Education and Skills Bill

Public Bill Committee, 22 January 2008.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during Committee sittings. Please would all Members ensure that mobile phones, pagers, and so on are turned off or switched to silent mode during sittings.

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with this Bill—copies are available in the room. I also remind Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairman, Mr. Bayley, do not intend to call starred amendments, including any starred amendments that may be reached during an afternoon sitting of the Committee.

We are still in the early days of taking oral evidence in Public Bill Committees, so it might help if I briefly explain what is proposed, so that we can all be clear. The Committee will first be asked to consider the programme motion that is being circulated in the Committee room, which supersedes the motion on the amendment paper. Debate on the motion is limited to half an hour. We will proceed to a motion to report written evidence a motion to permit the Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence sessions, both of which I hope we can take formally.

Assuming that the second of these motions is agreed to, the Committee will then move into private session. Once the Committee has deliberated, the witnesses and members of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral evidence session will commence. If the Committee agrees to the programme motion, the Committee will hear oral evidence today, on Thursday 24 January and on Tuesday 29 January before starting clause-by-clause scrutiny on Thursday 31 January.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 22nd January) meet—

(a) at 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 22nd January;

(b) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 24th January;

(c) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 29th January;

(d) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 31st January;

(e) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 5th February;

(f) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 7th February;

(g) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 19th February;

(h) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 21st February;

(i) at 10.30 a.m. and 4.00 p.m. on Tuesday 26th February;

(j) at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 28th February;

(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following table:

TABLE

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I am delighted that there is consensus on the programme motion, because the purpose of these evidence sessions is, as the Modernisation Committee report said last year, to inform Members of an evidential basis to the Bill; and—this is a very important role of evidence sessions—to raise the reputation of Parliament amongst the public. This Select Committee-type style is part of that process. I think the Government agreeing to the list of witnesses proposed by the Opposition—the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—is part of that process, and we are grateful that was done on this occasion.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

We, too, would like to thank the Minister and his team for being willing to amend the list of witnesses to include a broader spectrum. We are therefore very happy with the programme motion.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Copies of any memoranda which the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee room. I call the Minister to move the motion about deliberating in private.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Welcome to our witnesses, Martin Narey and Anne Pinney; we are grateful to you for coming. My name is John Bercow; I am the Member of Parliament for Buckingham, and I am chairing this Public Bill Committee, of which these evidence sessions form part. Could you briefly state your names and titles for the record? We will then go straight into the questioning, beginning with the Opposition Front Benchers and proceeding to other Members. We have a strict timetable and must have finished this session at 11.40, which carries its own implications for the pithiness of both the questions and responses.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Thank you. Nick Gibb?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

It is a pleasure to welcome you both to the Committee. Mr. Narey, you have been released from your previous role with the Prison Service. It is nice of both of you to be with us today. On the survey of opinion, in your brief you say that young people who you have surveyed said that choice is best. The British Youth Council said that it found that 46 per cent of young people were against compulsion. What did you find from the survey that you conducted of young people?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

But you still believe it should be compulsory?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

You say in your brief that you are concerned that young people are not left with a criminal record which could jeopardise their future employment prospects. Could you say a bit about those concerns?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

So is it your view that it should not be a criminal offence not to adhere to an attendance order?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Finally, can you tell me about your concerns about the attendance panel, in particular issues about having an advocate and the procedures of the panel?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

You have touched on the benefits that participation in education or training would give to the young people you work with. What do you think is more important in maximising that participation? Do you think it is having the enforcement measures at the end of the road or do you think it is the signal—the culture change—that raising the participation age sends out?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

You work with some young people who have particularly challenging lives.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Clearly, those are the young people who find it the most difficult to participate. Do you think that some of those young people should therefore be exempt from the duty, or should we be finding ways of supporting them towards participation? If the latter, what sort of support do you think that those young people should be receiving?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I want to follow up the point about the particular difficulties of very vulnerable groups. You said that young people may have to be physically delivered to the point of training. Do I take it that for those groups you are expecting that there would be specialised training? Surely you are not suggesting that we would physically deliver someone who was living such a chaotic life to an employer? It would be very difficult to give that support in an employment situation.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I shall call David Laws next and then Madeleine Moon, but I have sight of people who are trying to get in.

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Coming back very briefly to the issue of compulsion—in paragraph 3.1 of your evidence you mention that for young people “choosing to participate was critical to their motivation to attend and achieve.” Are you worried that if we have to get some of these young people involved in education and training through compulsion, we may have real problems motivating them and getting them to attend the particular courses?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

In paragraph 1.2 you describe some of the work that you are already doing with this group of young people—often those with multiple disadvantages. If the Bill goes through, do you have any concerns about whether or not those services will be available to an adequate depth and extent to pick up the increase, presumably, in the number of these people with quite high needs who will need to be dealt with by organisations such as yours and others?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

To ask one, final question, in paragraph 5.2 you say that “Attendance Panels must consider the extent of support provided by the LEA in assessing whether a young person has a ‘reasonable excuse’ for not attending.” In your view, as opposed to anything that may be implicit in the Bill, should there be for any quite exceptional cases any reasonable excuses for not taking up the obligation to be in education and training up to the age of 18?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

So you cannot envisage any circumstances in which young people with particular family, health and other issues might have a reasonable excuse not to be in education and training in these particular two years?

Madeleine Moon (Labour, Bridgend)

You have talked, very movingly I feel, about the barriers to learning for many young people and about raising expectations for young people who have been in families where there has not been an expectation of work, or success, or of moving forward in their lives. You have also talked about the success of the projects you have been running. Are there acceptable alternatives to the proposals in the Bill that you have been running in your projects that surmount these barriers and raise expectations and which could be implemented in the Bill? Could you also talk about the support and expectations that employers will need to have in place to tackle the needs of young people who do not have the commitment and expectation of continuing in education in schools?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I would like to visit this restaurant in Harrogate at some stage, particularly if the food is as good as you say it is. You said that work is very important and some of the young people you deal with have three generations not in work. Do you fear that the duties imposed on employers in the Bill might deter some employers from taking on the very people you suggest need to be in work, for whom just being in work is a fantastic step forward, even if that work does not have any training with it?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

The timetable of this Bill implicitly says that we should be starting to talk to children when they are 11 about the fact that they will be continuing until they are 18. Your experience of those who, at 13 or 14, drop out of the mainstream system is well known. Do you think there are steps that could be taken at that sort of age in order to engage them then and bridge that gap? As you say, it can take two or three years to give people the right skills, perhaps we should be doing things earlier with young people. If so, what sorts of things should we be doing to engage them at that age, ready to carry on?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The reason that 11 per cent. of year 11 students, just before they go on into the area we are talking about, are truanting is because many of them have a deep sense of stigma and shame about going to school. Is that correct?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

They cannot read and write, they have fallen behind. They come from families where they cannot afford the school trips or donations that are required. They are deeply socially excluded.

