 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Education and Skills Bill |
Education and Skills Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Nick
Walker, Tom Goldsmith, Committee
Clerks
† attended the
Committee
Public Bill CommitteeThursday 21 February 2008(Afternoon)[John Bercow in the Chair]Education and Skills BillClause 41Attendance
notice: description of education or
training
Amendment
moved [this day]: No. 164, in
clause 41, page 22, line 33, after
‘person’, insert
‘having regard to a
person’s age, ability, aptitude and needs (if any) for
personalised support and personalised learning
opportunities’.—[Mr.
Laws.]
1
pm
Mr.
David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): Good afternoon, Mr.
Bercow. May I welcome you to the Chair of the Committee? It has been
noted that either you are a glutton for punishment, or Mr.
Bayley has deserted us. We are not sure whether this reflects
enthusiasm on your part or reticence on his.
In any case, we left this
morning’s sitting at clause 41, when I was mentioning that the
amendment is inspired and supported by the National Union of Teachers.
The last time I moved an amendment that was supported by the NUT we had
a tremendous triumph when the Government crumbled in the face of the
force of the argument and acknowledged that it had to be accepted. I
think that that is the only concession that the Minister has made so
far on the Bill. We look forward to seeing that in the
future.
I am
optimistic, therefore, at this final stage of the week, that we might
also persuade the Minister to accept this amendment, which is an
addition to clause 41(5) that would strengthen the
responsibilities of local authorities to identify individual needs and
ensure that they are provided. In particular, the amendment would
ensure that a local authority has to have regard to the
“age, ability, aptitude and
needs...for personalised support and personalised
learning”
of the young
person in question.
This morning,
I also referred to a helpful letter that the Minister wrote to me on 13
February—I understand that it will be copied to members of the
Committee—in response to the undertaking that he made at the
evidence session on Tuesday 29 January to write to the Committee and
talk, prior to guidance being issued, about the Government’s
attitude to young people who would find it difficult to comply with the
responsibility to be in education or training. In one sense, the
Minister’s letter might not be regarded as directly relevant to
the amendment, because it deals primarily with the circumstances in
which an attendance panel would not insist upon a young person being in
education or training. However, I would like to relate that directly to
the
amendment and to the requirement that there should be a provision of
support for young people, because the Minister’s aspiration, as
he has already told us, is that in all but a minority of cases, young
people should be in education or training or some other
setting.
Therefore, we
are seeking to discover two things in that regard. First, we want to
know the extent to which there will be a clear responsibility on local
authorities to ensure that the education and training relates very much
to the young person’s needs and circumstances, and that that
includes proper support for their personal needs. Secondly, we are
seeking to discover the extent to which the Minister will be willing to
envisage the type of fourth-way option or gateway option that some of
us have talked about during the Committee’s proceedings and that
many of the outside lobby groups have also talked about. I have in
front of me a note from Fairbridge, which has given evidence to the
Committee and has been talking about a gateway phase to re-engage the
most difficult to reach.
The letter that the Minister
sent to me on 13 February indicated that he accepts that
“there will be young people who
temporarily, or for a longer time, cannot in practice participate due
to their individual
circumstances.”
He
also mentioned the need to provide the personalised support that will
help young people to be in education and training. He usefully
documents a list of the types of characteristics that might cause an
individual to need support services or potentially not to have to
comply with the attendance panel. He mentioned homelessness, health
problems, addiction, the nature and timing of the courses being
studied, young parents and people with caring responsibilities.
Although those may be reasons for a young person not to have the
education and training responsibility placed upon them by the
attendance panel, they could also be characteristics that should be
taken into account in the clause in providing for personalised
support.
Those
characteristics could also lead to a fourth way that is not covered
explicitly in the Bill, but upon which I would like to test the
Minister’s mind yet again. That option is to have personalised
support that would in no sense meet most people’s understanding
of an education or training setting. These clauses and the amendments
that we discussed under clause 40 are predicated on the basis that
people will be in a formal education and training setting and that
their personal support needs will be moulded around
that.
The Minister
acknowledged in our earlier exchanges that the Government might be
willing to allow people to be not in education and training settings,
but in some form of supported setting that would meet their needs prior
to them being able to access education and training. We do not know
whether the Government are willing to translate that good intention
into practice. How these support needs will be met is in the hands of
the guidance that will be issued later. That will show how flexible the
Government are and whether they will allow people to be not in the
formal education and training institutional environments referred to in
these clauses, but in the other settings that were envisaged by the
outside groups and voluntary bodies that gave evidence to
us.
I
do not expect the Minister to deal with the specific opt-out issues
that were identified in his letter in relation
to the clause because they relate to other clauses.
