![]() House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, James Davies,
Committee Clerks attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 17 March 2009(Afternoon)[Mr. Christopher Chope in the Chair]Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning BillClause 46Work
experience for persons over compulsory school
age 4
pm Question
(this day) again proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part
of the
Bill. Mr.
Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con): As I was
saying before lunch, clause 46 is a classic example of the top-down
prescription so loathed by those who value their professional autonomy.
The clause requires local authorities to encourage the participation in
work experience of those still in education between the ages of 18 and
19. If
I understand the clause correctly, it will force sixth formers studying
A-levels to take time out from their studies and sporting or voluntary
community activities to spend time doing work experience. I should have
thought that whether that is beneficial would be a matter for the
students teacher and for the student to assess. Although the
wording is encourage participation, such a clause will
come to be seen by schools as compulsory because they will consider
what Ofsteds response would be to compliance with the
clause. Such
an experience might be valuable for many 16 to 19-year-old students.
However, surely that should be left to the discretion and judgment of
professionals, rather than imposed by the diktat of this small group of
Ministers. It is a one-size-fits-all approach. Is this what the
Government mean by personalised learning? The clause does not seem to
be very
personalised.
The
clause will give local authorities the power to secure the provision of
work experience for young learners over compulsory school leaving age.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton should read
line
15: A
local education authority in England may secure the provision of work
experience. It
does not say must, there is no prescription, they are
not forced to do it; they may do it. The clause goes on to say that a
local authority in England must encourage participation
and encourage employers. Again, there is no
prescription. There
is evidence that work experience provides learners with the opportunity
to develop the employability skills that employers want. It helps them
to get into and
remain in employment and to progress in their working lives. Hence, we
want local authorities to encourage participation. I was pleased to
launch the CBIs 2007 report Time well spent
with Richard Lambert. More than two thirds of 14 to 16-year-old
respondents agreed or strongly agreed that work experience had helped
them to understand how learning at school is important in getting a job
and 80 per cent. agreed that it had given them a good insight into the
world of
work. Almost
all young people participate in work experience in the final two years
of compulsory education. The clause will help to ensure that they can
continue to do so beyond that stage of their education and obtain
further benefits, but it does not require them to do
so.
Mr.
Gibb: Proposed new section 560A(2) says that a local
authority must. That is the prescription that I am
talking
about.
Jim
Knight: I encourage the Committee to support the clause
because it says simply that local authorities must encourage
participation and encourage employers. That is an entirely progressive
thing to
do. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
46, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 47Provision
of education for persons subject to youth
detention Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I beg
to move amendment 127, in clause 47,page 29,
line 32, leave out A local education
authority and insert
The Young
Peoples Learning
Agency.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 378, in clause 47, page 29, line 32, leave out
education. Amendment
128, in
clause 47, page 30, line 2, leave
out a local education authority and insert
the Young
Peoples Learning
Agency. Amendment
212, in
clause 47, page 30, line 5, after
learning, insert or
language. Amendment
129, in clause 47,
page 30, line 7, leave out a local
education authority and insert
the Young
Peoples Learning
Agency. Amendment
130, in
clause 47, page 30, line 9, leave
out a local education authority and insert
the Young
Peoples Learning
Agency. Amendment
131, in
clause 47, page 30, line 11, leave
out a local education authority in and insert
the Young
Peoples Learning
Agency. Amendment
132, in
clause 49, page 31, line 11, leave
out home authority and insert Young
Peoples Learning
Agency. Amendment
232, in
clause 49, page 31, line 14, at
end insert (2A) In
carrying out the duty imposed by subsection (2) the home authority must
have regard to any special educational needs or learning difficulties
(within the meaning of section 15ZA(7) and (8)) the persons
may
have.. Amendment
133, in
clause 49, page 31, line 15, leave
out subsection (3).
Amendment 379,
in
clause 49, page 31, line 16, leave
out
education. Amendment
134, in
clause 49, page 31, line 27, leave
out a local authority and insert
the Young
Peoples Learning
Agency.
Mr.
