Apprenticeships

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. The creative industries have been identified as a growth-driving sector, and I know the Government recognise the impact of the arts on the wider economy. We must build more talent pipelines and widen the accessibility of careers in the arts for the longevity of the sector. In my role as co-chair of the APPG for theatre, I have looked at the critical skill shortages that the sector faces in technical, backstage roles, from lighting to sound clinicians and wigs, hair and makeup. That is why it is crucial for Skills England to review the seasonality of theatre work and explore the development of shorter-term apprenticeships to widen access to those entry-level roles.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. Was there a question?

[Leigh Ingham]

Sorry; does my hon. Friend agree?

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for securing this important debate at the start of National Apprenticeships Week. Apprenticeships are particularly important in rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton, because they provide a valuable pathway for young people to gain practical skills and go on to secure employment in their local communities. That helps to combat rural depopulation and boost the local economy. There is a conflict, however, because although apprenticeships are good, the levy is not. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the apprenticeship levy should be scrapped?

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Member responds, I remind Members that a lot of people want to get in on this debate, and we need to keep questions much shorter in order to do that.

[Andrew Pakes]

I agree with the hon. Lady. That is why I welcome the announcement in September last year by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and Education Secretary of a new growth and skills levy to replace the existing apprenticeship levy, and include new foundation apprenticeships. That will give young people a route into careers where the nation has skills gaps.

It cannot be stated often or loudly enough that apprenticeships not only transform the lives of those who take them, but are vital to our economy and growth. Ministers’ single, unifying, animating purpose is to get the economy growing, and I wholeheartedly endorse that.

[Andrew Pakes]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. Before I came to Parliament, I was a union official at Prospect, which represents many workers in the defence sector and in Barrow, so I know full well the great expertise of apprentices in the defence sector. We need more of those apprenticeships for our national security and for new jobs.

Growth will come because of a range of factors—we will secure inward investment and trade deals, shake up the planning system, boost infrastructure and back business—but a sure-fire way to stimulate growth is to invest in people’s skills, energy and talent. Just yesterday, I met level 3 to level 7 KPMG apprentices from all parts of the country who work together to bring new opportunities. It was brilliant to hear from Gaby from Peterborough, who told her own story and gave lessons for how to ensure that more young people in Peterborough get the same opportunities. That means nothing short of a revolution in our system of apprenticeships.

I am proud that the previous Labour Government revitalised apprenticeships—the largest expansion in our history—and I welcome the cross-party support for innovation since then, including all-age apprenticeships and all-qualification approaches to workplace learning, but I am not satisfied. We need to address head-on why 900,000 young people across our country are not in education, employment or training; why young people cannot access the opportunities they need; and why the opportunities are not there in the first place. That matters in Peterborough, where we have seen falling apprenticeship numbers and rising levels of youth unemployment.

Last Friday, I was pleased to co-host a NEETs summit with Peterborough college, Anglia Ruskin University Peterborough and local businesses and providers to look at how we can make apprenticeships work better in my constituency. We need to put rocket boosters under the number of firms that take on apprentices, not for altruistic reasons but because it makes smart business sense. We also need reform to ensure that apprenticeship standards work for businesses and learners. I ask the Minister to remove the artificial barriers to success of academic English and maths, and move quickly to business-ready, work-ready, functional skills where they matter.

We are coming up to National Apprenticeship Week, and I want to address one other issue before I finish: not apprenticeships policy, but the cultural barriers. In too many parts of the UK, there is a hang-up about apprenticeships, and so many parts of the system are obsessed with university. Of course, we should value our world-class universities and celebrate the hard work of our university students. As a former president of the National Union of Students, of course I recognise the vital role that British universities play in our national story. However, apprenticeships should be seen as an equally valid alternative route, a legitimate way to gain skills and experience, and a vital contributor to our economic prosperity, and yet in public policy sometimes they are not. Why is that? I fear that there is still a snobbery about apprenticeships in the UK that is not found in competitor countries such as Germany and Sweden, which are more competitive. There is too often a lazy and misguided assumption that apprenticeships are second best to degrees, and that apprentices are lesser in comparison with undergraduates.

