BTEC Qualifications

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Pow]

That is a really good point. It was not raised by people in my area—it may not be the case there—but the case certainly has been made that T-levels are basically the equivalent of three A-levels rolled together, and not every student is quite ready to do that. Students also have to get the same qualifications at GCSE to do a T-level, so already, one might be alienating a certain number of students who might find the BTEC really good and go on to do some of these other things. There are many things that I urge the Minister—I welcome her to her place—to look at and listen to, now that we have this reprieve.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has hit on an important point. If the Government are saying that T-levels have greater rigour than BTECs, and if, by definition, T-levels will not be appropriate for many students who currently do BTECs, the Government have to tell us what their plan is for those students. If the plan is not a level 3 qualification, what is it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on leading the debate with an excellent speech, and the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition on their excellent campaigning on the issue. I am a proud former student, and now governor, of Luton Sixth Form College—the UK’s first sixth-form college—which now educates over 3,000 students. I am also pleased to be co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education, so I would like to extend my thanks to the Sixth Form Colleges Association in particular for all their hard work in the area.

Every student deserves a first-class education, and I know that giving students choice to shape their learning, assessment and career path is critical to their successfully achieving their future aspirations. However, the Government’s proposals seem to fly in the face of that. #ProtectStudentChoice estimates that at least 34% of the 16 to 18-year-olds studying a level 3 qualification in England are pursuing at least one applied general qualification—that is more than 300,000 students. Many young people would be better served studying an applied general qualification, such as a BTEC, rather than an A-level or T-level-only study programme. It should not be one route over another. The three-route model would work well. That is why the over 108,000 people who signed the petition and I are steadfast in our opposition to the Government’s plan to defund BTECs.

Working class people in my town should not be held back by that short-sighted narrowing of opportunities. BTECs have transformed the life chances of thousands of young people in Luton and made a significant contribution to our local economy—there are numerous examples of young people in Luton pursuing their aspirations through BTECs, whether that be work, further qualifications or university—and that is backed up by research. I have made the point many times before that disadvantaged young people are among those with the most to lose from the Government’s plans. That is evidenced by the Department for Education’s own equality impact assessment, which states

“those from SEND backgrounds, Asian ethnic groups, disadvantaged backgrounds, and males”

are

“disproportionately likely to be affected.”

BTECs are a route to university for many of those young people. The Social Market Foundation found that 44% of white working-class students that enter university studied at least one BTEC, and that 37% of black students enter with only BTEC qualifications. The Nuffield Foundation found that a quarter of students now enter university with BTEC qualifications, and are more likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds. The vast majority of BTEC students complete their studies successfully, with 60% graduating with at least a 2:1.

I was contacted by a constituent ahead of the debate to share their experiences studying BTECs. They said that:

“Dyslexia greatly affects my short-term memory, making exam-based qualifications which rely on memory recall, such as A-levels, almost completely out of reach for myself and others with dyslexia.”

Instead, they

“pursued a BTEC in mechanical engineering, which allowed for me to be assessed on coursework and practical applications across the span of two years. If it was not for my BTEC qualification and the support I received throughout that process, I would not be able to pursue a BEng at university today.”

They summed the point up better than I could, saying that:

“BTECs are a vital lifeline to all neurodivergent and underprivileged children in the UK, for whom A-levels may not be a viable option. Students with dyslexia, ADHD and ASD face larger barriers to mainstream forms of education than most, and by cutting funding for BTECs, it will ultimately deter these students from achieving their potential and integrating them into industry workforces.”

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. This Government have had an obsession with exams over the course of the last 12 years, as though they are the only way of demonstrating what a student knows. Does the fact that so many students get a second chance through BTECs, and go on to be successful at university and get degrees, not prove that the focus on exams, and on dismissing the achievements of those students who have qualifications largely based on coursework, is entirely wrongheaded?

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will go on to talk about choices and how people can progress and make different choices about their careers and future, and what they want to do, but that is exactly it. Narrowing those options will make things much more difficult.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment has been made of how to support neurodivergent students who will be impacted by the proposals to defund BTECs. Altaf Hussain, principal of Luton Sixth Form College, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), has made this point to me:

“By allowing that flexibility for A Levels and forcing the T Level route for students with lower prior attainment the government is creating a divided society that is penalising the most vulnerable in our society. The point is that many young people do not want to, or even should not have to, decide their future path at 16. Interests, aspirations and capabilities all change”.

To re-emphasise the point, it is not about favouring one route over others, but empowering young people to shape their own learning. T-levels could be a welcome development, but they should sit alongside BTECs, rather than replace them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Mark. I start by congratulating the 13,437 people who signed the petition entitled “Don’t scrap funding for BTEC Performing Arts”—I will come back to that in my speech. I also congratulate and place on the record my thanks to the more than 108,000 people who signed the #ProtectStudentChoice petition. Like other hon. Members in the debate, I want to refer on the record to the excellent work that my local college, Lewisham College, does in developing our young people and others so that they can go on and be successful in BTECs and continue their education further.

The securing of a Westminster Hall debate clearly shows the strength of feeling about the plans to defund BTECs. I am really glad to see people from all different political parties contributing to the debate and showing the strength of feeling on this issue. I am sure that they are all aware that young people in England can currently choose between three types of level 3 qualifications at the age of 16: academic qualifications such as A-levels; technical qualifications that lead to a specific occupation; and applied general qualifications, such as BTECs, which combine the development of practical skills with academic learning.

That all changed in July 2021 when the Department for Education confirmed plans to replace the three-route model with a two-route model, of A-levels and T-levels. As a result, funding for the majority of BTEC qualifications will be removed. It is disappointing that the Government reached that decision after the Wolf review said that BTECs are

“valuable in the labour market, and a familiar and acknowledged route into higher education”.

Although the Government insist that it is not a cut, it is.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend refers to the Government’s decision a year ago in July 2021, but that is also four Education Secretaries ago. Does she agree that we have Education Secretaries who pop into the job for a few months without any prior knowledge of the work, make massive decisions and disappear to do a different job, leaving those lifelong educationalists to pick up the pieces from the appalling work that they have done?

[Vicky Foxcroft]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful and important point. These are people’s lives, future and opportunities to get on in life. Quite often, they are lifelines. I speak from experience. After failing my GCSEs, as a working-class 16-year-old with a difficult background, it was a BTEC in performing arts—I am doing a bit of performing now—that got me back into education and, ultimately, to university. It made me excited about education again. A BTEC was my second chance.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I thank all those who pushed for today’s debate—particularly the Sixth Form Colleges Association and the Association of Colleges, which have been particularly vocal in standing up to the anti-BTEC orthodoxy that threatens to take hold in ministerial offices at the Department for Education.

This has been a really excellent debate with valuable contributions from both sides of the House. I will reflect on a few of them before I get into my remarks. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) presented the subject excellently and set up the debate. She said that a quarter of students who end up going to university do so through a BTEC. That is an important statistic, and Social Market Foundation research, which my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members raised, shows that 44% of white working-class students who attend university studied a BTEC. That point was repeated by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), my hon. Friends the Members for Lewisham, Deptford (Vicky Foxcroft) and for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). It was one of the major themes of the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) reflected on the fact that her daughter had done a BTEC. My son also went through the BTEC route and ended up going to university. I think it is safe to say that, without BTECs, he would not have got that university education.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford spoke passionately and movingly about the difference that a BTEC made to her life and her life chances. My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) spoke about the importance that these qualifications have, alongside T-levels, to employers in the west midlands.

The hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) spoke about the important role that BTEC played in addressing the shortage of nurses in her community, and the need for those people to stay locally. Controversially, she spoke about the value of evidence-based assessment. I warn her that she needs to stop that kind of talk if she wants to get back into this Government, but a lot of us appreciated that point, which was well made.

The hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) spoke about the equalities impact assessment and made the incredibly important point that, if these qualifications disappear, many students simply will not have the routes that are currently available to them. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) spoke about neurodivergent students, and it is important that their needs are reflected. There is not a single one of us who is not regularly contacted at our constituency surgeries by the parents of neurodivergent students who are absolutely at their wits’ end. These courses enable such students to access the life opportunities that others take for granted, and they say that they really help them and matter to them, so we should take that incredibly seriously.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green)—I know from her time as the shadow Education Secretary that she is incredibly passionate about vocational students—said that the Government should end their obsession with saying that all students are either academic or vocational, and that they should recognise that some students want an approach that gives them a broad choice. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford paid tribute to her local college and said that this decision makes a mockery of levelling up. That is a really important point. It was obvious to anyone who watched the Conservative party leadership hustings last night that levelling up seems to have disappeared entirely from the lexicon of the potential Conservative leaders. It may be that they have decided to distance themselves from the mockery that my hon. Friend highlights. Many of us appreciated her contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) said that, once they are lost, these qualifications cannot be easily replaced, and she reflected on the fact that many of her local institutions had contacted her with their concern about the approach that the Government are taking. Of course, that should not surprise us, because when the Government conducted their own consultation back in September, they found that 86% of respondents disagreed with the approach that they were proposing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Navendu Mishra) said that his constituency was one of the top 10 constituencies in the country in terms of the number of people from it who signed the petition. I know that all of us have had large numbers of constituents contacting us about this issue, but it seems like many of us have a lot to do if we are to catch up with Stockport in terms of the level of interest in this issue.

The hon. Member for Twickenham reflected on the comments of Lord Baker in another place, who described the situation as absolutely disgusting. Lord Baker also described this move as

“an act of educational vandalism.”

That should be reflected upon.

It is important to recognise that the broad coalition that is spearheaded by the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition and backed up by organisations such as the Sixth Form Colleges Association, Youth Employment UK, MillionPlus, the Apprenticeship Network and an array of employers and trade unions has forced the Government to change their position. It is important that we all make the point that the Government could look again at what they propose, but it is also important to recognise that there has been a significant U-turn from where the Government were back in September last year. The Labour party and I are pleased to have played our part in that campaign, urging Ministers to rethink their decision to axe these courses.

It is also worth recalling the history of the Government’s shambolic and damaging approach to this question that we are considering today. It started with Ministers besmirching the reputation of BTECs. The Skills Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who was the one before the one before the Minister here today—well, it was 10 months ago, of course—described BTECs as poor-quality qualifications, when announcing that they would be scrapped to make way for T-levels.

In September 2021 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), who was the brand-new Education Secretary at the time—he was the one before the one before this week’s one, who is the fourth Education Secretary we have had in the space of a year. It is said that a year in the life of a human being is like seven years in the life of an Education Secretary. That appears to be the case. We get this dazzling array of new Education Secretaries, so I can only imagine how busy the person responsible for the board at the Department of Education must be, as they constantly have to change the name and the picture up in reception that shows the Education Secretary.

Returning to the point that I was making, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon, told us when he was Education Secretary that the Government would conduct a review. Many of us believe that the Government ought to have conducted the review before they sent out the message to students and lecturers that the qualification they were working towards was poor quality. Then the Government announced that they would defund 150 level 3 qualifications, which, in truth, is less than 10% of all of the level 3 qualifications out there.