Is it really right that we are saying to these youngsters—who already feel this sense of deep shame and stigma—“Oh well, the answer is that we are going to give you another two years of hiding at the back of the class, or being chased around as though you are a truant”?

Martin knows, as well as I do, that the average reading age in prisons is eleven. Do we not need to tackle this basic problem of literacy and numeracy at a much earlier age—and really get a grip on that—before we talk about compulsion?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

But when you talk about Harrogate, you are talking about something voluntary. There are lots of good charities and voluntary bodies rescuing people that the system has failed—you and lots of other charities do it. But what makes you think that compulsion is going to be the answer—forcing youngsters to stay on in colleges, stay on in school or go to some work-based training scheme? Why is that the answer, rather than cracking the real problem—which is illiteracy and innumeracy not being tackled at a much earlier age?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

Martin Narey, you have already said that you do not think any particular groups of young people per se should be exempted from participation. But you acknowledge that there are groups—I think you mentioned young carers—who will find it particularly challenging in these present circumstances. Can you think of any other groups of young people for whom this is going to be a particularly difficult challenge?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

It is certainly not my intention to suggest that they should be. I was trying to suggest that there were particular categories that might need particular and additional support.

Staying with the young carers issue for a moment as an example, in that context is it your opinion that the work you have described on bringing young people back to participation, which you do successfully, is time consuming, inevitably labour intensive, and—as I suspect—fairly costly? What evidence do you have that young carers, for example, will be getting the support that they will need from local authorities, under the Bill’s provisions, to square the circle of continuing to do their caring while matching the participation requirements of the extended leaving age?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

Does the sort of situation that you describe on intensive work mean that, in your view, we have to have additional obligations under the Bill to meet, for example, the financial provision requirements?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

We have focused on local authorities there but, for the groups of young people we are talking about—and understanding that this Bill is not just about keeping children in school to 18, but in other forms of work-based and educational provision—will there need to be different obligations for other education providers?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

Do you think that employers are currently geared up to have an open attitude when dealing with the sort of groups mentioned?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Following that question, regarding the audit for the sufficiency and diversity of provision, you will be pleased to know that the Opposition have tabled an amendment in exactly those terms. I have no doubt that the Government will accept it with enthusiasm.

You have also argued strongly, both today and in your briefing, for a strong emphasis on the workplace. Knowing that work-based learning has declined by half in the last 20 years, what specific measures would you put in place to increase the degree of opportunity to engage sufficiently in that learning?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

So is that principally about getting more employers engaged, or about putting additional mechanisms in place to provide the kind of support that you already do?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

On the assumption that the questions are on this point, I will bring in David Lammy first and then Jim Knight.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

Presumably, then, you would welcome an increase in pre-apprenticeships, preparing young people who have not got employability skills, and programme-led apprenticeships, which might lead those young people coming out of colleges to getting employment and a proper, fully fledged apprenticeship?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Jim Knight.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Thank you, Mr. Bercow, for allowing me in again. Martin, when we were talking earlier about the need to deliver some young people right to the premises, where they might engage with learning, you said that even parents with children in their 20s might need to be that active in their support. That led me to recall some of the aspects of the Second Reading debate, when we had an interesting discussion on what age we think young people are responsible enough to make their own decisions. A strong argument was put—I disagreed with it—that 16 is an age when we should not interfere with their rights to stay at home and play “World of Warcraft” if that is what they want to do. How would you respond to that?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

And do you think that this applies in particular to children from more disadvantaged or less aspirational backgrounds? Or does it make no difference according to what sort of person they are?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Can I briefly clarify two points? First, on the audit that you are suggesting the LEA should do, are you saying that you want that audit of the sufficiency and diversity of provision to take place before the duties in the Bill apply in relation to compulsion, so that we make sure that we have got the services first?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

You would not want the duty for people to be in training or education beyond 16 to be in place without the provision being in place to deal with them, is that fair?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

From your experience of disadvantaged youngsters, are there any who might need a lot more care and support than they are getting at the moment—the services that you are providing—who, for a period of that time between 16 and 18, would need that care and support, medical or other, and who, rather than being in education and training at the same time, would benefit from doing the education and training afterwards?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

I remind the Committee that we now have four minutes left. I shall call Nick Gibb, followed by Sarah McCarthy-Fry.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Can I ask you about a different subject: the enforcement of data and information-sharing provisions in the Bill? Clause 16 talks about the duty to supply information by the local authority, the primary care trust, the strategic health authority, the chief officer of police and the probation board to a local authority in order to assess the enforcement of those provisions. Does Barnardo’s have a view about that data on young people?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

May I briefly bring you to a new part on financial support for young people? Many people felt that the education maintenance allowance was a sort of sweetener to encourage people to stay on from 16 to 18. If there is a duty to participate between 16 and 18, the Government have said that they will look at restructuring financial support. You give a couple of options in your evidence—a minimum income guarantee and parity of financial support. Do you think that that should be done through the education system, or should we be looking to other benefits to tie into that?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

That concludes the questioning. I should like to thank Martin and Anne very warmly, both for their oral evidence today and for Barnardo’s written evidence. The Committee is extremely grateful, and you have contributed to some enlightenment for all of us. Thank you.

If we can have a speedy turnaround, that would be great. We shall move on, as quickly as people can get to their seats, to the Prince’s Trust.