Hayes: It is good to be back after a splendid lunch. I had
a glass of champagne. I do not know what you had, Mr. Chope,
but I am sure that the Minister is equally fortified and ready for this
afternoon. Having
accused the Minister for Schools and Learners of being limacine in
respect of the progress towards self-regulation in further education, I
fear I will now be rather slow myself. We are about to deal with a
large group of amendments on an important clause, and there is much to
be said in the interests of improving the legislation and representing
the interests of learners and
others. Clause
47 inserts new section 18A into the Education Act 1996. The new section
will affect the local education authorities for England and Wales in
respect of the relevant use of accommodation in their area. Hosting
authorities will be required to secure that
enough suitable
education and training is provided to meet the reasonable
needs of
children and young people in the youth justice system who are held in
those
establishments. Amendments
127 to 129 and 132 to 134 probe the reason for provision through local
authorities in new section 18A, questioning why the responsibility
cannot be transferred to the Young Peoples Learning Agency. A
theme emerged before lunch, before the hon. Member for Yeovil joined
us, and I feel that it is necessary to acquaint him with that theme so
that he can better do his job here. In essence the theme was about the
Opposition challenging the new involvement of local education
authorities through this legislation and Government resolutely
defending that backwards
step. In
a sense, the group of amendments continues that theme. As I have
arguedI thought pretty persuasively but clearly I did not
persuade Ministers earlierit seems that by involving more
agencies in the management and funding of skills and training we are
likely to end up with a system that is less cost-effective, more
insensitive, less responsive to need, more bureaucratic and more
opaque. Once again in this part of the Bill, we see that opacity in a
new role for LEAs in dealing with youth detention, which is currently
the responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council. We believe that
it would cause the least disruption and have maximum effect if those
young people who are already disengaged are not put through the
upheaval of being passed from and between different local education
authorities. Bear
in mind that many of the young people will not have had a happy
experience of education earlier in their lives. Often they have been
failed by the system the first time round and deserve better. The Young
Peoples Learning Agency would be a better place to deal with
young offenders serving their sentence outside their own local
authority area.
Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I must confess
that I had a similar reaction when I first thought about the clause,
but does the hon. Gentleman
agree that a policy that addresses all the issues of a young
offenderhousing and education, for exampleis probably
best brought together at local level and in conjunction with the
childrens trust? If we parcel it off to the YPLA, I am a little
concerned that we will not get the other connections
right.
Mr.
Hayes: That is a good argument. There is indeed a case for
a holistic approach. The difficulties are that some of the matters
concerning young people will not be dealt with by local authorities
anyway, if there are health issues, for example, associated with those
young peoples welfare and circumstances. Clearly there will be
issues involving matters of justice, and they might face other
challenges that are outside the competence of local authorities. It is
clear that the local authorities will have to interface with a wide
variety of agencies in the same way that the Young Peoples
Learning Agency would if our amendment were
passed. The
real problem is that people may be moving between institutions. Indeed,
they may be well outside their own local authority area. There is no
guarantee that they will be in custody in the place where their family
is based, where they have a history and where information about them is
easily accessed. It would be better for the sake of clarity and lack of
complexity and possible bureaucracy to channel the work through one
agency rather than a multiplicity of local
authorities. While
we welcome a statutory responsibility for the education of those in
detentionone of the points made by the hon. Ladythere
is a big gap in how we deal with the education and training of people
who are detained in that way, particularly so for young people. Indeed,
much of the evidence from independent reports as well as from the
Governments own analysis suggests that there is a long way to
go to get the education and training of offenders right. We therefore
welcome a new focus on the
subject. It
seems that the provisions under proposed subsections (1)(a)
and (1)(b) are likely to lead to some confusion and to a lack of a
joined-up approach to the provision to which the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Poole referred and which Opposition Members want.
We feel in particular that proposed subsection (1)(b)(ii)
and proposed subsection (4) might cause problems due to the transitory
nature of the detention of many of the young people concerned. In
essence, a young person might be the responsibility of one LEA at home,
but another in youth
detention. With
a movement between LEAs, those in detention could find themselves
passed from pillar to post and subject to the arguments of different
funding authorities. The impact of that would be felt most negatively
in respect of the progression of the young people. Let me support that
argument by referring to what happens in much prison education at the
moment. The Minister might want to comment on what is a significant
problem that is founded on the lack of consistency of provision for
those in custody. People often start one course with one tutor, but are
then moved to a different institution and, unable to complete the
course, the relationship formed between teacher and learner is broken.
There is a lack of follow-through of what people have started so they
have to begin all over again. Thus there is a real lack of consistency
in how we make opportunities available to those in custody, yet we know
that recidivism is linked closely to a lack of skills and education. In
a
sense, the Bill is part of a bigger issue: how we train and educate
those in custody and our mission, which the Government probably share,
of improving that provision, particularly in respect of greater
consistency. The
movement to LEAs should in the eyes of the Government create the
greater focus that we seek, but that can work only if LEAs are ready
and quick to do the job and there are doubts about that. It is an
important new responsibility for local education authorities and we
want firm assurances that they are indeed tooled up in resources and
skills. Thus far, not much evidence has been brought to that effect. As
the Special Educational Consortium argues, the drafting of the clauses
leaves some questions unanswered regarding the provision for people
with special educational needs who are detained, the prevalence of
which is sadly
significant. Reports
from the Youth Justice Board found that about 150,000 children and
young people under the age of 18 enter the youth justice system each
year, of which about 70,000 are of compulsory school age. It has been
found that 33 per cent. need help with reading and writing and 15 per
cent. have SEN statements compared with about 3 per cent. of the
general population. Some 83 per cent. of boys in custody have been
excluded from school and 41 per cent. of boys and girls in custody were
aged 14 or younger when they were last in
school. 4.15
pm Those
young people face multifaceted problems and need to be provided with
opportunities through a more consistent, more coherent package of
measures to deal with both their core skills and their aspirations to
achieve more. I think that Members across the Committee will understand
that unless we do that, we are likely to exacerbate a cycle of
disengagement. It is vital to get the Bill
right. The
interim report of the Bercow review of services for those with speech,
language and communication needs indicates that at least 60 per cent.
