Examination of Witnesses (Questions 160-174)
MS SALLY
HUNT, MR
PATRICK WINTOUR
AND MS
BHARTI PATEL
1 APRIL 2008
Q160 John Cummings: How do you measure
the success of the enterprise? What tables do you keep? At any
one time can you see how many have taken advantage and have succeeded
in learning the language proficiently enough to make themselves
understood and perhaps to write?
Ms Patel: I did qualify my statement
by saying I was speaking anecdotally.
John Cummings: Do you have any figures
to prove the success or otherwise of the scheme? Who audits the
scheme?
Chair: The issue is that it is obviously
easy to measure how many people learn English; that is dead simple.
That is not the question. The question is: how valuable is the
investment of free English language provision in helping those
individuals to integrate into British society? It is a different
issue completely, not whether they have learned English.
John Cummings: That is why I was quite
specific. I am wondering about the success for people attending
this particular course and how proficient they become at the end
of the exercise.
Chair: We can provide that data. The
key question is how it contributes to integration.
John Cummings: No, it is the key question
for me.
Q161 Chair: Can we provide the answer
to Mr Cummings question and then can we do the integration one?
Ms Hunt: I am not clear whether
I will give you a satisfactory answer. Where we were trying to
explain the difficulty we all have is that the level and the detail
you are asking for simply is not there in the way that we want.
If you are looking at what is happening in level one, level two
and level three, that will change depending on the environment
you are in and the people that we are asking about. One of the
key points that we within UCU are stressing is that we need to
have disaggregated data so you can get the very answer you want.
We all know—and this is worth saying simply to state the
obvious—that ESOL courses are possibly the most important
thing that can happen to an individual in terms of their ability
to integrate within a community. Learning a language is the most
important part of integration in order that you can then contribute
to the civic society, the economy and all other aspects. What
we know, following the changes in funding, is that enrolments
across the piece were affected. What we know specifically is that
learners who need beginner level courses and entry level courses,
the most vulnerable in effect, were the ones who stopped coming
in in the levels of numbers that they were. The difficulty is,
without having that data available in a way we can really break
down, we think it is not possible for huge judgments to be made
in terms of how we progress matters. If we know that our tutors,
who are at the coalface, who are the people who are very experienced
in being able to judge the students who normally try to come in
the doors, are telling us that it has shifted and immediately
so, we know that there is an issue there in terms of the most
vulnerable now not having the access to that support that was
there.
Q162 John Cummings: So you do not
have the necessary data to answer the question I have just asked.
Ms Hunt: I do not think that at
the moment you can have detailed data and that is something you
should be asking for very definitely because it is something we
all need to have if we are to make that judgment.
Q163 Chair: May I just clarify something
because the cost issue is very important here? When you equate
level one and the one below with vulnerable, it would be the case,
would it not that, for example, an A8 migrant coming over here
to work might be going in for those entry level courses, just
as a refugee or an asylum seeker?
Ms Hunt: It could be. Again, it
is about being very careful about not making a generic statement
about that and you are asking the right question. One of the difficulties
that we think needs to be thought about is that whilst you need
to have some kind of national framework in terms of Government
support and you need to have that integrated into local government
planning and therefore there has to be flexibility, we know that,
for example, if you are looking at rural communities having a
lot of immigration coming in which is based on farming, based
on low-paid labour frankly, based on small employers in terms
of numbers, the issues there in terms of support and how that
is done may be very different to those who are in settled communities
in urban areas. Without the detail it is hard for anyone to give
you a snap judgment as to whether this policy will work or that
will not. There needs to be some level of breakdown there and
level of recognition of flexibility.
John Cummings: Who is going to collect
the detail?
Chair: The Government.
Q164 John Cummings: Is anyone collecting
the detail?
Ms Hunt: The Learning and Skills
Council (LSC) have an analysis. What we are suggesting is that
something needs to be looked at in greater detail.
Q165 Anne Main: One of the interesting
things which came out of the Lords' report in terms of economic
environment was that the biggest winners are immigrants and their
employers in the UK. In which case, who should provide—or
should anyone provide or be responsible for—the cost of
the English-language classes? Should it be the Government? Should
it be employers, if they are the ones who seem to be benefiting,
or should it be the individuals? Do you have a view on that?
Mr Wintour: There is a very strong
case in the sense of the labour market being a very important
driver around migration, that employers should bear a substantial
responsibility not only for the teaching of English-language skills
but also more broadly for the whole integration of employees into
their local communities.
Q166 Anne Main: You are saying they
should bear it. Should bear what? The cost of making sure their
employees learn English and register on an ESOL course?
Mr Wintour: A colleague who sits
on the ABNI Board, Sir Gulam Noon, is such an example. His business
is a very significant employer of people whose first language
is not English and he does provide exactly those sorts of classes
for his own workforce and there are other examples of employers
who do just that.