Welcome and good morning. Perhaps I can ask our two witnesses from the Prince’s Trust to introduce themselves and then, as in the previous session, I am minded to move straight into Q and A.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Thank you. We will go straight into questioning, and I am looking at Nick Gibb.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Thank you very much for coming to give evidence today. May I just ask you about compulsion, which is one of the basic principles of the Bill? What is the Prince’s Trust view on whether the participation age should be raised to 18?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

But you say in your brief that you do not support the compulsive element and you believe that it would criminalise young people.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Can you just say a bit more about your worries about criminalising young people and what effect that might have?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I went to one of the Prince’s Trust projects in Glasgow, and I was hugely impressed by the way it brought these challenging young people into the workplace, so that they could set up their own businesses and so on. What role do you believe the voluntary sector should play? Does this legislation pay enough attention to the voluntary sector?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Indeed. I recently sat in on an interview for Teach First. One young woman was studying for her postgraduate certificate of education while holding down four jobs. There must be many 16 and 17-year-olds who are holding down one, two or three jobs simply to keep the wolf from their family’s door. What effect could the Bill have on such people? In your briefing, you say that the trust believes that all young people have potential talent but not all people can work towards an accreditation and that, in the minority of cases, it is clear that they will not achieve certain qualifications and that they would be set up to fail. How do we help those people not be set up to fail by this legislation?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I have four quick and related questions. First, do you think it is desirable that all young people aged 16 to 18 should be in some form of education or training, assuming that their support needs are being met?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Do you think that it is possible to get to 100 per cent. participation in education and training without raising the participation age?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Let me put it another way, because that is an extremely reasonable answer. Is there another way of maximising and doing better in terms of participation other than raising the participation age?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

So if support needs—perhaps in respect of the young people who you talked about with drug and alcohol addiction problems or teenage mums—have not been met and those people are excluded from compulsion, would you then have a problem with compulsion in dealing with those who willingly and deliberately just do not want to do it? They do not really have any support needs; they just do not want to engage.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Being difficult?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

My final question was on whether you have sought the views of the businesses that you work with in the Prince’s Trust and what they then said to you about the proposals.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Very briefly.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Martina, thank you for that. Stephen Williams.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I should like to pick up some of Martina Milburn’s earlier answers, particularly those on the role of the voluntary sector. You indicated that you were disappointed that the Bill does not recognise the role of the voluntary sector; what, in particular, would you like to see added to the legislation to give recognition to the work that you and other voluntary sector practitioners do?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

On that point about user voices, are you suggesting that there should be some sort of forum? There is provision in the Bill for more independent advice and guidance, but are you suggesting that there could also be a role for young people to comment on the services that they have been offered?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

You said earlier that the vast majority of those who access the Prince’s Trust’s services are there because they have chosen to do so, although some are on court referrals. If, under the Bill, the trust was to take people who were compelled to be with you other than under a court order, which would concentrate their minds, would it affect the positive outcome that you currently achieve?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

But do you think that part of the reason for your success at the moment is that the majority those with you now choose to access your particular type of education and training?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Given what research you must have on why people come to you, what is the primary reason for people accessing the services offered by your organisation, rather than the more formal services offered by schools and colleges—or, indeed, directly by employers?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

You mentioned in an earlier answer that there will be clear difficulties with people who come from dysfunctional backgrounds, such as those with alcohol problems or who are dependent on drugs—or those who have someone else in the family at home with such a background. Do you think that enough support and recognition is given in the Bill to dealing with people from such backgrounds, given the difficulties that they have in their lives—for instance, in meeting a set timetable?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

Thank you for that reading tip. I shall ask the House of Commons Library whether it has a copy. Do you know who wrote it?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

You spoke about picking up young people with mental health problems. Obviously, at the moment, your programmes are voluntary—people choose to go on them. In my experience with Portsmouth Foyer, it is the support workers that encourage young people to go. Do you not think that having a duty to participate will bring more such people into the fold, enabling us to find out who they are and to devise programmes for them? At the moment, vast swathes of them are not being picked up at all. But if we have a duty to participate, we can devise programmes to help.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

You talked about your work taster programmes and your pre-apprenticeship work. On the apprenticeships themselves, to what extent could the trust encourage people who have set up businesses through its auspices to feel that they have a responsibility to offer apprenticeships? Do you think it possible to change the culture to a point where businesses generally think it part of their duty to train up the young to follow them on? That used to be the culture at one time, but it very much died. The Government have their scheme, but what thoughts do you have on getting a real apprenticeship culture back?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

There used to be an idea that, if you were a tradesman or had a market stall, it was almost your duty to take on some young person and train them up. That seems to have been lost, so can anything be done to encourage that spirit of solidarity in trying to help some of these young people?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

So if I move on from butchery, are there other things to “Get into”?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Do you need to be able to read and write for that?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

The Bill has some very important provisions about adult skills as well as skills for younger people, and I know from the excellent work that the Prince’s Trust has done in Blackpool that you are concerned with both groups of people. What would you pick out as the most helpful provisions on adult skills in the Bill for the work and activities that you do?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

May I focus on the last point you made, about differences in relation to age? The Bill contains some commitments about the LSC supporting and funding skills up to the age of 25. Would you rather see that as a first step than as a complete cut-off?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

With regard to how we build up adult skills, the Bill places a duty on the LSC to provide basic literacy and numeracy courses and there are level 2 and level 3 entitlements to funding. Will that be sufficient of itself to deliver the step change that we need in that group, or are there other ways of getting young adults back into a skills environment that we need to promote as well?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

May I return to a point that you raised earlier to ensure that I understand your view on it? You were talking about the very high-need youngsters, who might have health, drug or alcohol problems. I think that you were suggesting that it might be difficult for them to engage in the education and training opportunities that the Government want them to have between 16 and 18 on a compulsory basis, before sorting those problems out. First, have I got that right, and secondly, if that is a legitimate concern—returning to Sarah McCarthy-Fry’s point—is it better, in your view, to amend the Bill to make the obligation one that is not focused just on education and training but could be about sorting out those problems before allowing young people to take up an education and training entitlement? Or do you think that does not really add much and we should just focus on putting more money and backing behind the services that will deal with those problems for the minority of youngsters who will have those very severe social, health and other problems?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

But what you are certainly saying is that you are concerned there might be some young people between the ages of 16 and 18 for whom we have to unravel other problems before we can engage them in education or training?

Madeleine Moon (Labour, Bridgend)

You stress very much the flexibility and creativity of the voluntary sector, and their success in tackling the problems of disadvantaged and alienated young people—and I think we would all recognise that. What I am not clear about is whether you are also saying that you feel there is an inability or difficulty for local authorities in providing this flexibility and creativity, that would give the sufficiency we need to tackle the larger numbers coming through if we move towards this extension to 19.

There is also the issue of actually tackling the problems—especially of chaotic lives—before people get to 16, and whether or not you feel there is enough in place to do that now, and whether you see there being a greater role for the voluntary sector in working with the statutory bodies to create more flexibility at 12 to 14, when so many of these problems manifest themselves?

Finally, how would you see enforcing the duty to participate being implemented? Are there sanctions—you talked as a parent of the importance of compulsion and sanctions—that you see actually being successful in the work that you do now?

