Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
296-319)
MR IAIN
WRIGHT MP AND
CHRIS HEAUME
1 MARCH 2010
Q296 Chairman: I welcome the
Minister and Chris Heaume. Chris, do you pronounce your surname
"Heem" or "Hume"?
Chris Heaume: "Hume".
Chairman: That is even more complicated
than Douglas-Home, who pronounced his name "Hume".
Chris Heaume: Or the cardinal.
Q297 Chairman: And the cardinal,
yes. We usually give Ministers a chance to say a few opening words,
or we can go straight into questions. Which would you prefer,
Minister?
Mr Wright: Can I mention two or
three points? First, I welcome this short, sharp inquiry on an
incredibly important issue. Obviously, there has been the backdrop
of a massive global recession, which has had a major impact on
employment levels. In terms of what the Government have done to
respond to that, I would mention the short-term policy response
and the longer-term policy response. The short-term response included
things such as the September Guarantee, the January Guarantee
and the Young Person's Guarantee, which have had huge successes,
particularly for 16 and 17-year-olds and their participation in
education, but there are still challenges in the transition at
18. We also need to look at the longer-term policy responses,
which incorporate most of my brief as the 14-19 Reform Minister.
It means making sure that we have a diverse, personalised and
flexible curriculum offer for people, regardless of where their
interests lie, and making sure that we can raise the participation
age so that we can keep people engaged in training and education
up to 18 and beyond. It also means making sure that we have good
information, advice and guidance so that people may make the right
career choices at appropriate times in their lives. I am satisfied
that we have the vision right. I think some of the things that
we have put in place have been very positive, but I await your
questioning with interest.
Q298 Chairman: Thanks for
that, Minister. One of the things that we have picked up in this
short inquiry is of course that here we are with the statistic
suggesting that we have done better for 16 and 17-year-olds because
we have kept more young people in some form of education or training,
but the figures have risen at 18. If you are looking at 10.3%
who are in that NEET category, it seems that there has been partial
success in that early period. But on delivering more young people
at 18 into unemployment, what is the answer to that?
Mr Wright: I think it is fair
to say that the rise in education participation has been offset
by the decline in employment opportunities to some extent. We've
got very successful policies in place, and in respect of 16 and
17-year-olds the wider point about raising the participation age
is important as well. We are not churning people out at 16 and
17, and we don't then want to get them out at 18 to be unemployed.
The whole point of what we are trying to do in policy is to make
sure that we have well-skilled, enterprising, resilient young
people who can address the challenges of the economy that we find
ourselves in at the moment. Can I mention another thing? I don't
think we can put the flags out yet in terms of 18-year-olds, but
Thursday's announcement with regard to NEETs was positive. It
showed 18-year-olds coming down. Statistically, we can class that
technically as insignificant, but it is a step in the right direction,
and shows that a lot of our policy is working.
Q299 Chairman: There is no
doubt that there has been some real progress, and we can see that
from the information we have been given, but when you look at
all this stuff, there is a plethora of policies, and bits and
pieces. It is confusing for this Committee, which is quite experienced
at looking at this stuff. It must be tremendously confusing for
young people out there, and for the people we have had in here
this afternoon—the people from Fairbridge, the Hub and other
organisations that help young people in the NEET category. Why
isn't there any overarching policy? We recently went to Holland—to
the Netherlands—where they seem to have a grip on this.
First of all, they keep young people in education until 18. Between
18 and 27 you have to be either in work or in education and training.
There are no ifs and buts about that right through to 27. Why
haven't we got an overarching policy for young people in this
category that is like the Dutch one?