We are pleased that the Government have performed something of a U-turn on this issue. In the final analysis, however, if they continue with their current policy, they will have scrapped less than 10% of all the level 3 qualifications currently on offer but, within that, they will have scrapped several courses that both employers and educationalists have real concern about. For example, the health and social care BTEC offers students a strong general introduction to the career opportunities available in the healthcare sector, and over 13,000 new students enrolled to study for it last year. It is important to reflect that if BTECs are scrapped, as the Government currently suggest they will be, a huge number of students will not have the breadth of options available to them.

There are a number of important questions for the Minister to respond to. Many colleges are deeply concerned that the amount of work experience required to replace even the limited number of BTECs being replaced cannot be found. The Government have already downgraded the work experience requirement in the early years of the T-level qualification. If it becomes apparent that providers in many areas are unable to find the amount of work experience required to deliver the number of T-levels, the Government will have a choice. Will the Government reduce the work experience demand further? Will they allow BTECs that do not have the work experience element to continue? Or will they accept that many students will be shut out of accessing a career for which there is a widespread skills shortage. Which one is it?

Secondly, if the Government’s view is that T-levels are more rigorous than BTECs, and they are scrapping BTECs, what is the plan for those students who previously would have been able to study a BTEC and will now not have a level 3 qualification at the age of 16 or 17? What assessment have the Government made of which students are likely to miss out, as has been reflected by so many contributors to the debate? Is it not the truth that it will mean more students from deprived communities, more white working-class boys and girls, more BAME students, and more students from rural and small-town communities will likely not have a level 3 qualification in place? If so, what plans are in place for those students?

Early feedback shows that T-levels require considerably more time studying and working. Many students, particularly those from deprived communities, are expected by their families to work alongside their studies. T-levels make that much more difficult, and that is being cited as a barrier to poorer students accessing them. What assessment has the Minister made of how that barrier could be addressed? Does it strengthen the case, in her view, for some sort of student subsidy, along the lines of the education maintenance allowance, to enable T-level students to afford to take up this opportunity? Does she accept that it was a huge mistake for the Government to denigrate a qualification that students were in the process of studying for before having completed their review? Given that so few courses are being replaced, will she apologise on behalf of the Government to the students, their lecturers and the employers, whose achievements the Government have belittled?

Finally, I have met many students studying T-levels. Although it varies from coast to coast, many clearly see them as a route to university. T-levels were initially envisaged as a route towards work. Does the Government accept that for many students that will not be the path they pursue? On that basis, is it still sensible for T-levels to be so narrowly focused on a single discipline? Should the Government not recognise that a broader qualification would allow students to learn which is the correct path for them from a position of knowledge?

The Labour party welcomed the introduction of T-levels. We want them to be a success and we hope that a future Labour Government will address the current flaws within them. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to think again about the decision. We know that they will come back in September. There are a number of popular courses where educationalists and students tell us it would be deeply damaging if they were abolished. We want to ensure that our system of post-16 vocational and technical education is fit for purpose. Every MP in this debate, alongside the organisations championing the #ProtectStudentChoice campaign, want this too. Let the Government pause and put this decision on hold, and ensure that we have an evidence-based approach to its replacement. Let us not lose the qualifications that have real value to both employers and students.

[Sir Mark Hendrick (in the Chair)]

Just before I call the Minister, I declare an interest. I left school at 16 and eventually got to higher education through vocational qualifications. I have the privilege of sitting here today because of that. The Minister has been extremely patient, listening for nearly two hours to the contributions. I am quite sympathetic to the position she is in, but I am sure that she will handle it well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. We are consulting vigorously, and I was actually going to bring in her points here. She mentioned colleges in her area. I happily meet colleges, and that goes for colleges represented across the Chamber. My ears are open to this, because it is something I am passionate about. Social mobility is a big thing for me. Coming from a regular background, I want to ensure that every child has a great start in life, so my door is open.

I was asked about creating a barrier for disadvantaged and BAME students. We are not withdrawing funding approval from all BTECs and other applied general qualifications. We will continue to fund BTECs and applied general-type qualifications as part of a mixed programme where there is need and where they meet new criteria for quality and necessity. Students who take qualifications that are more likely to be replaced have the most to gain from the changes, because in future they will take qualifications that are of a higher quality, putting them in a stronger position to progress to further skills or skilled employment. The most important outcome is that they have a decent start in life and good-quality jobs.

[Mr Perkins]

The Minister’s point somewhat misses the tenor of the debate so far. She is hearing that a lot of students from more deprived communities will not even get on to a course because of its make-up or because it will be full time, meaning that they will be unable to afford to do the course. Simply saying that they might have better opportunities when they complete a course does not take into account the fact that lots of them will not even get on to a course in the first place. I hope the Minister will look into that when she does her review.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

As I said, I am a woman who juggles and I know what it is like to have to pay my own way. Coming from a family who were not affluent, I had to work to pay my way at the same time as I did my BTEC.

[Mr Perkins]

The Minister would not have been able to do that if it had been a T-level. She would not have had the time.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Not necessarily, but I will take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board.

T-levels will equip more young people with the skills, knowledge and experience to access skilled employment or further technical study, including higher education in related technical areas. We want as many young people as possible to benefit, which is why we have focused on supporting access. That includes introducing a T-levels transition programme and flexibilities for SEND students, and removing the English and maths exit requirements.

I was asked about students who have dyslexia and their frustration about taking exams. That is already covered in the Equality Act 2010; it must be considered whether a student will need reasonable adjustments, which can include being given 25% extra time when sitting exams.

There was a question about Oxbridge not accepting T-levels. Oxford’s admissions office says that BTECs are unlikely to be suitable for its courses unless taken alongside A-levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Jenkyns]

If anything, we could flip that on its head, because this is a unique selling point. In these work placements, students will gain the soft skills needed in employment, and valuable experience to build up their CVs, which can help secure them future employment.

We have invested over £200 million since 2018-19 through the capacity and delivery fund to support providers in building capacity and networks with employers. We will continue to monitor the delivery of placements and work closely with providers and employers to identify what support they will need to deliver high-quality placements.

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to the Minister for laying out what the Government are doing, but there are not enough work placements for the small number of people doing T-levels at this stage—that is why the Government have downgraded them—much less for the sort of expansion she is talking about. We hear what the Government are doing about it, but the question I asked her is: in the event that they cannot get enough work placements, what are the Government going to do?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I am more confident than he is that we will get these placements.

[Mr Perkins]

You haven’t got them now.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

No, but I have seen at first hand what the Department is doing with employer engagement, so watch this space. The shadow Minister can come back to me if it is to the contrary, but we are finding—the evidence is showing—that more and more employers are signing up for this.

On the question about our new Prime Minister, the reforms were mentioned in our manifesto. It said:

“Our reforms and investment in education and skills mean more children are leaving school better equipped for working life and there are more high quality apprenticeships.”

On the evidence base, the impact assessment was published alongside the level 3 Government consultation response in July last year, as I have already mentioned, and it is on the Government website. However, the case for change, providing evidence of the need for reform and for T-levels, was published in July 2016, and the document about streamlining qualifications at level 3 was published in March 2019.

We have an opportunity to put things right that industry can seize on. We can also strengthen and clarify progression routes for academic qualifications, as I have already said. I would like to thank all colleagues, from across the House—

Careers Guidance in Schools

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the provision of careers guidance in schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Ms Rees, and I welcome the new Minister to her place.

In 1985, I left school. I was living in a mining community at the time, right at the end of the miners strike. At the end of my school year, a careers officer told me—I stress, told me—that I should either go down the mines, go down the pit, or join the Army, one of the two. It was not so much advice as an instruction; those were the only two options open to me, according to the careers officer. I was not that politically switched on at the time, but I was definitely aware, at the end of a year-long strike, that the pits were not exactly the industry of the future, so I did not do as I was told.

Instead, I went on to become the first in my family to get a degree. Later, I became a careers adviser myself. Eventually, I became a manager of career services, as well as an assessor for those becoming and training to be professional careers advisers. It was a vocational choice grounded in that experience of receiving poor careers advice and being told that my options were limited. I did not—I still do not—want anyone trying to decide on a career or a change in career to have the experience that I had.

I am pleased to say that things have progressed since my school days. Barriers to good-quality careers provision remain in place and the quality of careers advice varies hugely from school to school. When good careers advice is not provided, that often hits the pupils from poorer backgrounds the hardest. It costs individuals and, as a nation, it certainly costs us our economic wellbeing.

“Levelling up” is a term whose future is unclear all of a sudden, but some young people are still not getting the impartial information that they need about the opportunities open to them. The Social Market Foundation, in its recent report on careers advice, argues that levelling up careers provision would make the country fairer. As parliamentarians, we all desire the country to be a fairer place. Careers advice was named as part of the northern powerhouse strategy, but it has not been named as part of the levelling-up agenda. When the Minister responds, will he say whether careers guidance should form part of any upskilling strategy for left-behind places?

Between the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, the Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Act 2022, which will shortly come into force, and the new statutory guidance, there has been much greater effort to ensure that careers advice is open to all pupils throughout secondary school. As someone who worked in the field, I welcome the extension of careers advice from year 7 to the age of 18 or, for those with additional need, to 25. However, may I ask the Minister whether there are plans to ensure that all schools are subject to the statutory guidance, rather than just maintained schools, some academies and some free schools? If we are serious about all pupils being given first-class careers guidance, we must ensure that all schools are governed by the statutory guidance.

Additionally, does the Department have plans to introduce a new careers strategy, given that the previous strategy lapsed in 2020? Given the legislation that has been implemented since then and the huge challenges to schools brought about by covid, it is clear that we need an up-to-date strategy to respond to the challenges that we face now, that pupils face now.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am greatly enjoying my hon. Friend’s contribution and he brings his experience to bear. He made a point about the statutory guidance and to whom it refers. Does he agree with me that, although the guidance is in statute, evidence shows that at least 25% of schools are failing to achieve the minimum standards of careers guidance, and that guidance is only one part of it? The other part concerns enforcement and assessment regimes, to ensure that the good intentions that the Government put forward are delivered on the ground.

[Mike Amesbury]

I agree with my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. Resources will have to follow statutory guidance. The pandemic has had a significant impact on schools’ ability to deliver careers advice. According to recent research by the Sutton Trust, 75% of teachers in state schools said it had a negative impact, far more than the proportion of similar results returned from private schools.

There is an increasing concern that we have arrived out of the pandemic to a different world, one that students are not being prepared for. With the jobs market evolving faster than ever, Teach First has found that nearly 80% of teachers believe their students to be less ready for the world of work than in previous years. Again, more disadvantaged students will be disproportionately impacted by that, with more than half of teachers saying that they feel the pandemic has impacted disadvantaged students’ perceptions of their potential careers.

Well informed and realistic careers decisions cannot be made if careers provision is socially patterned, as evidenced by the Social Market Foundation. Essentially, pupils from schools in affluent areas opt for university while those in less affluent areas take vocational options. That needs levelling up.

The Baker clause strengthened the legislative framework, stating that schools must allow colleges and training providers access to help pupils make informed choices. If careers provision is resourced to the tune of £2 per student—less than a cup of coffee—quality will be found wanting, as argued by Careers England. Ensuring that schools, teachers and employers feel supported to meet the needs of students will be vital for improving the quality of guidance given. With only 17% of year 13 telling the Sutton Trust that they have learned about careers opportunities in their local area, there is considerably more to do to connect businesses and schools.

