benefit to women who study apprenticeships—level 2
apprenticeships in particular—in sectors such as retail and
hospitality. The sectors in which employability is increased most
significantly tend to be those that disproportionately train young men,
such as engineering and
construction.
While
the economic outcomes of apprenticeships and other training vary
enormously, the gain in wages for men who complete an apprenticeship is
about 7 per cent. for the system overall and about 14 per cent. for
level 3 apprenticeships. Level 3 apprenticeships are equivalent to the
level that all apprenticeships used to be at, which we now call
advanced apprenticeships. For women, the results are much less
impressive. There is a positive return for vocational qualifications at
level 3 and above, but there is no statistically significant return for
many women in completing a level 2 apprenticeship in the service
sectors that I have
described.
The clause
states that the training provided should be
suitable
“to the
person’s age, ability and
aptitude”.
However, and
as we discussed earlier, the lack of adequate advice means that some
young people do not get the kind of match that they need between their
aptitude and ability and the training provided. That matching is very
important. In speaking about apprenticeships earlier, the Minister
talked about the matching service and I welcomed that new direction.
Nevertheless, if we are going to pass the Bill into law with the
stipulation that the training must meet people’s aptitudes and
skills and reflect their abilities, tastes and strengths, it is
important that we be absolutely certain that the training provided will
do the job.
I hope
that the Minister will give us some assurances about the changes he
envisages being made to ensure that the clause’s stipulated
requirements can be met—not just in theory or as an ambition,
but as a reality for young people. In the eyes of many, the Bill puts
the cart before the horse. It establishes compulsory participation
before the system has been reformed sufficiently to provide training of
a quality in line with the requirements in clause 4. I hope that the
arguments that we have put forward throughout the Committee’s
deliberations will go some way toward encouraging the Government to
bring the horse back before the cart and to reform the system properly,
instead of creating extra pressures and demands on the unreformed
system, which will surely lead to disaster.
Mr.
Laws:
It would be timely to finish our debates on the
clause rapidly, but I want to raise a couple of important issues,
including the “or otherwise” element that we discussed
last week. I have two questions for
the Minister, the first of which is about subsection (1) and was touched
on by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings. It
mentions
“full-time
education or training which is suitable for the
person”.
We would like to
know how that will be defined, and what would happen if there were a
course in a local further education college that a young person might
consider suitable and that might meet their needs, but which is either
full or closed because of lack of demand. That happens quite frequently
at FE colleges that try to provide a wide range of
opportunities.
The
main issue that I want to discuss brings us back to our debates last
week on amendment No. 70. I should like to know what other types of
provision there might be for young people with high needs for whom
education or training is not the right setting. In its briefing note to
the Committee on this clause, the National Youth Agency said that it
seeks confirmation that “or otherwise” includes provision
of non-formal education as a recognised form of learning outside the
classroom.
You will
recall, Mr. Bayley, that we had a long debate on this issue
on 31 January, when we debated amendment No. 70. In that debate, I
referred to the suggestion by James Cathcart of the British Youth
Council that the Government should consider a fourth option beyond
those in the Bill, which are education or training, employment and
sanctions. He wanted, and we want, the fourth option to be support that
may help a young person to get back into education or training at some
stage, but which may not narrowly meet the definition of education or
training.
When we
raised that issue on 31 January, the Minister, who was in one of his
flexible and helpful frames of mind, said that I was right to refer
to
“clause 4 and the
breadth of the definition of appropriate full-time provision for which
it provides.”
He went on
to say:
“I have
an open mind when looking at the range of support to be offered. I want
to consider the evidence given by witnesses from Barnardo’s,
during the first evidence session, through to Fairbridge at the end,
from whom we heard about all sorts of good practice. We have also heard
from other organisations such as Rainer, which did not give evidence.
They all have something to offer, which is why I disagree with him when
he describes it as a sledgehammer Bill. It is capable of being much
more forensic.”
That was
very helpful. I now want to find out how forensic the Bill and how
important the word “otherwise” are going to be. I want to
find out whether the Minister will be able to deliver on the commitment
that he made on 31 January, when he said that he
was
“certainly minded to
support the notion that some individuals will need intensive, quite
possibly full-time, support to get them into a position where they can
access and engage with education and training. The important thing is
that that support leads them towards a position where they can
participate fully in what we would normally describe as education and
training.”——[Official Report, Education and
Skills Public Bill Committee, 31 January 2008; c.