We often use the phrase, “University is not for everyone,” as though university is the gold standard and apprenticeships are the also-ran for second-class kids. The English class system exerts itself and places people into boxes, limiting horizons, prejudicing futures and stifling ambitions. That must stop, not only for the good of the brilliant, energetic, ambitious young and not-so-young people who embark on apprenticeships, but for the economy and growth. We will not secure growth with one hand tied behind our back. Hardly any of the apprentices I have met say that their journey was made easier by careers support at school. That is why we need change in our careers service. We must make it easier for businesses to support learners and parents, and we need a step change in how we regard apprenticeships.

We are coming up to National Apprenticeship Week. Let us be loud and proud about apprenticeships. Let us challenge the stigma, call out the snobs, and put apprenticeships centre stage in our policy making, economic mission and national culture.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to bob if they wish to be called in a debate. To get in all the speakers we have, please try to limit yourselves to three minutes. I call Peter Bedford—he is not here. Jim Shannon, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. Given the number of speakers, we will now have to move to two minutes per speech, unfortunately.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lauren Edwards (Rochester and Strood) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

Order. We are out of time. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, Max Wilkinson.

--- Later in debate ---

[Max Wilkinson]

Of course. An alignment of skills with the jobs need for the future is key in the apprenticeship sector. Flawed policy in the past means that there has been a clear drop-off in new apprentices in recent years. Just over 736,000 apprentices participated in an apprenticeship in the last academic year, which is a slight decrease of 2.1% on the previous reporting period. Apprenticeship starts overall have fallen by 170,000 since 2015-16, when the Conservatives started governing alone. The deal on offer is clearly not as attractive as it once was.

We need to recognise that apprentices have the same rights as other employees, but experience a large pay disparity compared with other workers. The national minimum wage will be £11.44 for those aged 21 and over, but for a first-year apprentice, the rate is much lower. Young people are not immune from the cost of living crisis and the disparity between those two wages might be a disincentive. Have Ministers considered whether it is and whether it might be putting young people off from taking up apprenticeships?

The Liberal Democrats would scrap the apprentice rate and instead pay apprentices more fairly. We must also reform the apprenticeship levy, which many Members have mentioned today. Employers tell us that it simply does not work and the House of Commons Library briefing shows that there are large underspends every single year. The amount of money being put aside to train young people is simply not being spent. The Association of Employment and Learning Providers says that the money is being raised for skills but not spent on skills, at a time when Governments—this one and the last—say they are keen to encourage businesses to invest in skills.

The Lib Dems would replace the broken apprenticeship levy with a broader and more flexible skills and training levy. We are pleased to hear that the Government want to abolish the apprenticeship levy and replace it with a new growth and skills levy under Skills England. That is a positive step. However, it is clear that there is still work to be done in establishing the new levy and Skills England to oversee it. I would appreciate an update from the Minister on where things are with that policy.

There is also a concern that careers advice systems are not being properly set up to advise people of the many opportunities in apprenticeships. If we are going to fill the skills gaps that we have discussed, alignment of careers advice with those gaps will be key.

We Liberal Democrats believe that apprenticeships have a much bigger role to play. We welcome the Government’s plan for changing the system. If we get the reform right, we will help young people and employers, too. Central to that will be finally getting rid of the failed apprenticeship levy, properly valuing apprenticeships and learning from best practice like that in my constituency and that of my neighbour in Gloucester.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

I call the Opposition spokesperson, Rebecca Paul.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Ms Jardine. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) has not wound up the debate.

[Christine Jardine (in the Chair)]

We are out of time. The hon. Member indicated at the start that he did not mind.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the value of apprenticeships and National Apprenticeships Week.

Oral Answers to Questions

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I agree that phones have no place in the classroom. It is entirely right that schools take firm action to stop their use, and I know that is what the vast majority of schools already do. As the right hon. Lady said, last July the Conservatives said that they did not need to legislate in this area. Nothing has changed in this time. I back the approach that they took in July in this area. This is yet another headline-grabbing gimmick, with no plans to drive up standards in our schools.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

4. What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for artificial intelligence research and development in the higher education sector.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

The Labour Government are at the forefront of change and, as I said to the Bett conference last week, we are determined to ensure that

“AI will be a positive, radical, modernising force for good in the lives of working people.”