Although the Careers and Enterprise Company has done some excellent work connecting schools and businesses in some areas, including schools in my own, only half of heads report that their schools are part of the CEC careers hub. That clearly needs to be scaled up. Since the abolition of Connexions in 2011, 2 million children and young people have not had access to independent careers professionals.

I would argue that we need massively to improve access to work experience, with only a third of pupils having completed work experience by the age of 18. A statutory duty, with resources to support a two-week placement, should be put in place. Where possible, we need to ensure that the work experience that a young person undertakes is relevant to their future ambitions. Beyond giving the important experience of the work environment, work experience should help those students better frame their future ambitions and make informed careers decisions.

That was brought home to me recently by a year 10 work experience student called Kevin, who chose to work in my constituency office because he felt it would be more interesting than the other opportunities on offer, but it was pretty clear that he wanted to be a firefighter. I have now put him in touch with our local fire service, and he used his experience to do a bit of research in my office when he was on placement there.

It is essential that any new Government strategy on careers advice focuses on work experience and ensures connections between schools, local authorities and local businesses. That will mean that pupils get more opportunities for their two-week work experience, which will help them make informed decisions. It will also help us, as legislators and politicians, to ensure we have a growing economy.

A new strategy must also deliver on one of the areas that we most need to change when it comes to careers guidance, which is apprenticeships. Although most students feel that they get plenty of guidance about university courses, only 10% feel the same way about apprenticeships. Too often, support for students considering apprenticeships or vocational education is much weaker than for those considering academic education. In some schools, every student creates a UCAS account by default, cementing the idea that higher education is the default option. We need to ensure that within careers advice apprenticeships and further education are put on the same footing as university education. We cannot continue with the disparity in information, advice and therefore access that we see all too often.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

I, too, have seen some excellent provision through careers hubs, but the hon. Member is right that it is inconsistent. Does he know whether those hubs are actually leading to different work experiences for young people? Far too often, I see a form sent home with the child: “Find your own work experience and write the name here. We’ll make sure that you’re not going to die while you’re there.” That is basically all that schools want to know. What we really need to see is not the milkman’s son going to work with his dad, and the politician’s son going with his, but people getting experiences that are different from what they are already used to. Is he aware of those kinds of experiences in his hub?

[Mr Walker]

I do not disagree at all with what the hon. Gentleman has said. Absolutely, we want to give people those experiences. I talk to a lot of my engineering companies in Worcester, and one of their frustrations is that they feel that the image that people have of engineering is of where it was 30 or 40 years ago, with the traditional, metal-bashing image. What they are doing now is much more exciting, and much more engaging for young people visiting from schools. The working environment is also much better than it was.

Absolutely, getting people into a workplace that they might not necessarily know about must be part of this. That is something that our careers hub in Worcestershire does very well, and we have seen that, in particular, in the cyber-security sector. Nobody learns that at school, but they can learn the maths, computing and skills that can take them in that direction. Those companies are getting into schools to run code clubs, and they are getting children from the schools to come and do work experience. They tend to be the small businesses that, traditionally, careers advice did not look at.

I absolutely recognise that the box-ticking approach that the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) described was sometimes a problem in the past, but I think it is actually more likely to be a problem in a centralised system than in one that encourages direct engagement between schools and employers.

I very much welcome this debate and am grateful for the chance to contribute to it. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take forward the opportunity for work in the White Paper, to continue to engage with apprenticeships and employers, and to ensure that we also take the opportunity to raise aspirations in primary schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Mike Amesbury) on securing this crucial debate and on the way in which he presented it, bringing his considerable experience to benefit the House. The debate is particularly timely, given that pupils across the country will be undertaking exams and turning their attention to their future careers. Indeed, many year 10 students are doing work experience as we speak.

I welcome the Minister to her position and congratulate her on her appointment. The speed of change in the Government in recent weeks has been bewildering for us all and, if we have had trouble keeping up with who is in and who is out, imagine what it has been like for the poor civil servants. It is fair to say that while it can sometimes be hard to be seen in a crowded field, her appointment and the very particular charm offensive with which she attempted to win over hearts and minds has certainly not gone unnoticed.

The debate is vital. The Labour party has long been of the view that the Government’s lack of commitment to work experience and careers guidance has been a damaging failure. In recent months, the Government have been at pains to prove that their attitude to work experience and careers guidance has changed. It could be coming true—who knows? Proving that their words can match their deeds, under the Prime Minister we now have Ministers themselves trying out work experience. The right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) got to try out being Secretary of State for a day—Labour prefers two weeks, but at least a day was better than nothing—and the Minister is on an extended two-month work trial that she hopes will go from temp to perm. Of course, unlike the traineeships that the Government are so keen to trumpet, that work experience is very much not unpaid, with the right hon. Member for Chippenham racking up generous severance pay for her 24 hours of labour. [Interruption.] Indeed.

On a more serious note, I would like to reflect on some of the valuable contributions made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale brought tremendous experience to bear, focused particularly on the funding and the inconsistency of service across the country. The points he made were knowledgeable and very much matched the experience that I had. The hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) said that we need to change attitudes to apprenticeships and trumpet their success. He is absolutely right: I want every school to declare not only the numbers of students going to university but how many attained apprenticeships. If we were trumpeting and saluting students who got apprenticeships alongside those who went into universities, maybe parents would get the message that apprenticeships are a positive step for young people.

The hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) reflected on something that I have heard so many times: every one of the students who she had through her office had only been introduced to the idea of going to university. That is something that we hear so much. The hon. Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) reflected that, in his area, opportunities were so plentiful that support is needed because the array of careers is so daunting. I have to say that does not reflect the message I hear from many students; the message they get at school is to first go into sixth form and then to university. The sense of an array of options is far too often missing.

I particularly enjoyed the speech from the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies) who said, very accurately, something we all recognise: we have all had jobs that we do not enjoy much—whether she was referring to being a Conservative Member of Parliament in recent weeks or to her previous employment, she did not say. The hon. Member also said that new starters will not be the finished article. That is an important point for any Conservative Members going to hustings in future weeks to reflect on.

At the heart of the debate is the aim of equipping young people with the right tools to ensure they are ready for work and life. In 2010, the coalition Government axed Connexions, which led to the demise of universal provision for careers guidance. The reality is that we had five years where the provision was absolutely pitiful. There have been improvements since then; it is only fair to reflect that. However, whatever the faults of the Connexions service, it was a colossal failure to leave young people and adults, particularly from the most disadvantaged backgrounds, without the access to advice and support that children with wealthier and better connected parents are able to take for granted.

On work experience, like the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) I have witnessed some excellent provision. I visited a really good careers hub in the Black Country in recent months. However, even The Careers and Enterprise company itself would concede that the quality of those hubs and the shared best practice are inconsistent across different areas. The hon. Gentleman said that good practice needs to be much more widely available, and I certainly agree with that. I still think it is highly questionable whether leaving schools in charge of their pupils’ careers guidance will ever work. It is the Opposition’s view that careers guidance is a profession; it is not an add-on to a deputy headteacher’s job.

The awful legacy of the lack of careers guidance has been far too many young people leaving school without adequate careers advice. It has been a shameful failure of education and skills policy that will have left a lasting legacy on some of those affected—now in adulthood, without having had access to that advice. It is worth reminding ourselves that, even pre-pandemic, almost 800,000 young people were not in education, employment or training. That illustrates why it is essential that school leavers exit full-time education fully aware of the local labour market and the opportunities on offer.

That is why, during the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, Labour backed the Baker clause, which proposed that schools must allow colleges and training providers to access every student in years 8 to 13 to discuss non-academic routes available to them, and that each student should have three meaningful interactions with different providers at each stage of their educational journey. It is hugely regrettable that the Government did not adopt that recommendation in full, as their lordships had supported. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister, if she remains in post, whether the Government would be minded to allow the full Baker clause to be adopted. In my experience, schools will often have a primary focus on ensuring that the majority of their year 11 students are pushed toward the school’s own sixth form. If there is a financial need to ensure that there are x number of students at a sixth form, it is hard to see how schools will be genuinely independent in the message they are passing on to young people, as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex reflected on earlier.

Parents naturally want to see their children succeed with high attainment in subject-based learning. However, many are increasingly concerned that their children should leave school as well-rounded individuals too, with the skills to succeed in the wider world. Currently, the availability and quality of careers advice remains patchy. The Government must move further and faster to equip children with the skills they require and ensure that there is a greater consistency across all areas.

The hon. Member for Worcester said that the service does not necessarily need to be the same in all areas, but what we do need is a minimum standard that is not only legislated for—we have legislation—but monitored and assessed against, whether that be through provision that the schools have to book or through an independent service. The sentiment that the availability and quality of careers advice is patchy and needs to improve is echoed by teachers, parents, children, employers and, indeed, by many of the contributions we have heard today.

According to Parentkind’s 2021 “Parent Voice” report, just half of parents said that their child’s school offered good careers advice. The Centre for Education and Youth’s “Enriching Education Recovery” report makes clear that the vast majority of teachers, parents and children agree that there should be improved access. This is echoed by the business community. In 2019, a Confederation of British Industry survey said that 44% of employers felt that young people leaving education were not work-ready. The hon. Member for Mid Sussex reflected similar sentiments about ensuring that being well-educated in school subjects also reflected the work-readiness of young people leaving our statutory education system. The CBI survey also highlighted the geographic variation in engagement with employers and educational settings. As the hon. Member for Broadland said, it is so important that local economies are reflected in terms of the experiences that young people have.

Students in rural and coastal areas often face a postcode lottery on access to joined-up support. The Sutton Trust has concluded that all pupils should receive a guaranteed level of careers advice. A recent Careers England survey revealed that three quarters of schools have insufficient, limited or no funding with which to deliver what is needed. About a third of secondary schools say that they receive the equivalent of £5 per student, with 5% receiving as little as £2 per student, as my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale reflected earlier.

The inclusion of the Gatsby benchmarks as part of the Department for Education’s statutory guidance on careers education represents welcome, though modest, progress. There has been a long history of Government statute failing to be implemented on the ground. Labour is backing pupils, parents, business and educators with its pledge to give every child access to quality face-to-face careers advice in their schools. Our proposal, set out by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) at last year’s Labour party conference, would provide face-to-face, professional and independent careers advice for every school pupil.

It is also vital that young people have a thorough knowledge and understanding of their local labour market. That is why the next Labour Government will reintroduce two weeks of compulsory work experience for every child. As I said to the hon. Member for Worcester, it is important that that reflects the breadth of opportunities and is not narrowed down to a self-selected form sent home with children.

We will reverse that removal from the curriculum by the coalition Government to equip young people with the skills that they need, so that there is work experience in the school curriculum. In addition to support for schools, we will work with business communities to ensure that they offer the placements needed. Once again, Labour is committed to restoring a skills-led agenda for our children. It is crucial that that is addressed at the earliest possible opportunity.