of the 11,000 people passing through young offender institutions each
year have difficulties with speech, language and communication. A
recent Department of Health report highlighted that a quarter of
children in contact with youth justice have learning disabilities.
Offenders fall into three main categories: those with learning
disabilities, the wider group with learning difficulties, and the
largest group with some kind of borderline problem. There are few young
people in those circumstances who do not require an entirely fresh
approach to education and training. As I said earlier, they have often
failed the first time
around. There
are three other worries, however, about the clauses, which have been
highlighted by the Prisoners Education Trust and the Standing
Committee for Youth Justice. First, among all the other funding
priorities that LEAs have, how will the provision for those in
detention centres be ensured? How will we build on the support for
those young people? What priority are LEAs likely to give them? I was a
member of a local authority. You, Mr. Chope, served in a
distinguished fashion in such a capacity and other members of the
Committee may have done so too. How will a local authority respond to
demands on its resources from that quarter, when many of the young
people concerned
will not necessarily be from its localitymerely residing there
temporarilyand when there are other demands on resources from
schools and other places that are strongly supported by the local
community? We are handing local education authorities a poisoned
chalice, and it would be much better for an agency that did not face
those pressures to have responsibility for this important area. These
young people need second chances to put things right, not inadequate
provision and closed
doors. Secondly,
have the Government considered whether some LEAs will be
disproportionately burdened by youth detention centres in their area?
Clearly, those that have many young people in custody in their locality
will bear a much greater responsibilityin quantitative
termsthan those that do not. How will the Government deal with
that, in terms of funding, resources, support and so on, and how
dynamic is that support likely to be? These are rapidly changing
circumstances. Fortunately, many people who pass through youth custody
are there relatively briefly. I guess that is the nature of youth
custody. How responsive will the system be to change? Will the funding
follow the learner or will it have to come from the same budget as
funding for all other provision? Will the funding be ring-fenced? If
so, how, and how will that work in the context of local authority
finance, which is difficult to understand? I remember that when I was a
member of Nottinghamshire county council I proposed or seconded
amendments to the budget. For a fleeting period I understood local
government finance but then the moment passed and I forgot about it. My
current understanding of it is about as great as that of most Members
of Parliament and most members of local authorities, but the Minister
will have a clearer, more comprehensive and more incisive view about
those things and we look forward to benefiting from her knowledge and
insight. Thirdly,
what provision will there be for information sharing and joint
curriculum development, not just across local authorities
butfurther to the intervention from the hon. Member for
Mid-Dorset and North Pooleacross a variety of agencies? As I
said, although some of the responsibilities of local government are
such that they would be able to provide a semi-holistic
serviceit would be honed in some regardthere is no
guarantee that local authorities would be good at accessing information
from other agencies or relevant sources, or indeed passing that
information on. It is not just about gathering information; it is about
how that information is stored, handled and how it would be passed on
as a legacy of knowledge to the people who might be dealing with that
young person as they move through the system. What use is it to the
young person concerned if they move from one LEA to another and that
second authority has little or no information about them and so
attempts to approach them in a different way, offering them a different
educational diet unaware of their progression? That is not fanciful,
given what I said earlier about the record on education, skills and
training of offenders generally, which is at bestat my most
generouspatchy. That was raised, as the Minister will know, by
the Standing Committee on Youth Justice as a distinct worry and should
be addressed to minimise the disruption to those learners who have
often already suffered so much disruption in their
lives.
Clause 92
makes provision for the CEO of the SFA to secure education for those
youth offender institutions accommodating 18 to 20-year-olds, raising
the question
as to why 16 to 18-year-olds cannot be dealt with on a national basis,
which may eliminate the vagaries of geographical caprice in their
treatment.
Amendment 99
is reasonably self-explanatory in that it aims to ensure that learners
in youth detention receive a minimum of 30 hours per week of education
or training. This ensures that learners have a maximum chance while in
detention to engage in education and successfully as a result gain
skills which enable them to re-engage in employment
and
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 18 March 2009 |