However, I would like him to confirm that for young people with high
support and personal needs, the Government have in mind that there
should be at least three options other than going before the attendance
panel and being criminalised. First, they could be in the type of
education or training setting envisaged in the Bill, but with the
support that they require framed around their individual needs, as
envisaged in the amendment. That option is the Government’s core
desire for young people with great
vulnerabilities.
Secondly,
there is the possibility that the Minister raised in his letter of 13
February, that some young people with very acute needs might not be in
any setting whatsoever. Thirdly, there is the other possibility that I
am asking the Minister to comment on because it is relevant to the
issue of young people’s support needs. I am asking whether there
could be another option between doing nothing and being criminalised
and having personal support delivered in an education and training
setting, which would enable providers with expertise in this area to be
involved. That could be a drug rehabilitation centre where there is
nothing that would be regarded as accredited education or training, but
where the young person would be in a setting that is dealing with a
personal problem to enable him or her to go back into education or
training.
This is one
of the places in the Bill where we can explore with the Minister not
only whether the right sensitive support will be available for young
people in education and training, but whether such a different setting
is envisaged. Given that we were so successful with our NUT-linked
amendment, we would like to hear whether he is willing to put in the
Bill this more robust form of wording to ensure that there is a strong
duty on local authorities to consider all of the needs of young people
defined in the
amendment.
We
would also like to hear how the Minister envisages the fourth option,
or gateway option, working. Is it a serious option that the Government
would consider as a mainstream alternative to what appears in the Bill
or would they use it just as a short-term stopping-off point prior to a
young person entering education and training with personalised support?
That is what I am hoping the get out of moving the
amendment.
Mr.
Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): I want to
return briefly to a point that I made earlier. When it comes to the
service of the notices that are created in clauses 39, 40 and 41, and
the question of personalising the training and education opportunities,
as in amendment No. 164, it is important that there is genuine
engagement between the local authority and the individual
concerned.
I am worried
that a person who has left school with the sort of the problems that I
have mentioned in Committee, who is perhaps able to read and write at
only a low level—they might be at a lower level than one at
which they would be able to tell their bank, for example, about a
change of address—will find the notices complicated. A young
person who is ill-educated might not understand the sort of details
that are being talked about—the courses are called things such
as basic skills or life skills. Will the Minister assure us that when
the notices are served on someone who might have poor educational
attainment, there will be a discussion with them to explain exactly
what the notice means?
In answer to earlier questions,
the Minister told me that there will be advisers—I accept
that—but could there be some more formal legislative requirement
to ensure that a person is notified, so that we do not have a situation
in which notice after notice arrives at a person’s house and are
ignored? Ultimately, such a person could find themselves in a serious
process, in court and so on. I am concerned about the possibility of a
paper trail but no active engagement between individual and authority.
Will the Minister say whether the notices will be served personally or
served by post? If it is not a personal service, will the panel require
that a person has understood a notice? Will the Minister comment on
those
issues?
The
Minister for Schools and Learners (Jim Knight):
What a
pleasure it is, Mr. Bercow, to see you in your place yet
again. I am sure that the Committee will not tire of your presence in
the Chair, however consistently and frequently you are
there.
The
Chairman:
Order. I do not want to delay the Committee, and
I appreciate that this announcement will be accompanied by much flowing
of tears, but I told the Minister before the sitting that, sadly, this
is my last sitting in the Chair of this
Committee.
Jim
Knight:
Naturally, Mr. Bercow, we are
distraught, which is not to say that we are not looking forward the
Mr. Bayley’s return next week. I might not have the
opportunity later on this afternoon to say how much I have enjoyed
serving under your chairmanship, so let it be recorded now that I have
thoroughly enjoyed serving under your guidance.
I absolutely agree that the
education or training specified in an attendance notice must be
appropriate to the young person’s needs. The aim of the notice,
ultimately, is to get the young person to participate in education or
training so that they can benefit from the opportunities and advantages
that that offers. They can do that only if the learning programme meets
their needs. In addition, the local authority must identify an
appropriate learning place for the young person and give them the
opportunity, and support to engage in it voluntarily, before they can
even meet the conditions for issuing an attendance notice. It is
important that the hon. Member for Yeovil understands that the
attendance notice is a stage in an enforcement process and that
enforcement should not start, as I have said repeatedly, unless
adequate support has been provided but not taken up.
I also agree that in many cases
the learning programme specified at that point would need to be
specialised and personalised. The hon. Member for North-East
Hertfordshire asked about discussion and whether the notice would be
personally served. As I have said to him before, prior to enforcement,
all the support provided and the contact via Connexions with a personal
adviser would be personal.
1.15
pm
Mr.