In responding for the Government, will the Minister say whether they will allow every child to receive three independent options of careers at each stage of their school journey, as proposed by the Baker clause? If not, why does she consider that not the right direction to go in? Does she recognise the criticism that some schools are so determined to get all their top students into their own sixth forms that they deliberately reduce the number of alternative options presented to children? If she does, what does she propose to do about it? Does she believe that a school with substandard careers guidance should still be able to be ranked as outstanding? Does she agree with Labour’s plan—as the hon. Member for Mid Sussex sensibly does—to ensure that every child receives at least one face-to-face careers guidance appointment? If not, what does the Minister think is an appropriate standard?

This is a crucial debate on a subject that has the potential to be life-changing for young learners. It is an area for which Labour, under my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras, has already made concrete proposals, and one that the Government must begin to take more seriously for the sake of the next generation of workers and for our nation’s economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I thank my honourable husband, or should I say my hon. Friend? I obviously agree with him—although I don’t usually—that we are not only defending our country and the people of Ukraine, but benefiting from that capability.

In January, there was a significant strengthening of provider access legislation, with the duty on schools to invite providers of technical education or apprenticeships to talk to pupils. As the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said, there will be at least six opportunities for pupils to have high-quality encounters with different providers throughout school years 8 to 13, so that they can understand and explore technical choices before making vital decisions about their next steps.

Our adoption of the Gatsby benchmarks as a career framework has been a great success. From a standing start in 2018, more than 4,200 secondary schools and colleges are using them to develop and improve their careers programmes. The benchmarks are based on international best practice and describe all the crucial components of a world-class careers programme for young people. Since the launch of the Government’s careers strategy in 2017, we have seen improvements across every dimension of careers guidance, with a particularly strong performance by schools in disadvantaged areas. There was a question about the strategy, which I will touch on later.

It is incredibly valuable to be able to measure the inputs of schools into careers guidance and to see that outcomes are improving. Early analysis shows a positive link between careers education, as assessed by the Gatsby benchmarks, and young people going into sustained education, employment and training after leaving school. A recent study based on data from nearly 2,400 schools shows that when Gatsby benchmarks are achieved by a school, that increases the likelihood of a student being in education, employment or training after year 11. It amounts to a 10% reduction in the proportion of students who are not in education, employment or training post-16 if schools meet all eight benchmarks, compared to schools that achieve none. Importantly, the reduction is twice as great, at 20%, in schools with the most disadvantaged students. We know what is working well and we know where schools are finding it difficult to implement the benchmarks, and that allows us to target our support more effectively.

To realise the maximum value from our investment in careers guidance, we are strengthening the accountability framework for secondary schools. On all graded inspections, Ofsted inspectors assess the quality of careers education, information, advice and guidance on how much it benefits pupils in deciding on their next steps. It is important that pupils feel they are at the centre of that journey. If a school is not meeting the requirements of the provider access legislation, inspectors will state it in the published inspection report and consider what impact it has on the quality of careers provision, and the subsequent judgment for personal development.

We have developed a model to support schools in improving their careers offer.

[Mr Perkins]

The Minister spoke about the importance of the Gatsby benchmarks and the evidence that they improve outcomes, and said that careers guidance will now be checked by Ofsted. Does she think it should be possible for a school that does not meet the benchmarks to be assessed as outstanding, despite having inadequate careers guidance?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

The hon. Gentleman has touched on an important point. It is important not only to give support to the schools in question but to note that in the Ofsted inspection report.

On support for schools to improve their careers offer, we have developed a model that is proven to accelerate improvements in careers guidance. Schools do better if they are part of networks of regional careers hubs—as we see in our local areas—and enterprise advisers. Careers hubs are local partnerships among schools, colleges, businesses, providers and the voluntary sector that enable the sharing of best practice to enhance careers provision. Enterprise advisers are business professionals who work with schools and colleges to strengthen careers strategies and employment engagement plans.

By linking such networks, schools work much more closely with employers and the local enterprise partnerships. This model is crucial to drive the quality of careers provision locally. It promotes the sharing of best practice and economic information and intelligence. Alongside that, we encourage every secondary school to have a trained careers leader, to make the most of the connections and co-ordinate and integrate the careers programme throughout the school, with the backing of their headteacher.

To underpin the delivery of this excellent model, we are investing £29 million this year in the Careers and Enterprise Company. With that funding, the CEC is supporting schools and colleges to implement the Gatsby benchmarks by extending the careers hubs, the enterprise adviser network, the careers leaders training and digital support. I am delighted that all secondary schools and colleges across Weaver Vale are now benefiting from that support; we intend to replicate that throughout the country.

Allow me to share some of the numbers behind our investment. More than 2,200 careers leaders have engaged in funded training since the scheme was launched in 2018. To touch on the question that the hon. Member for Weaver Vale asked, two thirds of schools and colleges in England were part of a careers hub by September 2021. As we work towards the full roll-out, that proportion will increase to approximately 90%, which will mean 4,500 schools and colleges will benefit from a careers hub by August next year. Around 3,750 business professionals work as enterprise advisers with schools and colleges to develop their careers strategies and employment engagement plans.

I am sure everybody here will agree that more important than the numbers is the impact of our investment on young people. The engagement of employers at scale is crucial to the improvements in careers guidance that we are seeing. Employers provide inspiration and insight to young people, deliver hands-on experience of the workplace, highlight pathways into work, and are increasingly helping to integrate careers learning into the curriculum.

Let me give a few examples. Thomas Dudley, a 100-year-old manufacturing company in the west midlands, has worked with local schools to develop mini challenges in history, business, design, English and maths that link those topics with jobs in the local economy. Pupils then visit the business and experience how the skills they have learned can translate into their future career.

Let me share a couple of examples of the excellent work in the area of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale. Greenbank School has helped employers to be more confident in supporting people with autism. Supported by the CEC’s Cheshire and Warrington enterprise adviser network, the school adapted its autism training to better meet the needs of employers and give them an insight in the challenges that young people with autism face. The training was delivered to numerous local employers, including Bentley, Siemens and the NHS.

Sir John Deane’s College has secured prestigious degree apprenticeships for its pupils with major companies including Rolls-Royce, Deloitte and Unilever. The college has established an aspiring apprenticeships programme for year 13 students that includes CV workshops, mentoring, university visits, employer encounters and vacancy-search support.

All schools in the area of the hon. Member for Chesterfield have been part of the careers hub since the start of the academic year, and four out of the nine secondary schools have done careers leader training. That provision will be extended further. Local employers—including KPMG and Dalton HR Solutions—are providing senior business volunteers and enterprise admissions to his local schools.

On improving careers information, another important area of focus is to provide young people with clear and consistent information about the full range of careers options and relevant education and training courses. We established a National Careers Service a decade ago and continue to provide personalised careers information and advice to all aged 13 and over. We are improving the NCS digital offer to allow greater personalisation, but we want to go further. The levelling-up White Paper announced the unit for future skills, which will help to ensure that comprehensive and relevant labour market information and data related to occupations, skills and careers are made available to support effective careers guidance at a national and local level.

I have only a couple minutes left, so I will answer some questions. On improving information in schools about apprenticeships, we already deliver information and outreach work to schools on apprenticeships via the apprenticeship support and knowledge programme. My predecessor wrote to all pupils aged 11 to 13 to promote apprenticeship opportunities, and strengthened provider access legislation to ensure that all pupils have six encounters with different providers, as I said.

On the point about £2 of careers funding per pupil, we are routing investment through the NCS and the CEC so that we can target money where it is most needed to secure better value for money. More than £92 million has been invested in 2022-23.

On the careers strategy, we appointed Sir John Holman as a strategic adviser on careers information, advice and guidance. We will respond to his recommendations in due course, so watch this space.

I am running out of time so will finish by thanking everyone who has taken part in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) spoke about T-levels and the importance of career guidance. My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew) described the opportunity to set up your own business and discussed choice, opportunity and personal responsibility.

The former Department for Work and Pensions Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), is passionate about young people’s education. She touched on the important point of tackling job snobbery. My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), the former Minister of State for Education, demonstrated his continued commitment to education by taking part in the debate. Some of his work includes the “Opportunity for all” White Paper, which includes a programme targeting primary schools in 55 education investment areas and adopts benchmarks for good careers guidance. I thank him for his great work on that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for his commitment to apprenticeships, as a former co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships.

The hon. Member for Chesterfield made some valid points about the importance of work experience. My own work experience during college—I am sure everybody has a couple of horror stories—was with an interior designer. The lady, who worked from home, got me ironing her husband’s underwear. I am sure work experience has improved drastically since then. I can reassure hon. Members that I have had 60 work experience students through my office since I was elected, so I am fully committed to it.

Finally, our mission is to level up opportunity and give every young person the chance to go as far as their talents take them. I am enormously grateful for the support that Members have given on this important issue. We have built the foundations for a career system based on employer engagement, dynamic career leaders and local collaboration, and we encourage the use of evidence for improvement. We will continue to target investment at the changes that make the most difference on the ground, so that every young person in this great country has the chance to reach their full potential.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the provision of careers guidance in schools.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 4th July 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Nine out of 10 T-level providers have failed to meet even the Government’s own modest recruitment targets, and an FE Week investigation found that employers’ refusal to offer work placements was cited as a key reason for that failure. Labour wants T-levels to be a success, but courses in crucial areas such as digital, health and science have the lowest enrolment, and employers and students are being failed. We know that the Secretary of State wears the T-level badge with great style, but does he actually understand why the policy is failing? Can the Minister assure the House that, in 2022, the Government will meet the enrolment targets that have been set?

[Alex Burghart]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for T-levels in principle. T-levels are going extremely well, and we have very good uptake. The first year of T-levels was conducted in perhaps the harshest circumstances imaginable during covid, but thanks to the hard work of my officials and the hard work of principals, we managed to get almost all students—well over 90% of students—their work placements. If we can do it in the conditions of covid, I think we can do it at other times.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 23rd May 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We now come to the shadow Minister.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am more interested in the Government’s record on academic inequality than in their rhetoric. The annual review of education by the Institute for Fiscal Studies reveals that since 2010, the most deprived secondary schools have suffered a 14% cut in spending, while for the most affluent schools the figure is just 9%. The new national funding formula makes the disparity worse. The Government’s 10 years of further education cuts also fell harder on poorer students. We all know that the Government stand against aspiration for deprived children and are increasing inequality, as those figures show. Why do they not at least have the courage to admit it?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

The hon. Gentleman makes some powerful points, but they are completely misguided. He speaks with great passion, but without looking at the evidence before us. The past 12 years demonstrate that schools have been on an improvement journey. When we came into office, only two thirds of schools could achieve a good or outstanding rating; the figure is now 86%. My predecessors’ work on skills has taken investment in the skills agenda up to £3.8 billion. When we talk to teachers and school leaders around the country, they know that the White Paper will deliver great outcomes for every child. We have set our ambitions high for children all over the country; we know how to get there, and we will deliver.

Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 26th April 2022 General Committees

[Alex Burghart]

I know that my hon. Friend is championing exactly that sort of work in his area and giving us lessons that we can transpose to other areas. The new centres of excellence will be fundamental to how we build the next generation of skills in our country and create that pipeline for young people and those who are changing careers to enter the workforce with higher levels of skills. I congratulate my hon. Friend on what he is seeing in his area.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Minister rightly referred a moment ago to the nation’s skills deficit. The order effectively doubles the amount that the construction industry pays, but undoes the reduction that the Government previously put in place. We are not hostile to that, but it returns us to where we were two years ago when the deficit existed. What can he point to in the order that makes anything better? It effectively represents a continuity strategy. We have got a skills deficit, which has built up over a number of years—we can debate why that is. Are the Government doing anything to make the situation better rather than just returning us to where we were?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman asks a fair question. He rightly points out that, during covid, we reduced the burden on construction companies to help them get through the pandemic, and the order is a return to normal. However, it is only one part of the interventions we are making to create the next generation of people working in construction. I am pleased to say that apprenticeship construction starts are doing well and are above their pre-pandemic level. We are introducing new T-levels in construction and we see a real appetite for the skills bootcamps that the Government have brought in. Those short, intensive courses, which help people skill up over 12 to 18 weeks, with a guaranteed job interview at the end, are popular with potential employees, employers and, I am pleased to say, the Treasury.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I very much hope that the CITB will engage with all relevant stakeholders.

I will try to make some headway. The remit is broader still. The CITB develops and maintains occupational standards so that employees and employers are assured training is of sufficient quality. That also means that construction skills become more readily transferable, benefiting both employees and employers. The CITB has a critical role in horizon scanning, too. It uses research and labour market intelligence to understand the skills needs of the sector and to work with industry and Government to help ensure that construction has the right skills both now and in future.

Before turning to the details of the draft order, I want to highlight that the most recent levy order—the 2021 order—was for one year, not the usual three years. As we discussed a moment ago, a 50% reduction was prescribed in that year relative to the 2018 three-year order. That was to accommodate the CITB’s decision to allow levy payers a payment holiday in response to cash-flow pressures the industry was facing during the first covid lockdown. This three-year 2022 order returns to the levy rates prescribed by the three-year 2018 order: 0.35% of the earnings paid by employers to directly employed workers, and 1.25% of contract payments for indirectly employed workers such as contractors, for those businesses that are liable to pay the levy.

The industry, having been consulted on the CITB’s delivery strategy and levy rate, supported the retention of the higher exemption and reduction thresholds for smaller employers contained in the 2021 order. To run through those very quickly, construction employers with an annual wage bill of up to £119,999 will not pay any levy, while still having full access to CITB support. It is projected that approximately 62% of all employers in the scope of the levy will be exempt from paying. Larger companies will carry the burden. Employers with a wage bill between £120,000 and £399,999 will receive a 50% reduction on their levy liability, while also receiving full access to CITB services—that covers about 14% of employers.

[Mr Perkins]

I understand the reason for the tapering that the Minister refers to, but has any analysis been done of whether this creates a cliff edge that disincentivises employment? There will be companies that know that the next person they take on will move them either from being a non-payer to a half-payer, of from being a half-payer to a full payer. In an industry with huge amounts of subcontract work done anyway, it would not be amazing if this was a disincentive to employment. Has any analysis of that been done, and if not does the Minister think it would be a good idea for inquiries of that kind to be made?

[Alex Burghart]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point; I will consult my notes while he is speaking, and perhaps return to it in my closing remarks.

The CITB has consulted the industry on these levy proposals via the consensus process, which is required under the Industrial Training Act 1982. Consensus is achieved by satisfying two requirements: both the majority of employers likely to pay the levy, and those employers who are, together, likely to pay more than half the aggregate levy raised, consider that the proposals are necessary to encourage adequate training. Both requirements were satisfied, with 66.5% of likely levy payers in the industry, who between them are likely to pay 63.2% of the aggregate levy, supportive of the CITB’s proposals.

The draft order will enable CITB to play its role in aiding employers to secure and retain a sufficient supply of highly skilled labour in the construction industry in these fast-moving times. I commend it to the Committee.

[Mr Perkins]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Rees.

The Construction Industry Training Board has been instrumental in training the construction industry workforce since it was established in the wake of the Industrial Training Act 1964. The main reason for its creation was to address concerns about UK skills shortages at the time—an issue that seems more pressing than ever.

As Members may well be aware, since the CITB’s creation, the primary focus of the board has been to invest the money that it receives from the CITB levy in training and upskilling both the existing workforce and new entrants into the industry. It is essential, for both the construction industry and the wider UK economy, that Britain is able to attract the best new talent through the promotion of construction as an exciting and rewarding career.

I agree entirely with what the Minister said about the crucial importance of the construction industry; the fact that one of the biggest barriers to growth for the UK economy, and the construction industry in particular, is access to skilled labour; and the creation of an environment where young people feel that construction is a career that they can move into. Anyone who has sought to get any kind of building work done will know how difficult it is to attract a reliable, skilled workforce that is available, even for basic home improvements. That is even more the case within house building and other aspects of the construction sector, so this is a matter of supreme importance.

The CITB has been at the forefront of the implementation of T-levels for the construction sector, and of new frameworks for apprentices in the industry. I had the great privilege to visit both the HomeServe academy in Birmingham and the Steve Willis academy in Burgess Hill to see how apprentices in the sector are progressing and the wide range of opportunities open to those starting out in the industry. While there are a huge number of opportunities in the industry, there are still far too few people being giving opportunities to move into the sector, with HomeServe estimating that as many as 30,000 too few apprentices are coming through every year to keep pace with the growth opportunities and the retirements in what is an ageing workforce.

With the industry facing the twin challenges of an ageing workforce and the decline in migrant labour following Britain’s departure from the European Union, the role of the CITB—to make it easy for levy-paying firms to get funding for innovation and skills development —has never been more important. It has also never been more important for the Government to take a strategic view on supporting an industry that is largely based on subcontracted workers, and to recognise why we continue to have a huge skills shortage within the sector.

The Minister said a few moments ago that he has been speaking to further education colleges that have experienced many new employers getting involved in training, where previously they might have relied on migrant labour. That is great to hear. As he and the Committee will be aware, the Labour party was against the idea of Britain leaving the European Union, but is committed to making Brexit work in the best way that it can. One of the clear opportunities that exist as a result of the reduction in migrant labour—not only an opportunity, but an imperative for the UK economy—is to train up more of our own people to get into such sectors and to ensure that the route into developing a career in construction is as easy as possible. We are 100% behind that opportunity.

I have to say, however, that the Government are not strategic in developing those opportunities. There is much more that they can do. They have absolutely outsourced responsibility for skills policy to employers. Of course employers need to play a key role—they want to take these people on and need to be involved every step of the way on training—but the more the Government have put employers in the driving seat over the past 12 years, the more the skills shortages have grown. In a variety of sectors—the construction industry is no exception—we have seen a massive reduction in the number of people who are able to be trained up.

[Kirsty Blackman]

An awful lot of what we have talked about is focused on England, but CITB is national, over all these islands. The difference in Scotland is that we are doing some of the things that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting: we have Developing the Young Workforce, which is a partnership between the private sector and education, in an attempt to ensure that the skills that come through are those that are needed by business. DYW is now embedded in Scotland and is a good success story. I urge him and the Minister to look into what is happening with it, and to consider it as a basis for something that could go forward in England.

[Mr Perkins]

The hon. Lady is right that the devolved authorities in Wales and Scotland have innovated in some areas. I am conscious of some of those innovations, and am happy to learn more about them. I thank her for that invitation.

To turn to the draft order, we supported the levy rates being halved temporarily under the previous order to 0.175% on directly employed workers and 0.625% on taxable subcontractors, net of CIS—the construction industry scheme—to support businesses through the pandemic, at a time when workers were being furloughed and many works were being postponed and delayed, and when much less training was happening. It is encouraging that, as we return to some kind of normality, businesses across the sector are able to develop projects and developments, so we support the return to the previous level.

The Minister was right to say that the draft order is not the beginning and end of investment in construction skills, but a lot more needs to be done from a strategic perspective. The Government need to recognise that an industry that is largely focused on subcontracted work will often have everyone saying that training up the next generation is someone else’s responsibility. The idea that the sector will just do that itself if we get out of its way and give it the space to do so is optimistic at best, and arguably naive. That is what we have seen: not enough people are being attracted into the sector.

It is vital to ensure that the CITB is able to support such training needs over the next three years. That is why we support the return to the pre-pandemic levy rates. We need to ensure the right balance in the draft order between supporting businesses and the continued training and development of staff, while ensuring that smaller businesses are encouraged and not penalised, in particular when starting to get back on their feet post pandemic. Overall, the order largely does that, retaining the wage bill exemption threshold for the levy at £120,000. We think that that is sensible, given the challenges faced by business.

We need to ensure that there is a strong conversation between Government and the sector. The idea that it will simply take up the slack is not one that we agree with. It is important that the sector takes responsibility for ensuring that there is a strategic plan to attract the next generation, and that people at all levels and in all geographies are able to access it. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West made a powerful point in that regard: we need to make sure that in the smaller towns and areas without a big construction industry—perhaps those that have smaller amounts of new house building going on—people are able to access those opportunities, too.

As the Minister will be aware, there is still some resentment from larger employers that they are required to pay both the CITB and apprenticeship levies. It is therefore crucial that the CITB levy adds value to businesses and the wider construction workforce and, indeed, that it is seen to do so. Having diligently read through the CITB four-year strategic plan for 2021-2025—my speech says “scanned through”, but actually I read it diligently—I know that £66.9 million is allocated for other support.

With the need to ensure that the CITB levy is value for money, and in the interest of transparency, can the Minister tell us a bit more about what “other support” actually encompasses and ensure that the sector is aware of where exactly that money is going? There is also £2 million being spent on research. Can the Minister set out what sort of projects and research will be undertaken and how that will lead to more skilled workers in the future?

I note that although construction was one of the first three T-levels launched in September 2020, T-levels do not actually muster a mention in the four-year strategic plan. Can the Minister outline how T-levels fit into the CITB’s plans for the future of the workforce, particularly in terms of building pipelines for the next generation to enter the construction sector?

Since the introduction of the construction T-level, the Department for Education has added skills bootcamps and flexi-apprenticeships for construction. The Minister spoke about bootcamps a moment ago; I would be interested to hear how many people he anticipates going on those bootcamps over the four-year period and whether he believes that they are delivering on what Government expected.

The skills shortages are profound at the moment. On that basis, I question whether unpaid traineeships, in a sector that is already understaffed, are the most attractive way of attracting new people into the sector. Has the Minister given any thought to expanding the number of apprenticeships, rather than funding traineeship opportunities?

I welcome that the Government appear to have backtracked on their proposals to defund the majority of BTECs. Will the Minister update us on the future of BTEC routes into construction and provide us with a guarantee that businesses and those who want to work in the construction sector will be able to access those qualifications in the coming years?

As Committee members will be aware, the consequences of the fire at Grenfell are still deeply felt. It is important that lessons have been learned across the building industry. However, Grenfell and its aftermath are only briefly acknowledged in the strategic plan, with a reference to post-Hackitt and energy-efficient retrofits. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that future recruits and existing workers will be trained so that a mindset of ensuring safety and building sustainability is paramount in their thoughts?

As I stated earlier, the Opposition are content for the draft order to be passed, and we hope it will yield the results the Minister and the CITB hope for. However, we once again call on the Government to take a more strategic and hands-on role to ensure that there are more people to address the skills shortage. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s responses to my questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

Absolutely; how could I forget my visit to Suffolk New College in Ipswich last week? I saw a fantastic appetite for our skills agenda there. Suffolk New College is a great provider of T-levels. It works closely with employers to give students a work placement, so that they can gain skills on the job while learning the background in the classroom. I very much enjoyed my trip and hope to return to Suffolk before too long.

