The
Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady can make a speech on this
group of amendments even when the Minister has sat
down.
Jim
Knight: If my hon. Friend is going to make a speech, I
look forward to it, and perhaps it would be best to respond to it when
she has done so, rather than anticipating
it.
Mary
Creagh: I did not intend to make a speech, but I know from
my visits to New Hall prison that it is unrealistic to expect young
women who, as hon. Members have said, come from disrupted and
disadvantaged backgrounds, and who may not have been at school for one
or two years, to go into a GCSE-level curriculum, whether they are 14,
16, 17 or 18, on day one in prison. Prison staff work incredibly hard
with local education authorities and agencies to provide high-quality
training.
I have been a
trustee of Rathbone for seven years. The life skills training that it
and other excellent training organisations do, in giving young people a
different way of thinking about themselves, is more important than
taking them from a learning institution and putting them in a massive,
frightening institution—there is a very high suicide rate among
young women and other young offenders—and saying, “This
is just like being at school except prison bars surround
you.”
We need to
start working on the inside—I may not be expressing this very
well—and on how people feel about and value themselves. We are
talking about people who have been told throughout their lives that
they are failures, and being in a young offenders institution is a
further confirmation of that. Additionally, however, we then start them
on a GCSE curriculum that says, “By the way, you’re going
to fail again.” I am very keen on the work that Rathbone has
done on entry to employment and life skills courses in prison. Will the
Minister and colleagues talk about
that? 9.15
am
Mr.
Hayes: I reassure the hon. Lady that she is making her
case extremely well. Transparent passion is always better than
eloquence. I have also met and discussed those issues with officials of
Rathbone. She is right that many of the people we are talking about
need bite-sized, accessible education and training because they have
been failed by the system the first time around. It would be quite
wrong to shoe-horn them into a system that was inappropriate for
them. In
my brief contribution, I was saying that there should be an opportunity
to provide the kind of training that is responsive to people’s
needs and deals with them as people. Rather than take a rigid approach,
we need to take a lateral and creative approach to bring those people
back into
engagement.
Mary
Creagh: I hope that I can be more eloquent as well as
passionate. Rathbone has been doing prison work only since about
2003-04, but it has developed that. Nacro has also been involved in
some excellent work.
The
Chairman: Order. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon.
Lady, but the amendment is quite narrow and talks about the guidance
that will be issued by the YPLA. This is not a Second Reading-style
debate on the whole subject matter. I would be grateful if she confined
her remarks to the amendment.
Mary
Creagh: The guidance could look at creating bespoke,
individual learning plans for learners as they come into prison. It
could set a reasonable set of objectives for the learner to achieve,
based on baseline measurements when they enter prison and the length of
their tariff. They could then be measured when they leave prison. That
is how to measure achievement and distance travelled, not by imposing a
national curriculum or core skills framework that treats everybody the
same and neglects the fact that young people may not be able to read,
write or speak properly, or dress or look after themselves, when they
arrive in
prison.
Jim
Knight: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points.
I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Children, Schools and
Families will have been listening carefully. She will take the policy
forward and implement the measures in the Bill, and oversee the
formulation of the guidance that we have been
discussing. As
I said, the important thing that we are trying to achieve is a read
across between the education that is available to young people outside
custody and young people inside custody. An important aspect of that is
the development of the foundation learning tier. One of the foundation
learning tier pathways is to help young people who might otherwise
struggle in independent living to develop some of the life skills about
which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield spoke so eloquently.
Rathbone, Fairbridge and many others are experts at developing such
skills. I
hope that with my reassurances, the Committee will agree to the
Government
amendments. Amendment
316 agreed
to. Amendment
made: 317, in
clause 69, page 43, line 31, leave
out ‘functions’ and insert
‘duties’.—(Jim
Knight.) This amendment
is consequent on amendment
316.
Clause
70Intervention
powers: policy
statement Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Hayes: Once again, there are important questions to ask.
The Young People’s Learning Agency will be required to prepare
and consult on a policy statement which sets out the detail of its
policy on its powers of intervention—the triggers for, and the
nature of, such interventions. Having considered representations made
during consultation, the YPLA must send a copy of the final policy
statement for approval by the Secretary of State and then publish the
approved statement. The YPLA must then have regard to the latest
published statement when exercising its powers to intervene. Subsection
(6) sets out the instances in which the YPLA has powers of
intervention, which are set out in clause 64.
How long will
it take for intervention to move from triggers, through consultation,
to a final policy statement? If we are agreed on giving the YPLA powers
of intervention, surely there is a premium on time to ensure that
failing schools and educational institutions do not carry on failing
their students. How in depth is the consultation likely to be? Who will
be consulted and in what way? It is clear that the triggers for a
failing school or institution are likely to be exceedingly complex,
necessitating in-depth consultation.
What methods
will the YPLA use to discern triggers? Does the Minister have specific
agencies in mind? If an LEA that commissions education is failing and
receives funding from the YPLA, there may be an incentive for it not to
alert the YPLA to problems. After all, what authority would want to
expose its own faults and weaknesses? I hope that the Minister will
make clearer the purpose and practice of the clause by answering those
few brief and, I hope, pertinent questions,
Jim
Knight: Naturally, I am grateful for the opportunity to
provide some of that clarity. The clause requires the YPLA to prepare
and consult on a policy statement that sets out the detail of its
policy on its powers of intervention. The YPLA has powers of
intervention under clause 64, which we discussed on Tuesday. It may
give directions to a local authority where it is satisfied that the
authority is failing or is likely to fail to perform its duty under
proposed new section 15ZA(1) of the Education Act 1996, as set out in
clause
56. In
proposed new section 56H of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992,
which is inserted by schedule 8, there is power for the YPLA to
intervene in a sixth-form college at which it is securing the provision
of education. The intervention policy, which is what will be consulted
on, will set out the triggers for, and the nature of, the intervention,
the nature of any directions the YPLA may issue to local authorities
under clause 64 and the circumstances when directions will be issued.