Mr Wright: I disagree with you. I think
we do. I mentioned two things. One is the 14-19 reform, for which
I have responsibility, which puts in place what I think is a personalised
and flexible offer whether you are interested in the so-called
traditional, so-called academic subjects—GCSEs and A-levels—or
if you are not that way inclined, you've got opportunities in
terms of diplomas and apprenticeships. For people who need a hand
in getting to Level 2, we've got foundation learning. Amid all
that, we're raising the participation age, so we will be like
some of our European neighbours in terms of raising the participation
age to 18—something that is long, long overdue. It was first
talked about around a century ago, and we are now putting it in
place. We have got that, and I think it will provide a degree
of resilience for any future economic downturn. We can't be completely
immune from a global recession—of course we can't—but
I think it gives young people the resilience that they need. The
second thing that I would mention is in terms of a more joined-up
offer from Government. You will be aware of "Investing in
Potential"—the 16-24 participation strategy that we
announced late last year. It is a very clear joint strategy between
us, DWP and BIS. For the first time ever, we've got a strategy
across Government to deal with this. I think that's a very positive
step, and one of the key themes within that strategy is the element
of partnership. That is true not just in central Government; it
is true in local government also. I think we're on the right lines
there.
Q300 Chairman: But Minister,
we've had evidence today from young people in that age group.
They've got friends who just don't do anything. They don't work.
They don't learn. They take the minimal benefit they can get,
and stay at home, or get into drugs or the black economy. Why,
after nearly 13 years in Government, isn't there a policy that
makes young people in that category have an opportunity to do
something with their lives?
Mr Wright: I think we have got
that and we are putting it in place. Thanks to the improving performance
of Connexions—we will hear from Chris later—and that
sort of data capture, the interrogation of where those young people,
NEETs, are and putting in place a personalised offer to deal with
them is very much our vision. I would say that that is exactly
the road we are travelling along.
Q301 Chairman: We like the
personalised offer, but why is it that we allow young people to
just do nothing? Why are you so disinterested, it seems, in the
Dutch experience, which says that they have to do something, even
if it is learning English for new immigrants or learning a skill?
They cannot take benefit without doing something. Why in this
country in 2010 can we not have a system that challenges people
to do something with their lives rather than moulder with nothing?
Mr Wright: I think we have those
rights and responsibilities. That is a key part of what we've
done in "Investing in Potential". It is a key part of
the allowance system we have. In terms of the financial support
we've got, Education Maintenance Allowance, which provides up
to £30 a week for people, is a something-for-something offer.
If you don't attend or your behaviour is not up to patch, it stops.
There are other things, such as the activity agreement pilots,
which are very interesting and are really helping to raise participation
among young people. Again, that involves a Connexions Personal
Adviser and a young person sitting down to see what needs to be
put in place, perhaps for a 20-week period. Again, the objectives
are monitored. I think we have got those rights and responsibilities.
I understand that you have been to the Netherlands. A lot can
be said for what is in place there, but there are also unforeseen
consequences. For example, many more young people are claiming
that they're disabled in order to avoid this. I think there are
also a lot more people going underground, as it were, and going
away from the official statistics. We have to be careful and the
balance in policy, as you are aware, is to make sure we can have
every young person engaged in something meaningful to them and
that they can fulfil their potential.
Q302 Chairman: You know that
when the participation age decision was made for 2013 and 2015,
I called on the Government to set up a commission to find out
what we will do with these young people in 2013 and 2015, particularly
the young people who are more difficult to place in education
and training. Is anything going on in the Department to look at
that?
Mr Wright: Yes. I will mention
two big things that I think are very important. In December, just
before Christmas, we produced a toolkit to help advise local authorities
and key stakeholders on what they need to be doing with regard
to moving towards 2013 and 2015. The 11 pilots we have in place
up and down the country are also very important. There are three
themes to do with the challenges with implementing RPA, which
are NEETs, information advice and guidance, and local solutions.
There are different places up and down the country. I am particularly
interested in the Greater Manchester pilot, in which the local
authorities that make up Greater Manchester are coming together
to see if there is a sub-regional element. It is looking at all
those themes. That is important and we will learn a lot from these
pilots.
Chairman: Okay. Graham?
Q303 Mr Stuart: I have asked
various Ministers this question. Before the credit crunch hit,
there were 10 years with basically no movement in the number of
NEETs in this country. What is your analysis of that? We have
been trying to find the answer. There was genuine commitment and
spending, and a lot of effort was put into challenging disadvantage,
and yet that did not seem to lead to any change. Is that because
the labour market for young people changed or because the policies
didn't work? How do we understand what happened before we even
got to the credit crunch, when the numbers went up again?