With reference to T-levels and BTECs, the construction T-level route that we have set up is very popular. I have been pleased to see colleges across the country taking advantage of that and giving students new opportunities, as well as employers providing work placements. With BTECs, we have been clear on our course from the start: we are shifting from BTECs to T-levels in those areas where T-levels exist, but in the areas where T-levels do not exist and there is no overlap, I would expect those BTEC courses to continue.

[Mr Perkins]

I am not sure if the Minister has just made an announcement, because we do not yet have the list of the courses that will not be carrying on. Is he saying that the BTEC in construction is one of those that the Government are intending to get rid of to be replaced by the T-level? That is what it sounded like. If that is not the case, can he provide an update on what he sees as the future for the BTEC in construction? He mentions that the T-level is very popular, but actually far more students are studying the BTEC at the moment. Can he clarify that matter?

[Alex Burghart]

We are only in our second year of T-level delivery and I am very much looking forward to seeing the first results in August. The hon. Gentleman sat through many days of debates on the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, where he heard both myself and the Secretary of State say that where BTECs and other level 3 qualifications overlap with T-levels, we expect T-levels to be the successor course—I remember a long debate we had about that issue in a Committee Room down the corridor. Obviously, in those areas where there is no T-level, there will be no overlap. I fully expect the Government to say more on that in the coming months.

It has been wonderful to serve under your chairwomanship, Ms Rees, and to find that we have cross-party agreement on the CITB statutory instrument.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords]

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

I am always anxious to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say. I believe his comment is a reference to amendment 15B, which I am coming to in a moment, but I hope he will forgive me if I finish talking about 17B first.

I hope this House will agree that we have reached a sensible compromise position, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Chair of the Education Committee. This middle ground of six provider encounters will help to give every pupil information about what further education colleges, independent training providers, university technical colleges and other alternative providers can offer.

Turning to Lords amendment 15B on the roll-out of our technical education qualification reforms, I begin by reiterating the announcement made in this House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading. We are allowing an extra year before public funding approval is withdrawn from qualifications that overlap with T-levels and before reformed qualifications are introduced that will sit alongside T-levels and A-levels.

Our reform programme is rightly ambitious, but we understand that it would be wrong to push too hard and risk compromising quality. The additional year strikes the right balance, giving providers, awarding organisations, students and other stakeholders enough time to prepare while moving forward with these important reforms. That is why we cannot accept the three-year delay that the amendment proposes.

These changes are part of reforms to our technical education system that have been over a decade in the making; they have their origins in the Wolf review of 2011 and were taken further by the Sainsbury review in 2016. Both those crucial pieces of work showed that we must close the gap between what people study and the skills employers need. As Lord Sainsbury said:

“Whatever their background, individuals need access to a national system of technical qualifications which is easy-to-understand, has credibility with employers and remains stable over time.”

T-levels will deliver on that pledge. They are a critical step change in the quality of the technical offer. They have been co-designed with more than 250 leading employers and are based on the best international examples of technical education. We have already put in place significant investment and support to help providers and employers to prepare for T-levels. By September 2023, all T-levels will be available to many thousands of young people across the country. The change to our reform timetable means that all schools and colleges will now be able to teach T-levels for at least a year before overlapping qualifications have their funding removed.

Last November, the Secretary of State also announced the removal of the English and maths exit requirement for T-levels. That is about making the landscape fairer so that talented students with more diverse strengths are not prevented from accessing this important offer. The change brings T-levels into line with other level 3 study—notably A-levels, which do not have such an English and maths exit requirement.

In addition, this amendment given to us by noble Lords would require consultation and consent from employer representative bodies before withdrawing funding approval from qualifications. As hon. Members will be aware, we have twice consulted on our intention to withdraw funding from qualifications that overlap with T-levels. T-levels were designed with employers to give young people the skills that they need to progress into skilled employment, the skills that employers need and the skills that our economy needs.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Minister refers to the consultation that the Government did on the defunding of BTECs and the twin-track approach. Am I right in saying that 86% of respondents to the Government’s own consultation said that the Government should keep the twin-track approach? If so, why is the Minister highlighting that consultation, which has come back to him telling him that the approach he is taking is wrong, as a reason not to vote for the amendment the Lords have proposed here?

[Alex Burghart]

Our consultation showed that there was widespread support for having a system of technical qualifications that offered both co-design with employers and entrenched, embedded work experience. The choice before Parliament in debating this Bill is whether we wish to push ahead, following the best international examples, on technical qualifications that are designed with employers and give students the best work experience opportunities as part of that qualification. That is the choice. We on the Government side know where we stand. We wish to have gold-standard qualifications that rank among the best in the world. I am afraid the Opposition do not seem to wish to follow us on that journey.

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education will continue to involve employers actively when making decisions about qualification approval, including through its route panels. Those panels hold national sector expertise and expert knowledge of occupational standards that have portability across employers. Institute approval will be a mark of quality and currency with business and industry, and will ensure that both employers and employees have the knowledge, skills and behaviours they need. The requirement for a public consultation and consent from employer representative bodies would duplicate existing good practice and introduce an unnecessary burden.

--- Later in debate ---

I am very pleased that we are starting to make real progress with this legislation. Through our change to provider access legislation, I believe we have made this Bill better, but now is the time to crack on with delivering our important skills reforms.

[Mr Perkins]

Last week’s spring statement showed that this Government have a Chancellor ill-equipped to tackle the size of the cost of living challenge in front of him. This week, the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill shows that, when it comes to addressing the key skills challenges our growth-starved nation faces, we have a Government ill-equipped for that challenge too.

We should remember that in the Chancellor’s statement last week he referred to reviewing the apprenticeship levy and other taxes, and by Friday he was forced to deny that there would be any formal review of the levy or the system at all. What a mess. This is a Government who spend the back-end of the week denying what they said in the first part of it. No wonder the sector is utterly disillusioned with their approach.

Let us stop for a minute and think how it could have been. A skills Bill worthy of the name would have seized the challenge posed by the huge reduction in apprenticeships since the introduction of the levy and demanded a review that ensured that small businesses were better served and that more level 2 and level 3 apprenticeship opportunities were created, and sought to return at least to the numbers we had before the levy was introduced.

A transformative skills Bill would also have ensured that all the relevant bodies were around the table directing local skills funding. It would also have recognised that, if universal credit is really going to be a bridge from the dole to a rewarding career, people on universal credit must be able to afford to invest in themselves in the way that the excellent Lords amendment suggested.

One can only imagine what their noble Lordships made of the Commons consideration of their amendments. A range of peers from across the political spectrum had brought their considerable knowledge and experience to bear to strengthen this “act of educational vandalism”, as Lord Baker described it, and voted through a series of amendments that a wide variety of knowledgeable judges, including groups such as the Association of Colleges, had described as strengthening the Bill.

Yet, one by one, the Government rejected those amendments, meaning that they have failed to grasp the huge opportunity, presented by the first skills Bill in their 12-year period in office, to put England’s approach to skills on a comparable footing with the best systems around the world. Their noble lordships reluctantly agreed to place just two further amendments in front of us today.

On amendment 15B, when this Bill was first debated nine months ago we had the then Secretary of State and the skills Minister in dismissive mood, decrying BTECs for all they were worth. Since then, we have had the more ameliorative approach, which we welcome, of the current Secretary of State first offering an extension to funding for BTECs into the next Parliament, then saying that the Government would conduct a qualifications review and tell us which level 3 qualifications they consider not of sufficient quality or duplicating T-levels.

All the while, however, the suspicion remains—reinforced by the Minister’s speech a moment ago—that the Government believe that only by discrediting or defunding BTECs will T-levels flourish. I am confused about why they so lack confidence in this new qualification. As my great friend Lord Blunkett said when moving amendment 15B last week, the Opposition have no hostility towards T-levels; indeed, we believe they are of real value. Just two weeks ago, I was at Barnsley College—a fine institution where I met several good T-level students studying construction, digital production, and health and care. They were hugely impressive, as were the lecturers and the leadership team, and had a real vision for where they might go following this qualification. I have no problem with saying that I have seen good quality T-level provision.

Nor should the Government refuse to recognise that BTECs, CACHE diplomas and other level 3 qualifications have also been transformational for so many students, and they should proceed cautiously before abolishing them. If the qualification, in its current form or in any future form, is a strong one, it will prosper, without the need to try and kill other level 3 qualifications and leave tens of thousands of students without a qualification to study. BTECs are widely respected by employers, learners, universities, colleges, training providers and other key stakeholders. When I asked the Minister about this earlier, he refused to answer, but the DFE’s own figures showed that 86% of respondents to its consultation urged it to continue the twin track of T-levels and BTECs. The Minister referred to Labour opposing T-levels. We are not opposing T-levels at all. In fact, it was the Conservative-dominated House of Lords, with the support of Conservative peers, that voted to place this amendment back before us last week.

The Government have optimistically suggested that 100,000 students might be doing T-levels by 2024. Given that 230,000 students currently study for level-3 qualifications, the Government need to come clean, when their review is published, about their plan for those who do not move on to do T-levels. It really is not good enough to continue dodging this question. Institutions need to know, learners need to know, and employers need to know. Do the Government expect that more students will complete level 2 and then go into the world of work at the age of 17? Do they expect that anything like the missing 130,000 would stay on alternative level 3 courses? If not, what is the plan? The Government need to come clean.

On amendments 17B and 17C, while Labour Members would have preferred that the Baker clause was adopted in its entirety, we are prepared to accept this compromise as a way to move the issue forward. It was interesting to hear the Minister talk about that compromise. I still fail to see what it was about having more than one intervention in a single school year that the Government thought so radical an idea. Why is two in every two years considered the very most that we can expect of our schools? Notwithstanding that, given that at least 50% of pupils do not progress on to an academic route, children and young people should have as much support as possible to learn about the wide range of opportunities open to them. It is welcome that the two interactions must be separate and different from each other. I would like to impress upon the Minister that these interactions must be of high quality and must be impartial.

The Government need to acknowledge that the perspective on the current operation of the Baker clause differs considerably depending on whether you are a student or a provider. All too often, apprentices I have met have told me that they were not made aware of apprenticeships while at school. Just a few weeks ago, I was at the Remit Training automotive apprenticeship academy, where just five of the 25 students I met said that apprenticeships had been discussed at school and that they had received proper careers guidance. I suspect that if we spoke to their school, we would have heard a different tale. Ensuring that these interactions are done in a meaningful way that really opens schoolchildren’s horizons is so important.

While it remains a regret that more of the Lords’ excellent amendments were rejected by this House, it is our intention to support their lordships’ two remaining amendments before us tonight. Beyond that, we give notice that as this Government have clearly run out of the ideas required to address the skills shortage they have created, a future Labour Government will tackle the systemic failure that has seen this country fail too many students and leaves England’s employers consistently complaining that under this Government too few young people leave our schools ready to work. It will take a Labour Government to drive the partnership and collaboration required to bring Government, employers, metro Mayors, local authorities and others together to reform what is not working and develop a skills ecosystem fit for purpose that delivers the work-ready students our employers demand, and our economy, and our country, so desperately need.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I am pleased to be called to speak today, and glad that this Bill is reaching almost the end of its yellow brick road. Sometimes the Government are like the Tin Man and need a bit of oil in them. I pay tribute to the Secretary of State, the skills Minister and the Minister for Higher and Further Education, as well as the previous skills Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), who first set the wheels in motion for this legislation.