Heald:
My concern is the person who just does not engage
with the process, which happens in other contexts such as the
welfare-to-work programmes. I am worried about the sort of people who
do not go when
they are invited to an interview and ignore a letter when they get it
through the door. How do we ensure that such people understand what
they are supposed to be doing and how the process cranks
open?
Jim
Knight:
I understand that the hon. Gentleman is describing
a scenario in which someone just does not engage with the process in
any shape or form. However, there will still be the expectation that
the personal adviser will have made contact with the individual. It
will not be sufficient in terms of adequately assessing and offering
support to have sent letters, e-mails or other forms of communication.
It is important that there is a personal exchange between those
involved either by phone or face to face to discuss the matter. I
envisage that taking place over a series of exchanges, not simply
one.
On the serving of
the notice, obviously the initial steps are set out in clause 39 in
relation to the 15-day notice period. It would normally take the form
of a letter to the address that Connexions and the local authority have
for that individual. Clearly, if the 15 days elapse and there is no
response, the process would move to the serving of the notice. If the
person to whom the initial letter has been served says that they did
not receive it, that it did not arrive in the post, or that they could
not read it, it may be that the letter would at that point be reissued.
The notice would be reinstigated by means of it being personally served
and the personal adviser going to the address, giving the person the
letter and explaining its contents. That is what would need to happen
at that point.
Later,
in respect of the attendance panels themselves—and I am sure
that we will discuss this in the context of later amendments—we
want to ensure that panel hearings take place in a friendly way and not
a formal court-like setting. Such a setting would occur later down the
track, if the matter is sent to the youth court. The panels should be
informal and the young person should participate in the panel hearing,
which is something that we will also discuss later. The young person
should understand what is happening and the process in which they are
involved at every stage. I hope that that helps the hon. Member for
North-East
Hertfordshire.
Mr.
Laws:
I hope that I am not pre-empting something that the
Minister will come to later, but subsection (5)
states:
“The
education or training must be suitable for the
person”.
Before we
proceed, how will “suitable” be
defined?
Jim
Knight:
I will address the specific wording of the
subsection of this clause in a moment, but there is great flexibility
in the way that it is currently worded. On the questions of the hon.
Member for Yeovil about what we keep referring to as the fourth option
and fourth way, as I have said, support is important both in practice
and in theory, for however long it is needed, but it should not be
separated from participation. The specific aim of the attendance notice
is to set out participation in education and training, but we envisage
that support will also continue and that it will be
flexible in the form that it
can take. However, support is not an alternative as other ways of
participating are. It is not an alternative to education or training,
but it must work towards those to get to the point of the attendance
notice.
Mr.
Laws:
I apologise for interrupting the Minister again.
However, I wonder whether he is going back on an undertaking given
earlier in the Committee that he could envisage circumstances in which
people might need support that could mean that they are not in
education or training for a long period of time, and that that support,
possibly from a voluntary group, might not look like education or
training. Is that still a
possibility?
Jim
Knight:
It is certainly still a possibility. I would not
want to retract that in any way. I am simply suggesting that we
envisage support continuing, but the support is not an end in itself,
as I have said before. The end is appropriate education and training. A
re-engagement activity may be required in order to get young people
into education or training, but in most cases I would envisage that it
would have been offered, and hopefully delivered, beforehand. The
attendance notice process is there to try to get them to engage and I
do not want to define it any differently from the way it has been
defined previously.
The
amendment is technically unnecessary. The existing provision in
subsection (5) that the education or training specified in the notice
must be suitable—the words that he picked up on—for the
young person, already implies in law that it must be appropriate for
their individual needs and circumstances. In that respect, it is very
flexible.
However, I
have reflected and will continue to do so between now and the Report
stage on whether we need to define the matter slightly more closely so
that it is not only suitable for the person, but addresses their
individual needs. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a categorical
assurance because I need to reflect further and consult others on the
matter. However, I intend to see how we can refer to the flexibility of
the definitions that we set out in clause 4, but without relating
solely to that clause, because it does not include the employment with
training option. We would obviously want that to be available within
the attendance notice. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some
encouragement and that he will make only a short
intervention.
Mr.
Laws:
In addition to providing the definition of
suitability, which the Minister still has not really given us although
he said that he might reflect on it, will he also clarify whether he
will determine the matter of
suitability?
Jim
Knight:
The interpretation of “suitable”
will be undertaken, first, by the local government officer issuing the
notice, and, secondly by the attendance panel, should one be convened
to look at the
notice.
Jim
Knight:
The definition is about what is suitable to meet
the needs and circumstances of the young person concerned so that they
can fulfil their duties
imposed by clause 2. That is how it is set out in
the legislation. I do not know how to define it any more closely, for
which I apologise. As I have said, I will consider whether to tighten
the wording in subsection (5). I hope that the hon. Member for Yeovil
will withdraw his amendment on that
basis.