The Department for Education is a member of the AI working group collaborating across Government to share thinking and expertise as we develop future policy.

[Christine Jardine]

Many of my constituents and local academics have expressed concern about the cancellation last year, by this Government, of what would have been the UK’s only exascale computer, at Edinburgh University. That was not mentioned at all in the AI opportunities action plan. It would have been a major beneficial development in this sector. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that this takes place, and can she reassure the public that the benefits of AI will be spread to universities across the UK?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in this area. She will know that the proposed exascale supercomputer is one programme that the Government are considering. We are currently assessing the best way to take this forward. The previous programme was announced under the last Government, for which full funding was not allocated. We are committed to developing a strategy setting out a 10-year plan for our country’s needs. That plan will be published in the coming months alongside the spending review, but I will ensure that officials in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology pick up her concern and that she receives a full response.

Workplace Pay Gaps

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I wish you and everybody else a happy new year, and hope that in 2025 we do again make progress in this area.

I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for securing this debate because, for me and I am sure everybody in this room, closing the gender pay gap—and all the pay gaps—is fundamental to creating a more equal society. We cannot have true freedom and equality of opportunity, quality of life, standard of life or anything in this country if we do not have equality of pay. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) mentioned Barbara Castle, which made me think about the fact that the Equal Pay Act was actually passed in 1963. I was a toddler—[Interruption]—yes, I was a toddler—and now here we are, when I can just see retirement appearing on the horizon, and we are still talking about equal pay for women, but also for ethnicity, disability and LGBT issues. It is sad that it has taken us so long.

We have, of course, made progress, but so many of the statistics are frightening—none of them are encouraging reading. According to the Office for National Statistics, the median hourly pay for full-time employees is 7% less for women. It goes up to 13.1% when taken across all hourly paid employees. As the hon. Member for Brent East mentioned, we have, I fear, even more serious issues in terms of both ethnicity and disability, because they have not had the attention over the past 61 years that gender has had.

As I say, we have made progress. In government, the Liberal Democrats were instrumental in pushing for large employers to be required to report on gender pay gaps in their organisations. That has led to some transparency and thrown light on some very serious issues, including high-profile, controversial revelations, particularly in the media sector, where we have seen massive disparities. That underlines how far we still have to go, particularly in tackling inequalities in terms of ethnicity, disability and LGBT, where pay gaps are still not published—we do need publication of those gaps.

Moving forward, this Government must tackle the specific economic barriers facing women, ethnic minorities, the disabled and LGBT by expanding access to flexible, affordable childcare, doubling statutory maternity pay and, critically, expanding shared parental leave, because— I agree with the hon. Member for Walthamstow about this—there is no point in making it about mothers. It has to be about parents, or we simply emphasise the difference, and keep that going.

Flexible, affordable childcare and early years education are critical to our economic infrastructure, and help to close the attainment gap between the wealthy and the poor. They give parents more choice over how to organise their lives and help them to return to work if they want to. Back in 1963, that was not an option that women had. My mother had to give up work when she had me. When she had my sister seven years later, she had gone back to work, and had to give it up again. Then, when she had my youngest sister in 1972, almost 10 years after that equal pay legislation was passed, she still had to give up work—there was no option to go back to work—so it is critical that we address that. It should be a choice.

Lack of access to affordable childcare is a key driver of the gender pay gap. Women lose ground when they do not go back to work after they have had children. I gave up a successful career in journalism not long after my daughter was born because it was simply too expensive, and that was in the 1990s. The progress that we had made by 1997, when I made that decision, was very limited.

We have more to do. As well as improving that specific area, the Government have to look at improving diversity in the workplace and public life. I want to see large employers monitor and publish data on gender, ethnicity, disability and LGBT+ employment levels, pay gaps and progression, and publish five-year aspirational diversity targets. They should extend the use of name-blind recruitment processes in the public sector and encourage their use in the private sector. That is critical, because that is the first step to ensuring that employees are treated fairly. They have to improve diversity in public appointment by setting ambitious targets and requiring progress reports to Parliament, with explanations when targets are not met. As we have heard, we have to start to see heavy fines when that does not happen.