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

May I just return to the biggest question of compulsion. You have made a very powerful case for there to be adequate resources to support the needs of young people in general, and in particular in the age group we were talking about. You have also expressed concern that, were there to be compulsion associated with this, it should not lead to the criminalisation of young people, and I think that is entirely understood. But may I just check that I have understood what you are saying in general terms about compulsion?

As I understand it, you are not objecting to the principle of compulsion, and indeed you seem to have accepted that compulsion—or at least some measure of sanctions—is likely to be necessary in some circumstances, if participation is to be at a high enough level. You seem also to be saying that, on the experience you have had, compulsion did not necessarily affect the outcomes of those who engaged in education and training in this age group. Have I understood that correctly? You do not object in principle; there may be some necessity in certain circumstances and the outcomes may not be adversely affected?

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Just a health warning, we are into the last five minutes.

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

You appeared to accept in your earlier evidence that, were there not to be some degree of compulsion and some element of sanctions, the degree of participation would not be adequate or satisfactory. Was that not the case?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I have actually read the book “Wasted” that you referred to earlier, and I met Mark Johnson when he was giving a speech about his experience at a drug rehabilitation centre. I would lend Mr. Williams the book but it is a signed copy and he should just buy it. Mark Johnson was in his 30s when I met him. He got into drugs at a very young age and his experience at school was appalling, but he is an intelligent person. Do you find that a lot of your clientele have had very bad experiences at school, because the schools are not providing education? In particular, may I pick up on the questions that Mr. Heald asked about literacy levels. What do you find about literacy levels amongst the people whom you are trying to help?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

If something is compulsory, it is far more likely to get funding, and if there is a squeeze on a budget, if it is not compulsory, it may very well get cut. Would you care to comment on that?

Secondly, you referred to the situation where a member of the family might have some sort of control over a young person, although perhaps not very adequate control. Would compulsion not also help the family member, such as a parent who is having difficulties, in encouraging the young person to take part?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

That you are more likely to get funding if something is compulsory.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Thank you. I am extremely appreciative, because you have both been very helpful and co-operative. Please do not think that I am being discourteous. We are working to a resolution of the Committee, which is binding. Thank you very much for your evidence. We move on to the last witness, who is from the Association of Colleges.

Welcome. Perhaps you would be kind enough to identify yourself.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Thank you for that introduction.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

There are three areas that I want to question you on. The first is the new arrangements for careers advice and guidance. You will know that the Department produced a report in 2005 that said that “the significant flaws in the current arrangements mean that they are not sustainable in today’s education and economic environment or in the face of the challenges of the next few years”. In your view, does the way Connexions works need to be changed?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

The Bill does not appear to address the confusion between the respective responsibilities of schools in Connexions partnerships. That confusion is added to by the decision to transfer responsibility to local authorities. We could end up with a duocracy, could we not, of local authorities dealing with one age group for careers advice, and an adult careers service dealing with a different range of people. Would that be tenable?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Moving on to the issue of compulsion, if I may, the AOC says, “The issue of compulsion is controversial, but for the policy to have legitimacy there has to be an incentive for participation.” The Bill imposes a duty on educational institutions to promote good attendance. How do you interpret the duty to promote good attendance? How will colleges work with LEAs to enforce those arrangements? Are colleges geared up—are they equipped—to deal with truancy?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

That is dependent to some extent on registration and data collection, is it not? You say in respect of the Connexions caseload database that you are “not satisfied this database is fit for purpose,” and you believe that it will need “significant improvements in advance of 2015 to ensure local authorities are able to enforce their new duty effectively.” Why is the database not fit for purpose? Will local authorities have an effective register of young people in their area, which you will be able to share with them to put into effect your own duty?

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

You support participation up to the age of 18 and you say that the policy is already changing expectations of everyone working in education and training. Will you say a bit more about how colleges are responding to the adult skills proposals in the Bill?

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

In terms of the impact on the FE sector as a whole, are your members broadly supportive of the measures in the Bill?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I should like to ask Mrs. Dutton about clauses 66 and 68 on advice and then briefly about transport. First, on advice, the Bill introduces the fact that advice to the young person should be impartial or independent, but it also says that they should be between 16 and 18. Do you not think that the critical time is more likely to be the age of 14, particularly given that the diplomas will have been fully rolled out across the country when the Bill comes into effect? The critical decision that people will have to make will be at the end of key stage 3, rather than at the end of key stage 4.

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I understand that colleges increasingly have 14 and 15-year-olds on their books who tend to have had bad experiences with school. When diplomas are fully rolled out and colleges have a full role to play in their delivery, do you think that it should be made specific in the Bill for independent advice to be offered at ages 13 and 14, so that children might decide to leave school at that point and access colleges services?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

I turn to clause 68 on transport, which provides that time, as well as distance, should be taken into account. Do you think that that will make a material difference?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

What about an affordability test? At the moment, under current legislation, if you are on free school meals or on working tax credit, you get free transport for six miles, or 15 miles if it is a faith-based organisation. Given what you said about rural locations, a college can be a long distance away. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) tells me that his nearest college is 50 miles away. Will the clause make a difference to those who need to access training and college?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

I have two brief questions. In point 9 of the evidence that you supplied to us, you mention that clause 6 has an obligation for people in work to participate in a course or courses leading to a qualification that is a accredited by the QCA. You say that you have some concerns about young people who have learning disabilities that prevent them from taking external qualifications. Would you say a little more about that concern and the solution?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Thank you. That is very helpful. One final question: I do not know whether you heard our earlier witness, Martina Milburn, but she was expressing concern about the small number of young people with high vulnerabilities—mental health and other problems—who might not be ready to engage with education and training until those problems were sorted out. Under the Bill, some of those youngsters could end up coming into the colleges that you represent under the education and training obligation. Do you have any of the same concerns that she expressed about those individuals and about education and training being right for them, prior to those problems being fixed?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

I want to pursue a couple of supplementaries on the issue of young people with learning difficulties—in particular, on clause 65. Is it not the case at the moment that there is a level of special educational needs or disability that most colleges simply cannot cope with in terms of their support mechanisms?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

May I put the point to you, because this is what clause 65 is about, that galvanising might in some circumstances mean the need, as the autism charity TreeHouse has suggested, for the Government to put some form of sanctions on colleges and schools to make sure they provide a baseline support mechanism?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

At present, young people can work a maximum of 40 hours. It is proposed in the Bill that, for those post-16 who choose to work, they should do up to 280 hours a year of training towards an appropriate qualification. As your services from FE colleges become more demand-led, to what extent do you think those qualifications could be taught in the evenings and at weekends, so that those who, by mutual agreement with their employer, want to carry on working five days a week could still access that sort of training?