Mr Wright: At a very simplistic
level, we have more young people. We have something like a 13%
increase in the number of young people, from about 1.8 million
in 1997 to over 2 million now. We are absorbing more young people
into the system. As other witnesses have said in evidence, the
10% bumping along the bottom for the last 10 or 12 years has masked
a range of other things. We have mentioned 16 and 17 participation,
which is at an all-time high. Eighteen-year-olds are an issue,
and a key element of this "Investing in Potential" document
is making sure that we can help them manage the transition. One
key thing that we should identify is that there are various risky
points along a young person's journey, whether it is pre-16, 16-18
or 18 and onwards, and 18 is a particularly risky point. We are
putting in place a range of measures to deal with that. Yes, the
economic recession has had a major impact, as it has in all industrialised
nations across the world. We are doing an awful lot, and I am
pleased with things such as the September Guarantee; it is early
days with regard to the January Guarantee, but, again, we are
putting a lot in place. So what has happened does mask an awful
lot.
Q304 Mr Stuart: So what does
it mask? That's what we are trying to understand. In terms of
policy criticism, we've heard that we've had a huge number of
initiatives, some of which have been very short-lived, with people
churning through programmes, getting a job, going on a programme
and being flicked out again. As the Chairman suggested, it does
not feel like there's been an overarching strategy, let alone
a continuum of policy support for some of them. Would you recognise
that criticism as valid?
Mr Wright: No, I don't recognise
that. I would cite—
Q305 Mr Stuart: Not even a
little?
Mr Wright: No, I wouldn't. In
the last five or six years, we've seen a structural change in
society and the economy. Before, in my generation, you finished
education at 16, but we're moving away from that now to a growing
recognition that 18 is a more sensible point at which to finish
participation. I look at the evidence a lot, and what struck me
is that the single biggest predictor of being NEET is educational
attainment in year 11. If you've got five good GCSEs, the chances
are you're not going to be NEET. Some of the statistics are quite
remarkable. The five good GCSEs are incredibly important and tell
me a number of things. One is that the Government's emphasis on
raising standards is vital.
Q306 Mr Stuart: So why hasn't
it come through? That's what we are trying to understand. There's
been the will, it's been quite a long time, but the numbers have,
if anything, moved the wrong way.
Mr Wright: Because we also have
to be mature and say that GCSE is not the answer for everybody.
Sometimes—we have this in our constituencies—12, 13,
14, 15-year-olds are disengaged from the system. The other thing
that strikes me from looking at the evidence is that if you can
predict at 16 who will be NEET, you will know a lot earlier where
the problems lie. That comes back to my point about the 14-19
reform strategy, which is making sure that other things are in
place, such as Apprenticeships and Diplomas. Those can really
engage and enthuse young people, and that will reduce their chances
of becoming NEET.
Mr Stuart: Can I bring Chris in?
Chris Heaume: Alongside all that,
we've been putting into place massive structural change in the
system. We're seeing the impact of that now. I read transcripts
from last week's meetings, where several local authorities told
you what a vast change they'd seen in their NEET levels, which
have gone down from 14 or so to eight or nine.
Chairman: Some.
Chris Heaume: That's right, some.
We're learning how to do this bit by bit. Probably about two thirds
of the boroughs that I've counted have gone quite drastically
in a different direction, but others face other situations locally
that prevent that from happening. We've seen the changes that
have taken place as a result of structural change. We are plotting
and tracking young people from age 14 very specifically and individually
right through. We've now got a very proactive approach to supporting
them when they get to 16 and they are not in learning. At 15,
if they have no learning plan, we know that there's the September
Guarantee and the intended destination. If they have no offer,
we're there with them getting things right, and we see the changes.
Q307 Mr Stuart: Okay, I hear
you. Perhaps I'm just flogging a dead horse—it certainly
feels like it, because no one wants to answer the question. A
lot of effort has been put in and a lot of money has been spent,
but we didn't see any movement, and I'm trying to tease out why.
It is in the nature of sitting on a select committee that people
tell you that things weren't so good a few years ago, but that
they're a lot better now. When you don't see any movement, their
optimism seems to be belied by the facts. We want to believe that
we really will make a difference to people who are left with no
opportunity. Everyone has always been able to sit there and tell
us about new initiatives that sound great, but if we don't understand
what went wrong before, how will we understand what will really
make a difference in the future? We've had the Minister tell us
that there has not been a plethora of ill-conceived initiatives
that have not been joined together—it has all been great—so
we can't look there. Are you able to disagree with him and say
that perhaps there should have been fewer initiatives and better
follow-through?