I have always passionately believed in the need to build an apprenticeships and skills nation. I disagree with the Opposition in that I think that the Bill is fundamentally important. The lifetime skills guarantee and the lifelong learning entitlement will transform lives for the better. It is backed by real funding of an extra £3 billion announced in the autumn Budget. That will do a lot to reverse the decades of neglect and snobbery that have often surrounded the FE sector. Culture change must start at the top. I am genuinely proud of the way that the Government have met the challenge of skills. We will always need more to be done, but this is a fundamental Bill and it should be recognised as such. While I absolutely want to make sure that the core BTECs are kept until the T-levels are rolled out, I would certainly not want a delay in T-levels. If anything, I would be happy for the Minister to introduce them even faster than their planned roll-out.

Culture change must also come from the bottom up. One of the biggest obstacles to students undertaking more skills-based courses is the fact that schools do not encourage students to do apprenticeships or vocational learning in the same way that they encourage progression to university. As I mentioned in relation to amendments that came to the House a few weeks ago, my maiden speech in 2010 was on this very subject, so the Minister will understand why I care about it. Sadly, not a lot has changed since 2010 in terms of encouraging students to do apprenticeships. Many teachers have themselves qualified by going to university, so their familiarity with this pathway has helped to foster the age-old mantra of “university, university, university”. I would like the Government to allow us to have not just postgraduate teachers but teachers who have qualified through a degree apprenticeship. We have policing and nursing apprenticeships, so why not teaching apprenticeships and undergraduates at higher apprentice level?

The way the inspection framework has been framed and the nature of A-levels being seen as more academic has also contributed to the focus on university as the gold-plated standard. I hope that the roll-out of T-levels will help to ensure that the same procedures apply to technical education and then divide between academic and vocational learning. Personally speaking, I would be delighted if students could mix their alphabet of learning and take A-levels and T-levels together, which would essentially establish an international baccalaureate-style system of the kind that has benefited so many pupils from countries around the world.

However, the most critical thing we can do is improve careers guidance in schools. I am sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench will have tinnitus from the amount of times that I have gone on about this, but it is fundamental. The more encounters that pupils have with further education providers, technical colleges and university technical colleges, the more likely we can demonstrate that there is another, and arguably better, path forward. On one occasion, when I was lucky enough to have the role of skills Minister that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) performs with such distinction, I went to visit an exhibition in Birmingham—a skills show—and met a father and daughter who were in the process of deciding whether she should go to university. I showed them what was on offer—the high-quality skills courses and the jobs as well. By the time we had finished, the father and the daughter had absolutely decided that she would go and do a higher apprenticeship. I thought to myself, “I’ve converted one person to do this and I hope we convert many millions more of our young people.” That is why these encounters are so important—because without that skills show, that father and daughter would probably have just taken the traditional academic route of her going to university.

Last time I spoke on this Bill, I was addressing my new clause 3, which would have provided for three careers guidance encounters per pupil in each key year group. The Secretary of State said that while he was unable to make an announcement at that time, he would consider it further and move in due course and, as is so often the case with him and his Ministers, they have kept their commitment and their word, which is hugely appreciated. I am delighted to speak in support of Government amendments 17B and 17C, which allow for two careers guidance meetings per pupil per key year group, making a total of six such meetings, which is double what is on offer today. That goes to show that if the Secretary of State says he will do something, it will happen.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We have shadow Minister Mr Toby Perkins.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Whether we look at the national tutoring programme, which is failing to reach disadvantaged children; qualification changes that Ofqual admits will hamper progress to HE; the disparaging of university courses with higher numbers of deprived students on them; or the falling apprenticeship numbers, the truth is that this is a “Get back in your place” Government who stand as a barrier to aspiration for deprived students. Does the Minister not realise that the Government have not a shred of credibility on this subject? Their policies are the barrier to working-class aspiration, not the solution.

[Michelle Donelan]

It is a desperate time when we have a question such as that from the Opposition, which is not even really a question. The Government are delivering on our manifesto and enhancing quality, and have aspiration at the heart of everything we do.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords]

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Alex Burghart]

It is a pleasure to open the debate on Report of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. We had a very good debate in Committee, and I look forward to contributions from Members from across the House today.

I rise to speak to new clause 12 and amendments 9 and 10 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. The Government announced their intention to table new clause 12 in Committee last November. It inserts three new sections into the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, and will give the Office for Students, the higher education regulator in England, an explicit power to publish information about its compliance and enforcement activity in relation to higher education providers.

It is important that the OfS is able to publish such information in the form of notices, decisions and reports, and it is in the public interest that it should be transparent in its work, particularly when it is investigating providers for potential breaches of the registration conditions placed on them by the regulator. Publication by the OfS regarding its compliance and enforcement functions will demonstrate that appropriate actions are being taken by the regulator, and that will ensure that the reputation of higher education in England is maintained, and that we bear down on poor provision.

Members can be reassured that this power will be discretionary, as there may be reasons why the OfS may not consider it appropriate to publish certain information. The new clause provides, in proposed new section 67A(5) of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, various factors that the OfS must take into account when deciding whether to publish, including the public interest, but also whether publication would or might seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of a body or individual. The OfS should be transparent about such work, showing the sector, students and the public that it is intervening when necessary, and consequently providing confidence in the regulatory system.

New clause 12 also includes provision in proposed new section 67C to protect the OfS from defamation claims when, for example, it announces the opening of an investigation or publishes regulatory decisions. This protection provides qualified privilege, meaning that there is protection unless publication is shown to have been made with malice.

Other regulators, such as the Competition and Markets Authority, Ofsted and the Children’s Commissioner, have similar powers and protections. We are seeking a power and protection in this new clause to ensure that the OfS has what it needs for the purpose of transparency, and note the need to be as consistent as possible across the statute book. We believe there will be little material impact on the sector as a result of this change, as it simply allows more transparency about what the OfS is already doing.

Publication of notices, decisions and reports will become increasingly important as the OfS scales up its work on driving up quality in higher education and on protecting freedom of speech and academic freedom under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill.

Amendment 9 brings new clause 12 into force two months after Royal Assent, and amendment 10 amends the long title to cover new clause 12. I hope the House will support these amendments.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 12 to 16. I start by saying how much I welcome the interest among right hon. and hon. Members in improving this Bill. It is disappointing that the Bill was scheduled for debate on the first day back from recess, when the Government could have predicted that there would be a considerable number of other important statements, and so the House has less than two and a half hours to debate the 35 amendments before us. The further education sector has often been described as a Cinderella service and has often felt that its crucial role as the economic heartbeat of this country is undermined; there is nothing in the scheduling of this Bill or today’s debate to contradict that view.

Notwithstanding that, it is always a great pleasure to debate further education policy. Our country’s Government have presided over a productivity crisis, created a cost of living crisis because they are a high-tax, low-growth Government, and serially under-funded and undermined the institutions that are key to addressing those failings. Yet there is widespread recognition of the need for change, so there was considerable anticipation when the Government announced they were bringing forward a skills Bill to address a generation of failure.

We all remember that the White Paper that preceded the Bill was described as a “once-in-a-generation reform”, but Ministers seem determined to resist any substantive changes to the skills Bill. I wish those Conservative Members who have proposed amendments to the Bill well, but I am not hopeful that the Government are of a mind to allow their Bill to be improved.

We have a skills Bill here that is silent on apprenticeship reform. Our disappointment about the omission of apprenticeships from the Bill is compounded by the absence of any recognition that the apprenticeship levy has, according to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, “failed by every measure”.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. With great respect to the Government, the issue for me is the lack of detail when it comes to apprenticeships. Does he feel, as I do, that apprenticeships can play an important part in tackling the deficit by giving people a learning structure and valuable work experience that provides both the qualifications and the holistic skills needed for economic growth? If we want to do something to build economic growth, we need apprenticeships.

[Mr Perkins]

I could not agree more. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman has overcome any shyness he may have had about speaking in this House and has decided to contribute to this debate, as he seems to contribute to them all, but he makes an important point. Apprenticeships are the gold standard as far as the Labour party is concerned. We believe they should be the heart of the Government’s approach, and it is hugely disappointing that apprenticeship numbers are down by a quarter since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy.

The apprenticeship levy has reduced the number of small businesses that have felt able to contribute to taking on apprentices; it has reduced the number of level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships and it is a significant failure in that regard. Indeed, our amendment 12, which asks for the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to

“perform a review of the operation of the apprenticeship levy, paying particular regard to considering whether sufficient apprenticeships at level 3 and below”,

is the only opportunity to discuss the future of apprenticeships in this debate.

The funding of level 3 qualifications—an issue of contention since the Government tried to denigrate BTECs, to a widespread and welcome backlash—remains out of the scope of the Bill. Our amendment 15 seeks to reintroduce the four-year moratorium added in another place, to prevent hasty decisions from being made that could widen skills shortages and remove the opportunity to take BTECs. In Committee, the Government even rejected adding the one-year moratorium, which would extend funding of BTECs until 2024, to the Bill. I understand that the Secretary of State has confirmed that BTECs will continue to be funded until 2024, which is welcome, but it is disappointing that the Government were not willing to allow that to be added to the Bill.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the pain around BTECs is because they are usually the gateway for students on lower incomes, students from minority backgrounds and students with disabilities to get into further education? Taking that away is the very opposite of levelling up.

[Mr Perkins]

I absolutely agree with all of that. BTECs are also a qualification that is understood and respected by employers. They have a long-standing track record; they are respected by learners and understood by institutions. I am not hostile to the idea of improving them, if something can be done to bring in a better qualification. There is real merit in the potential of T-levels, and as a brand they have immediate buy-in, but the Government need to tread carefully. T-levels are changing shape in front of our eyes. They were brought in as a vocational qualification, but the Secretary of State’s current favourite anecdote is about a student from Barnsley who he met, who said he can go to any university he wants.

The T-level qualification started off on a vocational path, but the Government are now saying that it is a route towards universities—[Interruption.] It could potentially be both, but I must say that the Secretary of State’s predecessor, when it was discovered that Russell Group universities were not accepting T-levels, was very sanguine about it. He said, “They’re not about universities. They’re all about going towards the world of work.” This qualification is changing shape in front of our eyes, and the Government need to be careful before they get rid of things that work and replace them with their new qualification.

[Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

One concern I have around T-levels, which I have raised with the Government before, is the work placement aspect and the fact that the availability of the T-level is therefore based on the availability of businesses to provide those work placements. My fear for areas such as Hull, which I represent, and others around the country is that if they do not have the placements, they cannot have the T-level. Therefore, that opportunity is denied to many students, unlike the generalisation of a BTEC, which means that wherever people are in the country, they can study for the same qualification.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend characteristically raises an important point, and she is entirely right. When I go and speak to FE colleges, there is widespread concern about the availability of the amount of T-level work experience that is required. Particularly in some communities that do not have high numbers of larger employers and for the smaller colleges, we think there will be real difficulty getting the amount of work experience that is currently envisaged. I suspect that if we look at this qualification in two or three years’ time, it will not have the same demands for work experience; that remains to be seen. However, I share my hon. Friend’s concern.