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

The previous witness, from the Prince’s Trust, was keen to emphasise that having advanced-level apprenticeships solely would be a mistake and that there should be different routes for different types of young people. Presumably, your members are pleased with an approach to training and employment in which advanced apprenticeships, level 2 apprenticeships, pre-apprenticeships, programme-led apprenticeships and employers work in partnership with training providers and FE providers.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Am I right in thinking that you represent the governing boards of colleges, rather than the principals or the lecturers?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

It is slightly concerning that the Association of School and College Leaders and the University and College Lecturers Union have both made comments suggesting that there are concerns about whether FE can soak up reluctant students without damaging the learning experience in colleges. The Association of School and College Leaders has stated that keeping the last 10 per cent. of recalcitrant young people in education and training will not come cheap. However, you seem to be giving a very upbeat assessment, saying that the costs of raising the participation age are less than might be expected and that that will provide a better future for everybody. Would you like to comment on that?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

So you do not foresee difficulties with the ability of FE to soak up reluctant students being a problem, or the cost being high?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Does that mean that you think there will be extra costs and that you are looking for more money?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

How do you view the capacity and resource level of colleges in coping with the increased participation of special needs students? As you mentioned earlier, some of these people just need to acquire employment skills, but there will be a much greater range of requirements among special needs students. Could you reflect upon the implications of travelling time? Students who attend special schools often need specialised transport if they have mobility problems. A circuitous route is often taken from home to school, because more than one child is collected. That will naturally apply to colleges as well.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

May I ask about transport again? You say in paragraph 11 of your brief that the provision of affordable transport is vital to assist young people in accessing the right course. You then go on to say that the Bill is disappointing, because it does not strengthen the obligation of local authorities to ensure that affordable transport is available. Paragraph 6.10 of the regulatory impact assessment prepared by the Government states: “We do not expect this change”—the change about taking time into account in transportation—“to place any additional cost burdens on local authorities”. What is your view on that? Does it mean that this is going to be difficult to implement in practice?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Thank you. We are talking about 400,000 apprenticeships by 2020. Will all those apprenticeships be employer-based?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

I have two points. You will know that the National Institute of Adult Continuing Education reports a collapse in adult and community learning, which has had profound consequences for colleges and communities. Also, Lord Leitch recommends that we will need to upskill and reskill the existing work force, including many mature learners. The new emphasis on younger people will presumably skew colleges’ attention and resources away from those two areas.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

My second point was that Lord Leitch argues that we need to upskill and reskill the existing work force, which clearly involves a lot of mature learners. Will the new concentration on young people, which the Bill brings, not skew colleges’ attention and resources away from mature learners, and not just in the non-accredited adult community field?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

You are right about the relentless concentration on level 2 and accredited learning, but I think you underestimate the challenge in respect of those new young people. You said yourself that they will be a different group of young people and many young people with challenging circumstances and special needs are being brought into the system. Numerically there may be equivalence, because of the fall in the cohort, but the need to concentrate your attention and resources will, I put it to you, inevitably skew to those new groups of young people.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

On that adult learning point, you presumably welcome the entitlement of adults to basic skills training for the first time, recognising that, on some estimates, 15 million people require literacy and numeracy training.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

As for your members’ ability to meet the relevant needs, presumably the capital investment in FE colleges is welcome and has helped to make more work-based training possible.

John Bercow (Conservative, Buckingham)

Sue, I thank you warmly for your evidence today and for the written evidence that you and your organisation have submitted.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Michael Foster.]

Written evidence to be reported to the House

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Susan Anderson, the director of human resources policy from the CBI, and your colleague, I take it, Richard Wainer—could you introduce yourself please?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

You understand the procedure: you will get a range of questions from members of the Committee, starting with the Front Benchers from the three parties but leaving plenty of time for the Back Benchers to ask questions, and possibly for the Front Benchers to come back in. We are looking for brief questions and brief answers.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Welcome and good afternoon. The Bill makes no mention of training provided directly by employers, or how that could count towards a qualification. It does not propose ways in which we can involve employers more closely. In your briefing note, you say that many 16 and 17-year-olds in employment have become disengaged by classroom-style teaching. My question is, does the Bill do enough to encourage employer involvement? Is there a danger that 16 and 17-year-olds in employment who spend one day a week in the classroom will not necessarily gain competencies that will be valued by their employer?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

You say that you have developed a “12-point—

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Before you go ahead John, may I once again ask for quick questions and answers? Nine out of 40 minutes have gone and there are many members of the Committee who want to ask questions.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Sorry, Mr. Bayley. I shall be very quick. You say that you have developed a 12-point plan to ensure that more employers are prepared to participate, particularly in apprenticeships. I share your view about that. What, in your view, are the main ways in which apprenticeships should be reformed? Would that include a statutory definition with a minimum level of employer engagement and mentoring?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Through group training associations, perhaps, and perhaps you might also share the view that there should be an all-age careers service to provide the kind of advice that you have just mentioned. If I could be allowed a small suffix, what would you do about NVQs, which you also criticise?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Is there a real risk that the measures in the Bill could increase unemployment for 16 and 17-year-olds?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

And the ones who are particularly at risk are the 65,000 whom you mentioned, who might be substituted for migrant workers or over-18s?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Given the Bill before us, is the answer to that problem to try to make the training, education and qualification requirements more flexible, or are you concerned that some youngsters, in existing employment that is not certified in the way described in the Bill, are learning useful skills and disciplines such as being in a workplace, attending on time and such basic skills that it would be better to engage in than go through qualification hoops for the sake of it?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

David, I have to move on. You may be able to catch my eye later.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am delighted to see in your submission the very straightforward sentence from paragraph 2:

“The CBI supports the Government’s proposals to raise the participation age.”