Chris Heaume: I can say that up
until the age of 18, we have young people very thoroughly tracked
and supported. We've seen NEET levels come down in central London,
in seven very complex boroughs, from 4,000 to 1,700. That's a
vast difference, from 14% to 5.6%—a huge difference—and
it has been sustained and is even coming down more rapidly than
announced previously. Those structures are starting to pay off.
We have not got them in place yet for 18 and 19-year-olds, but
we're now working with and have resources to work with the Jobcentre
Plus side of things so that we will have similar partnership work
that will enable the same thing to happen there. That's the situation
at the moment.
Q308 Mr Stuart: We have seen
progress at 16 and 17, but the numbers at 18 have deteriorated
marginally. How do we know that we won't just push the problem
to 19?
Chris Heaume: We know all the
young people aged up to 18. When they get into the Jobcentre Plus
regime, we are not allowed to share data.
Chairman: You're not allowed to share
data. We've heard this before.
Chris Heaume: We are allowed to
share aggregate data. Very shortly, we will finally have a solution—it
has taken some time to achieve—that will help us to share
data.
Mr Wright: The Act that will allow
that to take place got Royal Assent last year. There has been
a real barrier to Connexions and Jobcentre Plus having good, shared
services and information. The Act identified that and will be
sorting it out.
Q309 Mr Stuart: Again, on
the positives, we have seen increases in participation rates among
young people in both education and in employment at one level—I
can't get my maths right here—but we have also seen an increase
in the unemployment rate for 16 to 18-year-olds. We have greater
participation in education but at the same time a higher rate
of unemployment. What has been so difficult about helping young
people make the transition from education to employment?
Mr Wright: I would disagree with
that analysis, to some extent. The idea that we can be immune
from the global forces of the world economy is wrong.
Q310 Mr Stuart: Let's pretend
it's 2007. Then we don't have to rehearse continually that there
is a global recession and the rest of it.
Mr Wright: But when demand in
the global economy falls off a cliff—Britain is a trading
nation—young people at the start of their employment who
don't have the skills and experience that others might have will
be disproportionately hit, to some extent. It could be an element
of last in, first out. The trick is to avoid the messages of previous
recessions and to ensure that they get back into education, employment
or training very quickly. The evidence that we have from this
recession is quite encouraging. There has not been the long-term
unemployment that we saw in previous recessions, which can blight
communities like ours, Mr Chairman, for decades. It is important
that stakeholders such as schools, colleges, training providers,
Connexions and Jobcentre Plus work together in partnership in
order to make sure that if people fall out of the job market or
education, they can go back in fairly quickly.
Q311 Mr Stuart: In our first
session with some academics, it was said that if this were 20
years ago, we would have a much better understanding of the youth
employment market than we do today. Therefore, in some ways, it
may not necessarily be that Government policies have failed, but
that there have actually been some big changes in the employment
market—they might partly be to do with immigration, or with
other issues—that have made it harder, and that if it had
not been for Government policies, things would have been a lot
worse than they are now. Do you have any intention to do more
to increase our understanding of the youth labour market? Because,
as was said in that first session, without understanding that
side of things, we're sitting here making out that there is a
problem with young people—if only they were educated more—when
actually many of them may be capable but there simply are not
the jobs any more. We need to understand that in order to ensure
that they have a chance.
Mr Wright: The Department last
year produced what I think is a very interesting and important
study on the characteristics of young people who were NEET and
also the characteristics of young people who were in jobs without
training—that segments different parts.[6]
I think that has helped an awful lot. It certainly shaped my thinking
when I was pulling together with ministerial colleagues the 16
to 24 participation strategy. You will know, Mr Chairman, the
idea that we talk about this 10% group as if it were some sort
of homogeneous group. It's not. That's far from being the case,
and it will be different in local areas. The study that the Department
produced has really helped that.