I have been fortunate in my working life, and in those 60 years since the Equal Pay Act, and in the Equality Act 2010, which made a huge difference. I would like to see this Labour Government take this further and ensure that our country manages to achieve the equality that we have striven for. The hon. Member for Brent East says it is predicted to take another 40 years—I will not be here by then, but I would like to see it.

Children and Bereavement

Christine Jardine Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petitions 636718 and 624185 relating to children and bereavement.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. This is my first time opening a debate as a new member of the Petitions Committee; I am delighted to speak to the two incredibly important petitions. Before I begin, I want to thank the House of Commons staff for enabling me to engage proactively with the petitioners, charities, advocates, representatives and supporters involved in both petitions. I feel privileged to stand here today as an advocate for the campaigners who have worked tirelessly for years to get results on these vital matters. This debate takes place during National Grief Awareness week, which is run by the Good Grief Trust, who chose this year’s theme: shine a light. That is exactly what I hope to do today in this debate.

First, I would like to set out the two matters at hand before I make the case for each. Crucial in all of this is that both petitions go hand in hand in with the same diagnosis and cure, which I will describe. I will delve into it further towards the end of my speech. I want to start with the petition entitled, “Record the number of bereaved children to ensure they are supported”. That might not be something we would consider every day, but currently we do not know how many bereaved children there are in the UK right now. The petition argues:

“If we don’t know the true scale of childhood bereavement, the services that exist to help are unable to proactively offer the support that children and their families need to cope with their grief. Without support, unresolved grief in young people can lead to an increased risk of youth offending, family breakdown, underachievement in education and employment and long-term mental health conditions.”

I want to thank Winston’s Wish and its inspiring ambassador, Mark Lemon, for the work that they have done submitting the petition and campaigning for it over the years. One of the fundamental reasons why I am in favour of it is Mark’s own personal story, which I am deeply grateful to be able to share on his behalf today. At age 12, Mark experienced the horrific murder of his father. With nothing registered and no real support around at the time, Mark received no help to cope with that traumatic incident or adjust to the massive impact that the loss had on his life until his 20s. Mark is here today, and he argues that recording the number of children in the household when a death is registered could help thousands of bereaved children and ensure that services can better plan, reach out to families and offer much-needed support. Mark is working hard to make sure that no child faces the isolation he did after such devastation, which is hard for any of us to fathom even as adults.

Setting aside the emotional aspect of the argument, I support the practicalities of the proposal. From service delivery to charities, local councils and schools, how can anybody work to tackle the consequences of childhood bereavement if no one knows where it is occurring in the first place?

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I concur exactly with everything the hon. Member has said. It is a cause close to my own heart. In fact, I have a private Member’s Bill on this very subject due to be considered in July. Does he agree with me that this is something the Government should look at and help to happen, because it should not need legislation?

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank the hon. Member for her intervention. Obviously, there are things that can be done through law. There are things that are done through good practice and guidelines, and I am sure we will hear from my hon. Friend the Minister in due course as to what can be done. If it needs legislation I am sure she will consider that, but we should do all that we can to encourage the Government to take whatever steps they can to help achieve the aims of the petitions.

On the first petition about collecting data, a simple change would be to support registrars to collect the data when a death is registered while protecting the anonymity and data of the family. That seems achievable without being overly invasive. After all, it would simply be an option, and it would indicate where bodies need to target their support. Winston’s Wish, the child bereavement charity, has regular get-togethers with young people so they can share their stories of grief with one another. Imagine how that data could transform where it allocates its resources, time and effort. It could be transformational for our kids.

From speaking to colleagues across the House, including the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who brought a debate on this subject to Westminster Hall earlier this year, it is clear that such a move could attract cross-party consensus. I therefore ask my hon. Friend the Minister what legislation would be needed to enact the change permitting registrars to collect data on the number of bereaved children at the point of registering the death. If enacted, what support and training could be given to registrars so they can direct families who register bereaved children towards charities and bodies that can help?