Would you set out for us the benefits that inform that support? What do you think that employers should contribute themselves in order to secure those gains?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am sure that some would argue that we should get literacy and numeracy right before the age of 16. I would agree. There is plenty that we have done, and more to be done. Equally, through work experience and built into the new diplomas are functional literacy and numeracy. We can do some of that employability through key stage 4. I would be interested in what is specific about 16 to 18 where you think that that is helpful—perhaps around certain sections of the population that you might have concerns about. Then, in respect of what employers can do, I gather that you have some nervousness about the burden of checking whether or not a young person is participating before employing them. Do you think that there is another way of doing that, which is less burdensome on employers?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

Now is not the time for me to give reassurances, though it may come up when I myself give evidence. To be absolutely clear, are you saying that employers are really concerned about ongoing burdens, rather than just the initial burden of saying at the start of the employment, “How are you going to fulfil your duty?” and “Let’s be clear about what we need to do as an employer to allow us to fulfil our legal obligation, and you to do what you then do as a young person,”?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

You have already partly answered my question, but I would like to explore further the idea of accreditation. We have some very good examples of big industry—factories and so forth—being able to make a very clear agreement with a college about the skills needed, and the one day a week release being very successful. The issue for many smaller businesses is that skills are more difficult to identify, as, perhaps, are some of the softer skills. How would you see that form of accreditation developing? Do you see learning-based union reps being involved or do you envisage a system of mentors? You clearly have expertise in the workplace, and the idea of having a form of accreditation that is totally relevant is obviously very attractive. Would you see that as a way forward? How would you manage to bring a form of accreditation to the accreditation?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

The NEETs whom you talk about in paragraphs 6 to 8 have no qualifications and many of them cannot read or write. Is it correct that the response to that problem is not apprenticeships because you cannot do an apprenticeship if you are in that sort of educational condition? If so, why are you saying that the answer is for those youngsters to stay on beyond 16, when they have had 10 to 12 years of statutory education and obviously have not learned anything? Why would they learn anything in those two further years?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Is that true? Lots of these youngsters cannot read, write or add up can they?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Why then are charities such as Rainer running literacy courses for people to get a certificate for the building trade in health and safety, and those kids just cannot read and write? Why are they doing that if those kids are functionally literate? They are not.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Oliver, that must be the last question.

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

Is there not a danger of constructing a false dichotomy between the idea that you either do learning or training, or have 16 or 17-year-olds in a job? I have heard the concerns that you have about getting them on board, but should the CBI not take a more active role and then encourage employers to regard the situation as an opportunity for more work-based learning?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

I understand that. I did not ask you about literacy and numeracy; I asked you about work-based learning. Perhaps you were picking up on Mr. Heald’s point. Let me press you a little further, because you talked earlier about the importance of integrating in-house training into qualifications, with which I agree, but where would you draw the line? There is a difference between the just-in-time in-house training, which is designed to meet a company’s specific need at a specific point, and other training that benefits and makes the employee’s career more progressive within that company and, possibly, outside it.

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

You referred to employability skills. How important do you rate verbal communication skills in enabling pupils to interview well for college places, apprenticeships and jobs, and in interacting with people when they get there?

Madeleine Moon (Labour, Bridgend)

Many employers, as you have said, take great responsibility for their training, but some do not. I have heard some confusion about the level of responsibility, and some are concerned that others, including colleagues, do not bear the responsibility for training that they should. What would your response be to a suggestion that there should be a duty on employers to collaborate with schools and other local learning bodies to provide training? Given the responsibility for 280 hours in a year, would some of your concerns be alleviated by the fact that those 280 hours could be met outside the normal working week?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

Apprenticeship levels 2 and 3 are down. Will there be enough apprenticeships to meet demand, and will they genuinely be employer-based?

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

I am pleased to hear you emphasise completion rates and quality, which obviously accounts for the overall figures. Would you agree?

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

To what extent do employers value level 2 apprenticeships?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

It must be a quick answer. I am governed by the clock.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I am absolutely governed by the clock in these affairs, and I need to draw this session to an end. I thank both Susan Anderson and Richard Wainer for giving evidence, and I also thank the CBI for providing written evidence.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

We have our next set of witnesses. Tom Wilson is the head of the organisation and services department at the TUC, and we have Caroline Smith, who will introduce herself.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

You say in your brief for Second Reading that the TUC does not support “a compulsory approach that could result in young people being...penalised via the criminal justice system” for non-attendance. Will you expand on that and the reasons why it is the TUC’s view?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

So when we come to scrutinise the Bill clause by clause and to table amendments, do you think that we should try to take out the criminal sanctions and replace them with civil sanctions such as county court enforcement procedures? Would that improve the Bill from your perspective?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

You also say that apprenticeship places need to be the cornerstone of raising participation. Are enough employers offering apprenticeships in sufficient numbers and of a high enough quality to meet such demand?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

It is clear from what Mr. Wilson has said so far that the TUC does not support compulsion, and that it would prefer entitlements instead. In paragraph 1.5 of your evidence to the Committee, which deals with entitlements to level 2 and level 3 qualifications, you imply that you would wish to see a lifetime entitlement to level 2 training. Is that right?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

So, from what you are saying, if, say, by the time someone has reached 18 and they have gone through this compulsory staying on in education and training but they have not attained level 2, you think that it would be preferable for there to be a right to have paid time off and free tuition, and that should continue after 18. Is that what you are saying?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

The Leitch report relies on an employer pledge, which you have also mentioned in your evidence, up until 2010. What do you think that the Government should do in 2010 if the employer pledge has not been met for making sure that everyone has attained at least level 2?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

In paragraphs 1.7, 1.12 and 1.13 of your evidence, you deal with the sectors that currently employ large numbers of young people: hotels; restaurants, and retail, etc. I am not clear about something in the percentages that you give. The percentages that you give in paragraph 1.7 are the people who do not have quality training at the moment. Is that what you are saying there?

Stephen Williams (Liberal Democrat, Bristol West)

So do you think that there is something specific—

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

Stephen, I shall be accused of not being very good at numeracy if I do not move on, but you can try to catch my eye again in just a moment. David Lammy.

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

How do you think that the proposals in the Bill in relation to adult skills complement the union learning fund and unionlearn?

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

We have had some suggestions on the Committee about the reasons for keeping young people in education when their literacy and numeracy are not up to standard. Presumably, from your own experience with members who have basic skills levels, you might have a view on why people might not have adequate literacy and numeracy levels.

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

When Stephen Williams said just now that you seemed to be saying that you were opposed to compulsion and in favour of entitlements, you did not respond. Looking at your evidence, I thought that that was a little simplistic. Would you like to expand on that point? If all the caveats that you have put into paragraph 1.4 were there, would you not accept that, as was told to us in somebody else’s evidence, the compulsory element could galvanise all those elements into place? Would you be more in favour of a compulsory approach if all those caveats were in place acting as a force to bring in those additional support services?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

Do you think that that is possible without compulsion?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

May I ask you about the categories that Stephen was talking about in paragraph 1.7? Clearly one of the risks was of shaking people out of jobs that might be a lot better than the alternative. Thinking about youngsters employed in certain sectors, but who are not getting certified educational training, and the fact that they might be in smaller businesses and so forth, do you think it realistic that the majority could be accredited in the work place, rather than through formal education? Are you confident that they could be usefully accredited, so that we do not simply create a paper factory, rather than provide real skills and opportunities?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

The Skills Minister mentioned the impact of union learning reps and union learning. The Bill has significant implications for information, advice and guidance and in particular expanding that into the adult area. Building on the success that you have had with union learning reps, what role would you see for unions and the TUC in that process?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

I agree, and indeed the former Select Committee said as much in its post-16 skills report. The implication of that, of course, depends on funding. If you have to prioritise around a major expansion of adult skills, for which particular groups in society would you prioritise the funding of that expansion?