Q167 John Cummings: It is not across
the piece, is it? Are you saying that there should be some statutory
obligation on employers of economic migrants?
Mr Wintour: Possibly. I remember
as a young man being responsible for a business in the days when
there was a levy under the old Industrial Training Board and all
I can tell you from my own experience is that employers are extremely
adept at being able to find their way round all sorts of statutory
requirements in terms of the provision of training. It is important
that this is looked at in a much broader context of what the Government
are doing in order to engage with employers around skills and
training rather than perhaps to target some specific provision
around English language.
Q168 Anne Main: To stop them sidestepping
that then, should any new points-based immigration system include
English-language provision as a criterion for the employer should
they wish to sponsor an overseas worker?
Mr Wintour: That would perhaps
be effective for those wanting to get A-star rating under the
new proposals under this new points system; that, along with various
other requirements on employers to undertake responsibility for
the integration of migrant workers.
Q169 Anne Main: So you have sort
of moved to a stronger position than you probably were a few sentences
ago.
Mr Wintour: I have to say that
whilst I have experience of the old Industrial Training Boards,
I have not had experience as an employer of working under that
sort of regime operated by the Home Office. It is early days.
It will be extremely interesting to see.
Q170 Anne Main: Local authorities
do have to prioritise and we understand there are priorities for
asylum seekers and so on and quite rightly so. However, for the
people who are in economic activity and appear to be benefiting
themselves and their employer I should like to press you to say
whether or not you believe there should be a strong case for the
employer to do far more to have community cohesion by somehow
being actively involved in having to provide funding or guaranteeing
sponsoring and funding at the same time.
Mr Wintour: I would be very interested
to know what evidence you took from employers on your visits,
for example in Peterborough, which has clearly had a tremendous
influx of migrants in terms of its geographical location, in terms
of all the industries. I would be very interested to know what
local employers and people did tell you about what they are currently
providing, whether for example they have a new link centre.
Q171 Anne Main: Actually one of them
in Peterborough said to us that they recognised that quite often,
apart from the odd health and safety phrase, many of their employees
did not need to have English within the workforce and in fact
when they got English they often migrated off to better jobs.
That was one of the things they told us. I remember hearing about
a fork-lift truck company.
Mr Wintour: I remember an employer
being asked why they were not investing more in training making
precisely that point: that if they invested in training their
workforce they very often went off to work for somebody else,
which suggests that if you want to leave your employees sufficiently
incompetent then they will remain with you. It does seem to me
a weak argument which I have never found a very attractive one.
We are looking at small- and medium-sized employers who very often
are working in very low margin industries so, for example, those
employers who come within the remit of the new gangmaster licensing
authority do not have a lot of margin in terms of their investment
and that is one of the difficulties. The sort of businesses which
would support government efforts in terms of upskilling the workforce
by and large are not the sort of employers who directly employ
migrants. Take big supermarkets for example, they are crucially
dependent on migrants in their supply chain though they may themselves
not see themselves as significant employers of migrant labour.
In those areas around agriculture, food, packing, processing,
care industry, construction industry, very often you are dealing
with employers who do not have a terrific track record in terms
of their commitment to skill development and would not see this
as a primary responsibility and would much prefer to see it parked
at the doorstep of Government.
Ms Patel: Pushing on the door
of voluntary initiatives as well. Patrick helped to broker something
called the employers pledge a few years ago and it would be worth
seeing how much further it can be taken by employers to implement
some of the objectives of that, looking at other possible incentives
around. One idea which has come out is the possibility of creating
a tax incentive for employers to provide language training and
so on. It is worth seeing what further efforts can be made to
make employers do some of this voluntarily.
Ms Hunt: Yet, there is a very
strong case for compulsion because the evidence about voluntary
contributions shows that it does not work. If we are looking at
discussions taking place and potentially coming forward through
the legislation around agency workers, we ought to look at how
that is actually going to provide some kind of framework that
says that if agencies are bringing in migrant workers, then they
have to have some kind of responsibility for what happens to them
when they are here. We have to look at how local government is
also asked to be accountable in terms of measures they have and
language should be one of those and there has to be an element
of how they are funding that. Equally, it is not reasonable, given
that we all say that this is a priority in terms of government
policy and social inclusion, for it simply to be the DIUS which
funds it. We ought to be looking at much broader government funding
for that in the discussion between ministries as to who has to
take responsibility for that. It is not unfair to say that the
business case is often put in such a way that we all say that
it is in our interests for there to be better language. Actually
it is in the interests of many businesses not to comply with the
legal minimums which are there in terms of employment rights and
language is one of the major tools for a worker to be able to
express themselves and actually break out of that. It is something
which we have to look at seriously and accept that compulsion
is something which is about our own responsibility to individuals
coming into the country.