The previous Government essentially said, “We won’t do this, because it is not the done thing,” and pointed people towards the support that schools and charities can give. Let us make it the done thing, because it would help schools and charities to do their jobs in the first place.

The second, and equally important, petition argues that we should add content on death, dying and bereavement to the national curriculum. It states that, under compulsory relationships education, schools should be required to provide age-appropriate education to help children understand death as a part of life:

“Talking about death can be helpful for children and issues of bereavement should be compulsory learning for children in preparation for life as an adult. Children are taught how life begins through the national curriculum and similarly we should not hide from equipping children with the skills to comprehend death. Children must be provided with the skills to comprehend loss and to prepare for the emotions and feelings that accompany a bereavement which at some point, we all have to face.”

I commend the research, testimony and briefings from the childhood bereavement network and the National Children’s Bureau, which have compelled me, emotionally and logically, to support these changes. I also want to highlight the work of the petition creator, John Adams, past president of the National Association of Funeral Directors, whose membership includes more than 4,000 funeral homes. He has used his story of grief as a young child as a motivator to call for these changes, which will help all other children in need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. This is something like the fifth debate on this subject that I have taken part in since I became an MP in 2017, and it is more than two years since I asked the then Leader of the House whether we could have a debate on it. During those two and a half years, I have repeatedly asked the Government to look at a register for bereaved children, because it was suggested to me by Winston’s Wish.

I first thought about and became aware of this issue in a conversation with my sister over lunch. My sister, who is now 50, said to me, “Do you remember how when dad died”—when she was eight—“we never really saw anybody from social services? Nobody came to see us and nothing happened.” I said, “Yeah, that’s right, because we had never been in contact with social services. They didn’t think we needed them. Do you know it’s still the same?” I think a friend’s partner had died and I realised that nothing had changed in 40 years, and I thought that was ridiculous.

I spoke to staff at Winston’s Wish and they said, “Yeah, the problem is that we know how many children are bereaved every year. We know they are out there and we have the support networks to help them. We have the facilities. We have peers they can talk to who will appreciate it”—as the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) said—“but the charities and organisations do not know how to get in touch with the children because it is not recorded where they are.” The families do not know how to get in touch with the support networks because, when they go to record a death, no one asks, “Do you need help for a child?” It should be simple. That is why I think that a record, as the petition calls for, is the best way forward.

To turn briefly to other subjects, it is vital to teach about bereavement and loss in school—that is the role that schools have played—but, with respect to Members from the previous Government, they seemed to think that only schools should have responsibility. I do not think that is what children or their parents want. Children who have lost a parent, a grandparent, a friend’s parent or a sibling need help at times when the school is not available—at night, when they are lonely or upset, or when they are a teenager and do not know who to turn to for advice. That is when they need their peers. Often, they do not want to talk to the school, or they might move school and not know many people.

The idea is to have a register, a simple box-ticking exercise to say, when a death is recorded, that there is a child who may be affected, with paperwork handed out —the leaflets, the contacts—and that would not mean letting that data be public. There would never have to be any publication of the data; it would simply be putting people who need the help in touch with the people who can offer that help. If we do not do that, we face the situation that the hon. Member for Stevenage talked about: adults who went through a traumatic experience as a child never getting the help they need to get over it fully, so that it comes back when they are adults. That can get them involved in crime or drugs, or give them difficulty forming personal relationships.

When I spoke to one of the charities involved with adults bereaved as children, one of its psychologists said to me, “You do realise you could be opening a whole can of worms for yourself. You might not have dealt with this quite as well as you thought you did.” I think she is wrong, but we never know—it does come back in later life. It can contribute to the burden on the NHS or problems in the economy. If we will not look only at the huge moral and compassionate case for having this register, we should look at the economic one and see that that backs up the moral and compassionate case.

I thank the hon. Member for Stevenage for how he introduced both petitions, and I say to the Government: please, before my private Member’s Bill comes before the House in July, may we come up with a way of saving so many children in this country going through any more long-term pain? The help is there for them—charities such as Winston’s Wish want to help them, but they just do not know where those children are.