Gordon Marsden (Labour, Blackpool South)

Where does English for speakers of other languages fit into that?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Do you agree that some people who cannot read, write and add up by the time they get to 16 feel a deep sense of shame and stigma about it? It is difficult to persuade somebody who has already done 10 years, a lot of it hiding from the teacher because they are afraid that they cannot really engage in the class, to stay on at school or in a college, or take a particular workplace training opportunity. Is it not right that the strength of what you have been doing through union learning representatives is the softer approach, encouraging people, engaging them and making it much less a difficult thing to do? Is that one reason why you are not in favour of compulsion—that it may just reinforce all the bad stereotypes, difficulties and stigmas that this isolated group already has?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Do you think that that is the wrong way of putting it? It is a stigma, isn’t it? There is something there.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I was going to ask you what you thought employers’ duties should be, but there is something else that I feel the need to clarify. I agree with you, in paragraph 1.4 of your helpful submission to us, that

“the primary focus should be on support, encouragement and an attractive learning and skills offer for young people”,

but I want to be really clear about what your view is on compulsion and enforcement. We have just heard Mr. Heald say that he thinks you are against compulsion, and we heard Mr. Williams say the same. Mr. Gibb’s questioning was on whether you were perhaps in favour of civil enforcement but not criminal enforcement. I want to be really clear about whether you are against compulsion, whether you are for a duty to participate but against enforcement, or whether you are in favour of civil enforcement but against criminal enforcement—exactly where you sit in that range of possible positions.

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

In paragraph 1.2, you quoted what you said in the consultation, that

“if young people are to be given the best chance of succeeding in the world of work, it makes sense for them to remain in education or high quality training until they are 18.”

Obviously, I completely agree and am delighted that you say that so clearly. To some extent it goes back to Sarah McCarthy-Fry’s questioning on what you said about entitlement. Do you think that it is possible to achieve entitlement without that cultural shift in aspiration saying clearly that people should remain in education and training until they are 18, and that there is a way of enforcing it, if support does not work? Can we achieve that entitlement without a stick to go with some big carrots?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Obviously, the Bill translates entitlements and turns it into obligations. Notwithstanding that, you place key emphasis, and I agree, on apprenticeships. Is your view, as mine is, that apprenticeships would be assisted by a statutory definition, that pivoted around employer engagement, a level of workplace training and mentoring, which would be a proper test of the acquisition of real vocational competence leading to employability?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

Would there be a trade-off in your estimation between completion and rigour? I do not have a fixed view about that, but if apprenticeships are going to be demanding—both of the employer and of the trainee—there may be some implicit affect on completion. What is your view?

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

May I once more return to the issue of compulsion and clarify that I have understood what you are saying? Am I right to think you are saying that you are not opposed to the principle of compulsion, but that what concerns you is the potential for criminalisation of young people as a result of compulsion and the potential for counter-productive, negative results from the imposition of sanctions?

Peter Soulsby (Labour, Leicester South)

If there were not to be compulsion, do you have an alternative for creating the level of participation that the Government and you are clearly very keen to see achieved?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

We detected that Mr. Knight might have been trying to break up the consensus between the TUC, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative party on compulsion. In case of doubt—in case you suddenly find yourself being quoted in other terms—your document in November, after the September conference to which reference was made, has a very clear and concise summary of your position. My understanding is that you have not changed that. It says, in one sentence, that

“the TUC does not support a compulsory approach that would result in young people being penalised by the criminal justice system for non-attendance.”

My understanding is that the TUC has not changed its position on that issue since then.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

However many times Labour Ministers or Back Benchers ask the question, the answer from the TUC is the same, as Mr. Laws has just cited. You can cite the evidence to this Committee as well: the TUC has some reservations, in particular around a compulsory approach that would result in young people being forced into learning. Mr. Wilson, in your November briefing you said:

“Further, the use of financial penalties may have unintended outcomes and create additional barriers for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

Could you please expand on that viewpoint?

David Lammy (Labour, Tottenham)

Would it be right to say that although you have reservations about compulsion in relation to young people you agree with compulsion in relation to employers and the training levy?

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

We have time for a few brief questions and answers.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I am sorry I am late, Mr. Bayley.

On the whole, most employers will act rationally, so why are they not investing in training? If they felt there was a financial need, an imperative for their business to invest in training, they would do it, because they are not in the habit of cutting their own throats. What would be their commercial reasons for not investing in training, in your experience?

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

So what type of training should employers be investing in for their work force in, say, the catering sector?

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

What would be the incentive for employers to do that? If there were an incentive you could argue that they would already be doing it. I do not understand; if they are not doing it, it is because there is a lack of an incentive to do it.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

I can squeeze in Madeleine Moon, very briefly.

Madeleine Moon (Labour, Bridgend)

I would like to be absolutely clear on the issue of compulsion. Is it compulsion to engage young people in employment, training and education? Is it the sufficiency and variety that is required to be provided for young people? Is it the requirement actually to look at the meeting of individuals’ needs and whether they have been met, before you actually move to—

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

We have now hit the deadline and I am supposed to stop the debate but you can over-run a bit.

Hugh Bayley (Labour, City of York)

We are all perfectly clear on compulsion. I thank the TUC for your written evidence and I very much thank Tom Wilson and Caroline Smith for appearing before the Committee. I am sorry I had to squeeze colleagues’ questions at the end but you will know that I am required absolutely to stick to timetables, unlike in Select Committees.

Could we ask our witnesses from the Association of School and College Leaders to come up to the table please? While they are sitting down, I would like to welcome Brian Lightman, president of the association, Martin Ward, deputy general secretary and Anna Cole, the association’s parliamentary specialist.

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

May I refer to your brief? You say in paragraph 6:

“In particular we do not support the potential application of criminal penalties for what is a civil matter”.