Q172 Jim Dobbin: At some stage some
migrants will want to attain British citizenship and we see ceremonies
sprouting up across the country and in town halls around the country.
Of course we are talking about language and the importance of
learning the English language, but there is inaccessibility to
courses across the country. To what extent is that a barrier to
migrants achieving citizenship?
Ms Hunt: It is a huge barrier.
It varies literally from community to community and it varies
according to locality. It can also vary if someone is within a
settled community or someone who has come into a particular location
and they want to move to another location because they can start
a course in one area which might not be available elsewhere. It
again goes back to whether we are absolutely committed to what
has been said. If this citizenship involves language, if we are
saying that social inclusion has to have at its heart someone's
ability to speak and communicate, then what we have to accept
is that the provision of ESOL is not something which can simply
be about particular funding streams at a national level. It has
to be funding streams which take account of local authorities'
and FE colleges' ability to focus on the communities they have
and respond in that way. It has to be something that accepts that
both those who work and those who do not work have different needs
and have different ways of accessing that kind of language. A
good example is that there are many people, women in particular,
who now are not able to access courses in the most basic way.
That is not about them coming into the community as strangers;
that is about people who are often coming in to families who are
already settled, but because they are women, they are the spouse,
they do not get free provision for a whole year. It can be that
they are part of a family or the child of that family but because
they are over 16 it is three years before they get free provision.
We are actually setting up barriers in all sorts of different
ways and between people within the same community in a way which
makes no sense to me if what we are saying is that language, the
ability to speak, the ability to commit, is something we believe
is actually at the heart of bringing people together. It makes
no sense at the moment.
Q173 Jim Dobbin: That brings us on
to cost of learning English. Lord Goldsmith made a suggestion
that loans should be provided. Do you agree with that?
Ms Hunt: No. I did read that and
thought very hard about it because I can understand that if we
have a limit we have to find different ways of doing it. However,
there is something very basic here which is that if you are the
least able to provide for your own family financially and if you
are not able to earn the kind of income which makes you feel secure
in terms of being able to provide for your family, I am not quite
clear why us suggesting you take out a loan, that is get further
into debt, is going to encourage those people anyway and I certainly
do not think it is something the state should encourage those
people into. If you are already poor, you are already prevented
in so many ways from accessing society and accessing support and
opportunities. Saying that you have to go into debt in order to
try that when you are already not able and not confident is something
I think we should be very, very careful of. The simple answer
is no. Either we believe that we want to have community and we
want to have the ability to communicate and we accept that is
something we all benefit from collectively as a society or we
do not. If we believe that, we should support it.
Mr Wintour: There is evidence
that for those who are progressing on the journey to citizenship—the
evidence that we look at is in terms of the test that people take—the
pass rates are very significant. The Bangladeshi community, for
example, is under 50 per cent, whereas, perhaps not surprisingly
in terms of language, the Australians are 97 per cent. There are
significant variations and a lot of the evidence therefore about
the language needs of different groups comes through quite strongly
in the figures we look at in terms of the results from the UK
test. I should add, in the context of our discussions about ESOL,
that it is very important to remember that we are not just talking
about language but we are talking about teaching about life in
the UK in its broadest sense. It is very much in our interest
to make sure that the contents of this book, which is about life
in the UK in its broadest sense, are well understood. Coming back
to our discussion about the role of employers, it is important
that they take that on as well and not simply think in terms of
the technical language that people need in order to operate in
the workplace.
Q174 Jim Dobbin: A general question
about your working relationship with the Department for Communities
and Local Government. Can you tell us a bit about your relationship
and some examples of how you are working with the Department?
Mr Wintour: My colleague and I
had a meeting very recently with the new head of this new Migration
Directorate in CLG to find out more about what that was focusing
on. We were pleased to hear that was drawing together the different
strands within communities and local government, because that
is all part of the difficulty of working across different government
departments, the Home Office, DIUS, CLG. We were pleased to see
that CLG were at least drawing together the threads in that Department.
My question to him was to see where there were examples that CLG
was able to find of local communities doing this well. Our interest
in this, in terms of the tripod, would be the teaching and therefore
the role of the FE colleges and the other community groups, the
test centre and also the town hall in terms of the celebration
when citizens finally go through at the end of the exam. We would
like to see much stronger links at the local level and therefore
in the case of Darra Singh and the London Borough of Ealing we
would like to see the local authority taking much more of a lead
in terms of drawing all this together around the delivery of cohesion
and citizenship.
Chair: It might be made easier when the
LSC role stops. May I thank you very much for the evidence you
have given us.
| 