297-98.]
That
is very helpful and important because there are young people for whom
going straight into education and training, particularly if they
slipped out of it before the age of 16, might be difficult, yet they
may be precisely those youngsters who do not clear the high hurdles
that our local authority colleagues set as a reasonable excuse not to
be in education and training.
7
pm
I referred in a
previous debate to an individual in my constituency who did not meet
the standards that meant he would be sectionable, or have such mental
health or drug problems that he would automatically be given
flexibility by those who police the system. From what I now know about
him, he would be unable to engage in a formal education and training
process of any sort. Indeed, how quickly would he be able to get on to
the escalator that the Minister envisages? A small number of people
would find it incredibly difficult to engage with education and
training, even within the time that the Minister foresees. He said
further on 31 January how he could
envisage
“intensive
engagement over a few months”.——[Official
Report, Education and Sk
i
lls Public Bill Committee,
31 January 2008; c.
298.]
However, I think that he
said elsewhere that he was not willing for that to go on for a long
time, such as 18
months.
I appreciate
that we are discussing a small group of young people who might need
intensive support for a time before being able to engage with education
and training, but I put it to the Minister that there are such people
and that, if he fails to accommodate their needs in the Bill, a large
number of them will end up having to be dealt with by the panels that
will be considering enforcement. As a result, we could have different
enforcement patterns throughout the
country.
If the
Minister accepts the wide definition of “or otherwise”
that is possible under the clause, I hope that he will follow through
that logic and make sure that funding will also be available to local
authorities for such services. We know that they are often expensive
and that they are not always available in the types of supply that we
would like. For example, I can think of relatively recent examples of
the drug service in Somerset having extremely long waiting lists of
people who needed assistance in getting off their drug
habit.
I
want to know not only that alternative support will be available as a
later pathway into education and training, and that patience will be
shown to such people by allowing them to proceed to education and
training in the right time for them, but that the money we shall spend
on youngsters who follow the conventional route into education and
training will be available in full to support intensive support
activities that could be far more expensive in conventional education,
inner-school, sixth-form or even employment settings. If the Minister
can give us reassurance on those matters today, that would deal with
one of our major practical concerns about the
Bill.
Jim
Knight:
I shall not delay the Committee too long, but
naturally I do not want to short-change it when answering the debate.
Given the importance of the clause, I was surprised that it was the
first clause not to have amendments tabled to it, but perhaps that is
because it is so perfectly
formed.
It is right
for us to expect all 16 and 17-year-olds to be in full-time education
or training unless they are fully occupied elsewhere—working or
volunteering, for example. We want full-time education or training to
be one way of fulfilling the duty to participate, and clause 4 is
essential as it describes what is meant by that. As
for the question of the hon. Member for Yeovil about the use of
“suitable” in the clause, it mirrors section 7 of the
Education Act 1996, on pre-16 learners. There is quite a lot of case
law on what constitutes suitable education. In practice, it will be a
matter for local authorities. Clearly, there is an important role for
impartial advice and guidance, as provided for in part 2 of the Bill,
in negotiating with an individual regarding what is suitable for them.
However, in legal terms we will be drawing on the case law that is
informed particularly by the 1996
Act. The
definitions in the clause are drawn broadly and refer to what is
appropriate for the age and aptitude of a young person, with reference
to any learning difficulties that they may have. Again, that is a wide
definition of “learning difficulties”—a phrase
used quite narrowly in popular parlance—but difficulties in
accessing learning would be another way of interpreting
it.
Underpinning the
clause is a large programme of change that is designed to transform the
opportunities available in education and training in this country, so
that every student studying full time will have a route to success
through hard work and dedication. The aim of the programme is simple:
to ensure that every young person—no matter where they are, what
level they are learning at, or what their preference for a style of
learning is—has the opportunity to follow a route that will suit
them and help them to progress in learning and in
life.
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister has mentioned people with learning
difficulties. He will know that there are statutory protections for
those people, particularly in respect of suitability. The education
that they are offered, if they are statemented young people, must be
suitable for them in terms of their statement. How does the Bill
interface with that existing
statute?