Can you expand on the ASCL’s view on the issue of compulsion?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

I do not think that there is anything in the Bill that would result in custody. But if it were short of locking up, if it were simply criminal sanctions, a criminal offence to fail to comply with an attendance order, would you still be unhappy?

Nick Gibb (Conservative, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton)

On another issue, you say, in paragraph 5 of your brief, that

“we are concerned that to be relevant and therefore covered by the Bill employment must be for 20 hours or more per week. We do not think it is right that employers should be able to employ young people on half-time contracts and therefore be exempt”.

I presume that you do not want an employer who employs someone for one hour a week to be covered by the Bill, and you want it to be fewer than 20 hours a week. Where would you put the requirements for training in terms of hours per week, if it is not 20 and it is not one?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

From your experience of the young people who at present do not stay in education beyond the age of 16, what are the major factors that account for that departure from the education system, and do you have any sense of what the proportions are of young people who would fall into the major categories of explanation that would have caused them to leave the system?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

Would many of those people have their needs addressed and therefore stay on if the curriculum was changed, or are most of the high needs that you see much more about emotional issues, health issues, family background and special needs?

David Laws (Liberal Democrat, Yeovil)

When I asked a head teacher in my constituency whether the Education and Skills Bill and the compulsory leaving age should go ahead and whether that would address the needs of that bunch of young people with very high needs, he said that in his experience some of the young people you have been discussing find it very difficult, for the reasons you have given, to engage at 16 or even before, whereas they are quite ready to come back into the system later and can usually benefit more. Do you lean towards agreeing with him or do you think that the Government are right and that if we put in much greater support and a more relevant curriculum, many or all of those people could stay on at 16?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I am interested in exploring with you a little more what needs to be done pre-16 in order to make the job post-16 easier, largely because of a more engaged cohort of young people. The children’s plan sets out several changes that would happen between now and when the current year 6 become the first cohort that it applies to: qualification and curriculum reform, apprenticeships, expansion of the foundation learning tier, diplomas, pastoral support, one-to-one support, which we talked about, and personal tutors. What do you think are the most important for us to prioritise, and what more should we do that we have not already set out in order to make the job post-16 that much easier?

Jim Knight (Labour, South Dorset)

I will ask just one more question. Do you think that there are any young people who cannot participate in education or training post-16? If so, should we exempt them from the duty? If not, should all young people be expected to participate and supported in doing so?

Angela Watkinson (Conservative, Upminster)

I am in some difficulty, because the moment after I indicated that I wanted to ask a question, Mr. Lightman proceeded to answer it before I had asked it—and I was impressed by his comments, particularly on pastoral care in schools. Mr. Ward then proceeded to answer what would have been my follow-up question, but could I persuade him to reflect a little further on the implications for schools and colleges? The provisions of this Bill include children with special needs statements, and there are costs and practicalities in providing for them up to 18.

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

I very much appreciate your comments about starting young and getting the parents as well as the young people engaged. Ultimately, when you have brought them through the system and given them all the possible support you can, is there any alternative to compulsion in having some sort of sanction? Otherwise, how does compulsion become compulsion?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Do you not think that is what will actually happen, in practice? Even if we go for a compulsory model with potential criminalisation at the end, there is still a lot of time in between, so if you look at the processes indicated in this Bill—at all the support mechanisms that would be put in before anybody got to that final stage—would that not actually be doing what you say?

Nia Griffith (Labour, Llanelli)

Is there anything more that you think should be in the Bill on that hierarchy of support? I thought that there might be some things that you wanted to come back to us on.

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I am a great fan of no one getting left behind. That is a laudable aim that we should strive to achieve. However, a few months ago, the leader of our party was in an inner city and a youngster in a hood walked up behind him and gestured. That scene is played out across many towns and cities across the country. There are some extremely damaged and excluded young people out there—dangerous young people to be perfectly honest. How are we to reach them? You rightly pointed out that that will take a massive effort on behalf of many agencies. Have you any thoughts on how that can realistically be achieved?

Charles Walker (Conservative, Broxbourne)

I totally accept that point, but the Bill will become an Act within the next 12 months, and there are young people out there aged between 14 and 17 who will be covered by the Bill. Yes, in future, we can identify them earlier, but what are we going to do in the immediate future for those who are already between 14 and 16 or 17 who will be covered by the Bill? I do not expect you to have answers, but we need to turn our minds to that.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

We had the Association of Colleges earlier, which, I think, represents FE governing bodies. They were saying that the costs of raising the participation rate to 100 per cent. are less than might be expected. You are on record as saying that keeping the last 10 per cent. of recalcitrant young people in education and training will not come cheap. Others have expressed concerns about the ability of FE to soak up reluctant students without damaging the learning experience of the rest. Is it not the experience of those who are teaching people who want to learn to read and write, but who have not managed it in 10 or 11 years of statutory education, that you have to have small groups, bags of counselling and support, and have to tackle quite a lot of social problems as well? Is that why you think this will be quite expensive? What do you see those costs involving?

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Can you break it down a bit, and give us an idea of what you mean by that?

Sarah McCarthy-Fry (Labour, Portsmouth North)

To correct Mr. Walker, the present year 6 cohort are the first children that the Bill will apply to. In your answer you were talking about 14 to 16-year-olds. Those young people from year 6 will know about this as the older ones go forward, even though the 11 to 16 age group know that it is not going to apply to them. Do you think that this will encourage a higher uptake among those people in the period until it becomes compulsory, because it is going to be talked about in school and is going to be the ethos of the school?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

We have heard throughout the course of today that various changes need to be made to the system of education and training: improvements in the careers service; refinements to the apprenticeship system, and particular help for disadvantaged young people and groups that are hard to get at, of the type that you have spoken about. However, this Bill creates extra demand on an unreformed system. You spoke a little earlier about means and ends. In your view, would it have been better to reform the system and so stimulate greater demand?

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

You say that, and I respect your view. However, you would not deny, would you, that apprenticeship numbers in the latest figures are down at both level 2 and level 3, or that the number of NEETs has grown very significantly, or that there are real doubts about the careers service and Connexions? Many of the witnesses to this Committee in their written submissions have made those types of points. Unless those things are dealt with very promptly, if this Bill comes into force we will indeed be creating extra demand on an unreformed system.

John Hayes (Conservative, South Holland and The Deepings)

And, very briefly, that is why compulsion is such an issue, because you want to do these things, in your own words, “so that they want to stay on”. They will look at the opportunities available to them, regard them as attractive and likely to add to their employability, and so compulsion is not really desirable.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.