Q312 Mr Stuart: But that's
the whole point. That's about them. That's focusing on the young
NEET people rather than the context in which they have to try
and seek employment, pursue education and so on. I forgot which
academic told us that we do not have the same understanding of
that context that we used to have. I suppose this is a request
to you, Minister, to consider commissioning further research to
ensure that we have a continuous picture and understanding of
the context in which Connexions and these young people are having
to operate.
Mr Wright: One of the really exciting
opportunities within the machinery of government—that's
not a phrase I thought I'd ever use, Mr Chairman—is the
marrying up of commissioning for young people from birth to 19
and for learners with difficulties and disabilities up until the
age of 25, and also the economic duty. What does that local authority
want to produce in terms of the economic vision for their area?
That marrying up together, I think, can provide a lot of the data
and policy solutions that Graham is suggesting.
Q313 Chairman: Can we go back
to one throwaway line of yours, Minister, about not sharing data
with Jobcentre Plus? A lot of my constituents and people out there
who pay their taxes would say, "What on earth has been going
on that Jobcentre Plus wouldn't share their data?" In parallel,
the other inquiry that we're finishing before the election, we
hope, is on children's centres and Sure Start. There we have the
problem that the health people won't share their data with the
Department for Children, Schools and Families. What is going on
when government departments don't share data?
Mr Wright: The principal requirement
and barrier to that was concern over data protection. I think
we've overcome that through the legislation that has recently
been passed. Chris can tell you what's happening on the ground
in terms of making sure that Connexions and Jobcentre Plus work
much more fully and in co-operation together, but we're starting
to see the tentative feelings of good joint working and shared
services between Connexions and Jobcentre Plus.
Chris Heaume: We used to struggle
to share data with social services, but as the Departments merged
and we have got a holistic Department of Children, Schools and
Families now, that is overcome. We are getting those relationships
across other departments too. Our work with Jobcentre Plus has
gone ahead in leaps and bounds since the latest policy at the
end of last year. We're really pushing from our angle and from
the Jobcentre Plus angle, too. There's so much willingness. We
had in central London one area office that has always been good
at working with us and another one that found it difficult to
work with us. We've now got excellent relationships with all offices.
Staff are co-staffing each other's agencies. There is joint training.
Even more importantly, there's joint advice sessions pre-18 and
post-18 for young people that we're staffing between us. When
we've embedded those relationships, we'll start to see the fast-tracking
of young people and, more importantly, the support that we take
through in place in the Jobcentre Plus regime, where support hasn't
always been possible to provide in the same way. We heard earlier
how young people really value that individual, personalised support.
That's what we want to put into their Jobcentre Plus activities.
Chairman: Thank you for that, Chris.
We're moving on.
Q314 Ms Buck: Minister, in
your introductory comments you talked about rights and responsibilities
and said that the Education Maintenance Allowance was something
that is on the right side of the equation. But we heard from some
young people this afternoon that there were young people in continuing
education courses on EMA who were living independently and who
were ending up, as a consequence, because they had to contribute
towards their living costs, effectively living on £5 a week,
whereas others on jobseeker's allowance were able to get not a
lot of money, but significantly more money. How does that operate
as an effective incentive?
Mr Wright: In very simplistic
terms, you don't tend to get benefits below the age of 18. But
there are exceptional circumstances in which that is no longer
the case. Living independently and alone could be one of those.
What I would expect to see happening on the ground is good information,
advice and guidance, again through Connexions, working together
closely with Jobcentre Plus.
Ms Buck: They've had all the advice.
They just didn't have the money.
Mr Wright: They should not be
on EMA then. They should be on benefits[7]
if they are 16 or 17 and having to deal with other circumstances.
You bring out an important point, Karen. Sometimes we think about
education over here, and the rest of the young person's life over
there. That should not happen. For teenage parents, care to learn
and so on there should be an holistic approach: what is happening
in the rest of your life that can help you come together with
a viable offer for education or training?
Q315 Ms Buck: That is absolutely
right, but it strikes me not just from this afternoon's session
but from all the young people I have known over the years who
fall into this group that a disproportionate number of them are
exceptional cases. That is almost the point. They are often in
the NEET category because something has or many things have gone
wrong in their education and their lives. Once you start unpacking
the circumstances they are in always trapped in all kinds of personal,
emotional, financial and educational disadvantages. Yet what they
say to you, apart from the lucky few who have found truly inspirational
mentors at Connexions or whatever, is that no one is actually
taking that holistic approach to their problems.
