(2 weeks ago)
Commons Chamber
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Paul Waugh)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Apprenticeships are the responsibility of the Department for Work and Pensions, but the Department for Education is supporting apprenticeships by introducing new technical and vocational pathways from 14 to 19 years, including new V-levels from 2027, new level 2 pathways and even more T-levels, from which young people can progress through apprenticeships and higher education. These new 14 to 19 qualifications will enable students to progress more easily and on to apprenticeships.
Bradley Thomas
I welcome the Minister to his place and congratulate him on his appointment. The Government are right to focus on the importance of parity between vocational education and academic education. However, when comparing the academic year 2025-26 with 2023-24, the number of people who have started apprenticeships has dropped by 9% and the number who have completed has gone down by 17%. With reference to the Minister’s point about vocational pathways, will he update the House on what steps the Government are taking to ensure that they are linked with the needs of industry, so that this in itself does not become an academic exercise?
Paul Waugh
May I return those congratulations by congratulating the hon. Member on his elevation to the shadow Front Bench, and may I congratulate him, too, on the work he has done on vocational skills, including in his jobs fare in Bromsgrove? It is worth saying that V-levels are precisely designed to tally with what employers want. That is exactly why we are reforming the system to ensure every child will have the right technical education. More broadly, the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State have said that the parity of esteem between vocational and academic education is exactly what everyone in this country wants.
(9 months, 1 week ago)
Commons Chamber
Bradley Thomas
I was just about to get to the point that I wanted to make: removal of the cap will make matters significantly worse. To put it plainly, it will open the floodgates for senior executives to pursue multimillion-pound claims that will further congest the courts. For many companies, the dismissal process for senior executives is fundamentally different from that used for other employees, in many cases as a result of strategic complexities relating to board involvement. Unlike the structured procedures applied to the wider workforce, senior leaders are seldom afforded opportunities such as performance improvement plans before removal. The Bill creates a significant liability and establishes a direct financial incentive for senior executives to pursue employment claims.
Paul Waugh
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, at the moment, compensation for racial, sexual and disability discrimination, and for whistleblowers, is uncapped? What is the difference between that and being unfairly dismissed?
Bradley Thomas
The hon. Gentleman misses the point that I am making. Currently, there is no financial incentive for very senior executives who cannot exercise any leverage over things such as pay and equity, and the Bill risks clogging up the system. The CEOs of large UK corporations earn a median salary of over £4 million, compared with the £118,000 cap on unfair dismissal claims, so high earners have little incentive to lodge claims. Remove the cap and that incentive becomes glaringly obvious.