Mr.
Laws:
I am grateful to the Minister. Given how difficult
it is to wring any concessions out of Ministers on these occasions, I
suppose that I should be extremely grateful and rush out a press
release that champions the achievement and glorifies the NUT for being
associated with only the second twinge of movement from a Minister
during Committee.
May
I, however, clarify a couple of concerns? Perhaps I did not emphasise
the issue of suitability enough in my opening comments. I took it for
granted that the Minister would trot out his line on it, but he did not
say as much as I expected, so I shall say something about it now before
moving on to the issue of support, and the question of what he might
concede and what he will not concede.
Clause 41 (5) says:
“The education or
training must be suitable for the
person.”
That
raises the question of what the word “suitable” means and
who should interpret it. I think that we know who will interpret it,
but the greater problem is what it means. The Minister said that there
is great flexibility around the word, but that can be a good or a bad
thing. It may mean that there is a lot of uncertainty or that the word
is interpreted very differently in different parts of the country, so
we need to be slightly clearer about what it means.
We can think of a number of
different examples in which the issue of suitability might arise. One
with which the Government will not have a problem is a young person who
is in employment. To take our earlier example, someone who is employed
as a car mechanic may want to become a nuclear
physicist.
Mr.
Laws:
Perhaps that person has become more aspirational and
more interesting since we last discussed the Bill and wants to do
something that requires a course that does not relate to their
employment. They therefore tell the local government officer that they
are not willing to go on the local college’s tedious car
mechanics course, which people are trying to persuade them to take, and
say that they are waiting to go on a course in accountancy, nuclear
physics, fishing or some other subject. Will there be any obligation on
them to take up education and training that is related to the
employment that they are in? Does the question of suitability have any
relevance in that situation?
The Government can probably
provide reassure on that issue, but the amendment also refers to the
question of ability and aptitude. What if someone considers a course is
too difficult for them, given their skills? What if they think that
they need some other type of education beforehand? What if they simply
think that the local college course on offer in their subject is
hopeless and rubbish or that it is being taught that year by somebody
who is not in regular attendance? What if they want to wait until the
next year?
Jim
Knight:
I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said this
morning. At any point, the young person can voluntarily opt to fulfil
their duties under clause 2, in which case the enforcement proceedings
will stop, unless the issue has reached the youth court. If they do not
want to go on a particular course with a particular lecturer, and there
is something else that they want to do that they think is more suitable
for them, they can do it.
Mr.
Laws:
Yes, that is true, but they might not have that
option, particularly if the course that they want to take is closed
that year or is not available in a setting that they reach. It may be
difficult for them to afford transport costs, which we shall discuss
later.
If I were a
young person who did not want to comply with the Bill, I might well
argue that the education offered to me was not suitable, particularly
if I was not enthusiastic about taking up education and training in the
first place. Somebody might come to me and say, “You should be
in education and training. How about these eight different courses at
Yeovil college?” All those courses would no doubt be excellent,
particularly, I hasten to add, if they were on offer at Yeovil college.
In another part of the country, however, there might not be any
exciting courses on offer, and the educational institution might be
less effective. How would suitability be defined in that
case?
We therefore
want a bit more clarity from the Minister on how the word
“suitability” relates to a person’s needs and
aptitudes. I am not sure whether he is saying that he will consider
clarifying the issue between now and the Bill’s later stages, or
whether, when he said that he would reflect on it, he meant that he
would reflect on its more personalised elements. He said that there
could be guarantees that the support needs would meet the young
person’s requirements. That is a major concern, and there is
also concern about the funding that might go with it. The issue is not
only whether support needs can be identified, but whether they will be
funded and whether that will be acceptable.
1.30
pm
I am tempted,
notwithstanding the Minister’s generosity, to press the
amendment to a Division. However, if he intervenes on me to clarify
which part of the issue he is willing to reflect on, I might feel much
more reassured, and therefore less likely to do
so.
Jim
Knight:
I am particularly interested in reflecting on how
the person’s individual needs could be interpreted, but it is
difficult to reflect on one aspect an eight or nine-word phrase without
reflecting on the other words in the provision. If I think about
whether the education or training meets the individual needs of the
person, I shall inevitably think about the word,
“suitable”. If I reflect on that issue, I shall reflect
on the subsection in its entirety—all 10 words, or whatever it
is. I hope that that helps the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Laws:
I would feel guilty and ungenerous in pressing the
amendment to a Division, so I await the Minister’s thinking. I
hope to be satisfied at a later stage, and I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 41 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 22 February 2008 |