Jim
Knight:
Chapter 2 makes some changes to that statutory
arrangement. Perhaps we will have a chance to debate that when we get
to chapter 2.
The new
foundation learning tier will provide, for the first time, a coherent
body of units of qualifications at level 1 and at entry level, which
often address the needs of those with learning difficulties. That will
ensure that every young person can progress. Learners will, through
clearly defined progression pathways, be able to follow routes that are
carefully designed to support their
progression.
Apprenticeships,
which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings mentioned, are
being expanded. There is a gender gap in respect of apprenticeships and
apprenticeship pay. Such indicators tend to mirror the wider labour
market pattern, but we recognise that such patterns are sometimes more
pronounced in apprenticeships, and addressing that is a priority for
us. That is reflected in the proposals in the apprenticeship review,
which contains a number of practical measures. They include positive
action and targeted funding support for learners making non-traditional
career choices; pilots to drive a critical mass of learners in
non-traditional occupations to encourage more such applications; the
appointing of super-mentors to support atypical apprentices through
their experience; and the full enforcement of the
Learning
And Skills Council contract for all minimum pay requirements, pending a
future investigation of apprenticeship wages by the Low Pay
Commission. There are
also 17 new diplomas in areas ranging from engineering, creative and
media, to science and hair and beauty, which will be available
throughout the country. Those will provide, for the first time in our
national system, qualifications that mix the best of theoretical and
practical learning. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will
be the first to welcome the provision enabling every young person to
have the chance to work toward new functional skills qualifications in
English, maths and
science.
The
opportunities afforded by the clause are wider still. We heard from
many of our witnesses last week how important informal learning and
programmes of re-engagement activities are in bringing some of the most
vulnerable and disengaged young people back to learning in a way that
is relevant to and enjoyable for them. The hon. Member for Yeovil
mentioned that.
The
voluntary sector has many years of experience and great expertise in
delivering such programmes effectively. Among our witnesses were some
of those who are most successful with young people through such
programmes. The clause is drafted to ensure that these highly valuable
programmes and activities will come within the definition of full-time
education and training. The use of “otherwise” refers to
where that happens—whether in school, college, home or anywhere
else—but definitions of full-time education and training will be
interpreted so that we can engage the fourth option that the hon.
Member for Yeovil is so keen
on.
Mr.
Laws:
This is an important point and I want to be
clear about what the Minister is saying. One of the options offered to
these young people would look very different from education and
training as most people understand it; from the Minister’s
description, it seems that it might not contain a clear education and
training
component.
Jim
Knight:
For the sake of clarity, a fourth option might be
full-time support. That option would be fine, but it should be provided
en route to education or training; it should not be seen as a separate
route altogether with regard to its outcome. That is why the hon.
Gentleman referred earlier to the comments that I made on 31 January. I
do not have much to add to those comments at this stage, except to say
that I fully see that someone who suffers from addiction-related
problems, for example, should address those problems before they can
engage with education or training. The problems should be addressed
with a view, implicit in the whole treatment, that they should be going
on to education or training as soon as they are ready to do
so.
As part of our
drive to implement the raising of the participation age, we want to
build further on such informal training programmes. In the
children’s plan, we announced that we would pilot a new return
to learning programme. That programme aims to ensure that the system is
better able to take advantage of the excellent work of informal
learning programmes and activities in re-engaging young
people.
The programme will ensure that
as young people complete such informal programmes, they are supported
in continuing learning, and it will gradually bring them back into
formal learning through personalised progression routes. The programme
will support organisations working to re-engage young people and will
ensure that every young person can find a well-defined route into more
formal learning at an appropriate level for them. It will also ensure
that the personalised support that many young people experience on
informal programmes can continue for
longer.
Clause 4
ensures that those routes and the informal opportunities about which we
heard from some of our witnesses are included as forms of
participation. The Bill as a whole galvanises the system to ensure that
such provision will be available wherever it is necessary to engage a
young person. It is also worth noting that the breadth of the clause
allows young people to attend independent schools—that will
please the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton—or to
be educated at home if that is what they
want.
Question put
and agreed to.
Clause
4
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