Mr Wright: I think the key point
is trying to make sure that everybody has access to that personal
adviser. In a former life we used to discuss and fight over housing.
The idea of being able to go to college or work if you don't have
good, suitable accommodation is fanciful. So having that personal
adviser who can look at a whole range of different things is so
important.
Q316 Ms Buck: I totally agree
with that, but I what I am trying to get at is that there are
a lot of structural problems that are not susceptible to good
advice. We had this young person today on EMA with no money. I
was dealing with a young woman recently who blew it in year 11.
She was a very bright girl but she was not allowed to take her
GCSE retakes anywhere. There was no college anywhere in central
London that allowed her to retake her GCSEs, so she was permanently
stuck because the college requirements would not let her do it.
I don't know whether anyone is properly auditing a whole range
of these benefits and access, because these practical difficulties
seem to be acting as rigid barriers. It was not that young people
around here were saying, "We just didn't get it together
and now we are starting to get it together." They were all
coming up with very practical problems: financial disincentives
and lack of access.
Mr Wright: It is not going to
be the magic wand but a key benefit will be the machinery of government
changes when, from 1 April, local authorities have that responsibility
to commission services. That will help an awful lot in identifying
these people and making sure that you have that wraparound system
of support, taking into account not just education, but other
benefits and housing. I do not think we will be able to get the
flags out on 2 April, but working towards that we will be able
to overcome some of the practical and administrative barriers.
Q317 Ms Buck: If they are
going to lay off 25,000 people we probably will not see that implemented
in any meaningful way.
Mr Wright: I have seen the reports
today as well. Local authorities are autonomous bodies. They have
responsibility to make sure that they have good, decent services
for local residents while at the same time providing value for
money for the council tax payer. How they do that and how they
administer that is up to them.
Q318 Ms Buck: If this is a
discretionary service it's not going to happen, is it? It's going
to vanish into the mist.
Mr Wright: You say a discretionary
service. One of the things I have been really pleased about concerns
local area agreements. Local authorities are criticised for an
awful lot of things, but facing up to this agenda about tackling
NEETs—knowing that if they invest now they can save huge
amounts in terms of social and economic costs for decades to come—117
local authorities have put NEETs as a key priority. It is the
single biggest national and local indicator. That gives me great
hope that when people are thinking about potential job cuts, this
area might not be one of them.
Q319 Ms Buck: Just looking
at the issue about early intervention, again you made some mention
of the fact that it's quite possible, in many cases, to identify
who is likely to be NEET and there are clear correlating factors
such as not having a GCSE. Correlating with that is a particular
drop in performance between Key Stages 3 and 4. Perhaps Chris
could answer this. What specific measures and what resources are
going into place in schools to help them to identify and then
turn around young people who are at risk of that educational drop
at that critical point?
Chris Heaume: We start working
with schools in year 8 and then move forward up to year 11. That
assessment process is in place, shared between the pastoral system
and ourselves. People are referred out to us if they need a range
of support. If they simply need academic support, the school will
put that in place. The September Guarantee is where we start to
measure their readiness to progress, and if they're not ready
to progress and don't have a proper plan, that very systematically,
individual by individual, triggers additional guidance so that
we can get in and support them. The new duties on schools for
tutorial processes, a tutorial curriculum and tutorial staff will
also start to enhance that. That is something we will really welcome.
It's going to enhance the pastoral support available for young
people. The learning support systems in place are strong. There
are still young people who surprise us when they get further down
the road where perhaps other things go wrong.
6 See Ev 140-41 Back
7
Note by witness: Young people who are estranged and therefore
supported through the benefit system can claim EMA in addition
to those other benefits. Receipt of EMA is on top of those and
does not affect them. The appropriate benefit for such a young
person who is in learning is Income Support rather than JSA. Young
people on JSA, who move into learning need to switch to Income
Support. Estranged young people will be eligible for maximum EMA
as well. Back
| 