The duty to prepare an intervention policy will ensure that there is
clarity and transparency in advance on the circumstances under which
those powers will be used so that there is proper consultation with
stakeholders.
Relevant
stakeholders will include local authorities, education and training
providers, supporting structures, Government offices, regional planning
groups and sub-regional planning groups. The measure ensures that the
policy is drawn up in consultation with those in advance of it being
used so that everybody understands the circumstances anywhere in the
country when the YPLA might use the range of intervention powers that
we have agreed in the Bill. When there is a trigger point, it can then
be applied as quickly as possible. We bow to no one in our intolerance
of failure in the system and the desire to intervene. The consultation
will be guided by the Cabinet Office, and the normal guidelines for
that are a 12-week consultation. It will be with those partners that I
have set out.
Mr.
Hayes: Of particular concern is the timetable. It may
differ to some degree, but what typically would be the timetable for
that process? I mentioned the incentive for local authorities. Will
there be any independent means by which those things can be triggered?
A local authority that is failing in those terms may not be eager to
begin the process.
Jim
Knight: There are some questions about the timetable and
how the triggers will apply. We are still in consultation with people,
before the formal consultation, and some things will depend on the
circumstances in
play. We
expect the powers to be used as a last resort, following various levels
of support and challenge from the regional planning group, the
sub-regional group, other local authorities, perhaps, Government
offices and, certainly, the YPLA, with its regional level of activity,
when there is a risk that not enough suitable educational training
opportunities will be secured for young people in time. The YPLA will
look first to the local delivery system to resolve issues or
difficulties, and will be aware of any commissioning problems as they
emerge. Local authorities will be expected to resolve those issues, but
we need in our back pocket the intervention powers—set out
clearly so that everyone understands the policy—so that the YPLA
can be
effective.
Mr.
Hayes: I am still not clear how the intervention will be
triggered. I am beginning to understand the process, and the Minister
said that he is still consulting on the timetable, but how will the
intervention be triggered in the first instance if the local authority
is unwilling or unable to initiate the
process?
Jim
Knight: We will use the relevant data sets and the
information that we are establishing from a range of agencies, and we
have the co-operation, which the hon. Gentleman has been scrutinising
carefully, between, for example, the Skills Funding Agency and local
authorities, and between local authorities and the YPLA in the
performance of its functions. That will give intelligence on how
effectively things are working. The triggers might be provided by some
of the data measured, which is often how triggers work, but such issues
are still being discussed with the partners who will be involved in the
delivery. I do not want to anticipate the outcome of those discussions
at this stage. However, I have assured him that there will be a full
and proper consultation on how the triggers will operate, which is when
they ought to be properly discussed and agreed by all parties. On that
basis, I hope that we can agree the
clause. Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 70
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
71 and 72 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
73Guidance
by Secretary of
State
Jim
Knight: I beg to move amendment 290, in clause 73,
page 45, line 6, leave out ‘from
time to time’. This
technical drafting amendment is needed to achieve consistency in
references in the Bill to the exercise of continuing
powers.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 293 to
304.
Jim
Knight: Throughout the Bill there are references to
continuing powers; for example, the Secretary of State’s power
to issue guidance in clause 73 or Ofqual’s power to revise
criteria for recognition in clause 130.
The amendments are minor and technical drafting ones, ensuring
consistency in all references to continuing powers in the
Bill.
Mr.
Hayes: I want to raise a simple matter. The essence of the
amendments is to create greater clarity by the removal of “from
time to time” in respect of guidance issued by the Secretary of
State. I imagine that the original drafting was to create flexibility.
If we are to substitute that for clarity, it would be helpful for the
Minister to explain why. Is it that the guidance issued by the
Secretary of State will be so frequent that “from time to
time” is an inappropriate description? Or is it that the
Secretary of State will be issuing guidance so rarely that “from
time to time” is an
overestimate?
Jim
Knight: This is about the consistency that we need to
create in references to continuing powers in the Bill. There is nothing
more to it than that. There is no change in thinking about how often
the Secretary of State will issue guidance. Yes, to some extent we want
to have consistency throughout the Bill in how we refer to the issuing
of guidance for the sake of
clarity. Amendment
290 agreed to.
Clause 73,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
74Academy
arrangements 9.30
am
Mr.
Gibb: I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 74,
page 45, line 25, after ‘State’,
insert ‘, subject to the
agreement of the relevant
Academy.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 26, in clause 74, page 45,
line 29, at end
insert— ‘(2A) For the
purposes of subsection (2) “Academy arrangements” require
the YPLA to support the objective of the autonomy of Academies wherever
it is reasonable to do
so.’. Amendment
339, in
clause 74, page 45, line 29, at
end insert— ‘(2A) In
exercising the functions in subsection (2), the YPLA must allow
academies a right of appeal to the Secretary of State in circumstances
where the governing body of an academy believes that a decision taken
by the YPLA is unreasonable in the
circumstances.’. Amendment
391, in
clause 74, page 45, line 35, at
end insert ‘but
excluding the power conferred on the Secretary of State by section
482(1) of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56)
(Academies).’. Amendment
392, in
clause 74, page 45, line 38, leave
out paragraph (a) and
insert— ‘(a) an agreement
entered into by him under section 482 of the Education Act 1996 (c. 56)
(Academies);’. Amendment
25, in
clause 74, page 45, line 39, after
‘section’, insert
‘, except any functions related to
the monitoring and assessment of school
performance’.
| 