The amendments proposed by the Opposition and many of the 29 other amendments proposed by hon. Members on both sides of the House seek to make substantive changes to the Bill that could make a real difference and offer a possibility that it will fulfil the proud boasts we have heard from the skills Minister, and his predecessor about the scale of reform proposed.

The other huge disappointment that many of us feel about the Government’s approach to this whole question is their failure to get what further education and vocational education is all about, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) mentioned a moment ago. Further education is magical and transformative. For so many people who leave our statutory educational providers disillusioned and uninspired by education, FE has been life-changing. In my family, it was learning in FE that changed my son’s life and career opportunities; the same thing happened 20 years before for my sister, and I know it has happened for so many other people in all our constituencies. Yet the Government’s approach to this sector has been to inflict eye-watering cuts on it while continually repeating the same lament about employers not being in charge.

As we listen to the latest skills Minister’s claims about his reforms, it is worth recalling what went before them. In January 2011 the then skills Minister, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes), said that the entire focus of our Government’s skills strategy was in

“building a training system that is employer led.”

In 2015 the former Chancellor, George Osborne, told us that we now had a system in the hands of an employer-led institute of apprenticeships, and his skills Minister at the time said of the levy:

“At the heart of the apprenticeship drive is the principle that no one better understands the skills employers need than employers themselves.”

Two years further on, in 2017, the Government said:

“The Apprenticeship Levy is a cornerstone of the government’s skills agenda, creating a system which puts employers at the heart of designing and funding apprenticeships to support productivity and growth.”

A year later, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) described local enterprise partnerships as

“business-led partnerships…at the heart of responding to skills needs…that will help individuals and businesses gain the skills they need to grow.”

So if the reforms in 2011, 2015, 2017 and 2018 all put employers in the driving seat, and if putting employers in the driving seat is the solution to addressing our productivity and skills crisis, why are the Government now coming back saying that there has been a generation of failure?

[Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)]

I was a BTEC graduate and I went to Wakefield College. Does my hon. Friend agree that hollowing out further education to the tune of 40%, and the gold standard of apprenticeships, goes against the very essence—the very notion—of levelling up? The Government should ensure that they are a driving force behind that with employers, and they are falling short.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government have been at pains to denigrate BTECs. They should be very careful before they do that, particularly before they are absolutely clear that the thing they intend to replace them with has come through its pilot and they fully understand the consequences of the introduction of that policy.

It seems that after 11 years of reforms, all of which we are told have failed because the Government now need to make reforms to put employers in the driving seat, the Government’s approach is to abandon devolution and to outsource responsibility for skills policy to local chambers of commerce in the form of local skills improvement plans. We are used to this Government believing that services can be run better by the private sector than by Government, but they are now even outsourcing policy. We have real concerns about the way that LSIPs are envisaged in their current form. Of course employers, private and public sector, must be sat at the table, but so too should educational establishments, including independent providers and FE colleges, so too should those with local democratic accountability—local authorities and metro Mayors—and the voice of learners must be heard. Our amendment 14 seeks to do just that, ensuring that employer representative bodies will not just consult but reach agreement with metro Mayors, LEPs and local authorities prior to the publication of the LSIP. There are many concerns that LSIPs as currently envisaged will focus on strategies to help those closest to the labour market who can most easily slot in and solve employers’ skills shortages. Our amendment 16, inspired by my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham, seeks to ensure that local skills improvement plans list specific strategies to support learners who have had a statement of special educational needs or an education, health and care plan, which will include supported internships.

Since 2010, the Government have consistently undermined the sector with the scale of their funding cuts, particularly to adult education. By scrapping Connexions, they left a generation of schoolchildren without careers advice. The introduction of the levy has seen starts decline, priced small and medium-sized enterprises out of the system, seen entry-level apprenticeships plunge, and prevented many 16 to 24-year-olds from gaining their first rung on the ladder. That is why we have proposed amendment 13, which enacts the policy announced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) at the Labour party conference that reintroduces statutory two weeks’ worth of work experience and face-to-face careers guidance for every pupil, which was foolishly abolished by the 2010-15 coalition Government. We also seek to ensure that schools are assessed and recognised for the quality of their work experience and careers guidance offer, just as they are on other aspects of their provision.

I will not go through all the remaining 29 amendments proposed by hon. and right hon. Members, but I express particular support for new clause 2 in the name of the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) and others. Without that, there is no lifetime skills guarantee. We should recall what the Prime Minister said in his much-heralded Exeter College speech in September 2020:

“Of the workforce in 2030, ten years from now, the vast majority are already in jobs right now. But a huge number of them are going to have to change jobs—to change skills—and at the moment, if you’re over 23, the state provides virtually no free training to help you.”

I agree. Yet this Bill, which seeks to give legislative form to that speech, would exclude the very people that the Prime Minister was referring to. Indeed, we believe that the right hon. Member for Harlow’s amendment does not go far enough, and we tabled an amendment in Committee more closely aligned with new clause 7, proposed by the right hon. Member for Kingswood (Chris Skidmore), but at least new clause 2 would make a lifetime skills guarantee for the first level 3 qualification a statutory right.

We also support the right hon. Member for Harlow’s new clause 3—the so-called Baker clause—which would ensure that every pupil had three meaningful interactions with the world of work at each of the three key phases of their education. This would ensure that more students would have more informed choices about their career options and the wide range of opportunities open to them. The right hon. Gentleman has been outspoken about the ways in which the current Baker clause, which he oversaw in his time in Government, is not working, and we support his intention to address it today. He, and the right hon. Member for Kingswood and the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), propose amendments that ask very valid questions of Ministers. I hope that their lordships will take notice of the level of support that there is for strengthening the Bill and preventing what is currently set to be a huge missed opportunity. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) has once again brought to our attention his new clause 13 concerning sharia-compliant loans, while in her new clauses 14 and 15 the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) poses some important questions concerning the lack of a coherent energy transition strategy.

This Bill remains a huge missed opportunity that will not offer the reform needed for our country to tackle the very real skills shortages that blight our local economies and damage the life chances of individuals across our communities. We hope that the Government will recognise that Opposition Members, and many of their own Members, wish to help them strengthen the Bill—the same is true of Members in the other place—and that they will look kindly on our amendments without the need for them to be pressed to a vote. We also hope that an approach will emerge that sees employers, metro Mayors, local authorities and others work collectively to develop a skills and qualifications system fit for purpose and able to compete with the very best across the world.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

As so often, the hon. Lady has got it absolutely right, and I am sure the Secretary of State has heard what she said. I hope very much that that is part of the regulations that he and the Justice Secretary introduce.

New clause 2 would provide funding for level 2 education and skills training for any person of any age, providing that they can demonstrate their intent to progress to level 3. The Education Committee’s adult skills and lifelong learning inquiry identified significant problems with low basic skills. Over 9 million working-age adults have poor literacy or numeracy skills, and 6 million adults do not have a level 2 qualification. Some 49% of adults from the lowest socioeconomic group have received no training since leaving school, and in the last 10 years just 17% of low-paid workers moved permanently out of low pay.

The lifelong learning entitlement is a really welcome intervention, allowing adults to undertake level 3 qualifications—the equivalent of an A-level—to retrain for different and better-paid jobs. However, we know that many of these adults will not have the skills needed to go straight into level 3 without further support. Level 2 qualifications are a key stepping-stone for progression for low-skilled adults. They provide those who have left school without GCSEs or equivalent qualifications with a vital chance of learning. Not having that stepping-stone of support is like asking someone who has little maths ability to dive straight into the deep end of A-levels without first learning to swim by taking GCSEs.

However, I recognise that there is a financial cost and that we are in difficult financial times. In 2018-19—the last year before covid—the adult education budget had a £56 million underspend nationally. More recently the trend of underspend has continued. In London only £110.6 million—60.7% of the £182 million given out to grant-funded providers through the adult education budget—had been spent by April 2021.

Investing in level 2 provision provides value for money for the taxpayer. Estimates suggest that for every £1 spent the net value is £21 and that could contribute an additional £28 billion to the economy. The Further Education Trust for Leadership review estimates that an additional £1.9 billion per year could be used to fund level 2 qualifications in maths, English and digital skills for the 4.7 million adults without such qualifications.

I get the financial restraints, which is why I will not press this new clause to a Division. However, I ask that the Government genuinely commit to look at funding options in the next spending review and particularly at using the underspend from budgets such as the adult education budget, even if they just introduce these provisions for maths and English. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that when he responds.

Finally, let me turn to the new clause I care most about. New clause 3 seeks to increase the number of careers guidance encounters that young people have at school and to toughen up what is called the Baker clause. As has been mentioned, I was the skills Minister responsible for bringing in the Baker clause in 2017, but despite the good intentions of all involved it has not been implemented correctly.

[Mr Perkins]

I have had so many encounters with young people doing apprenticeships. When I have spoken to them, they have said, “Although I’m doing an apprenticeship, they were hardly spoken about at school.” Everyone at their school seemed to be funnelled towards the sixth form, and lots of their friends and families had not heard of apprenticeships. That is precisely why this new clause is so important. We need to make sure that every young person, whether an A-grade student or not, has the opportunity to consider apprenticeships and other alternative strategies, as well as sixth form. That is why I really welcome this new clause, and I strongly encourage the right hon. Gentleman to put it to a vote.

[Robert Halfon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and he is absolutely right. I go all over the country, and my first speech in this House was about apprenticeships and careers. I have done everything possible since I have been an MP to promote apprenticeships across the country, and I have employed apprentices in my office. Whenever I go around the country and meet apprentices, the most depressing thing is that eight out of 10 say their schools told them nothing about apprenticeships—sometimes it is nine out of 10, and sometimes it is 10 out of 10. Worse, I have met degree apprentices doing the most incredible, high-quality apprenticeships in engineering or whatever it may be who have offered to go back to their schools to talk to the kids—to do one of those encounters—about apprenticeships, but the schools have said no. Why? Because we have a culture in this country of university, university, university. That is partly because every teacher has to be a graduate, and I hope that the Secretary of State will one day allow degree apprenticeships in teaching, not just postgraduate degrees in teaching. We have a culture that is university, university, university, when it should be skills, skills, skills.

The reason why I am not pushing the new clause is that, in my discussions with Ministers, they say they are going to deal with this problem properly. If I did not believe them, I promise you I would bring through the new clause, and those in the House who know me and who know how I campaign know that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 14, 15 and 11, which at their core support a just transition for North sea oil and gas workers by removing the barriers they face in transitioning into renewable energy, and ensuring that they can access the support and training needed. I may press new clause 14 to a vote if necessary.

In recent weeks, Ministers have rightly emphasised the need to support oil and gas workers. However, they have done so by resorting to more investment in extraction in the North sea, contradicting the advice of the International Energy Agency and threatening the ambition of the Glasgow climate pact to limit the global temperature rise to 1.5°.

Research published in 2020 by Friends of the Earth Scotland, Platform and Greenpeace shone a light on the experiences of offshore oil and gas workers—I will come to some of their comments in a minute—and revealed a high level of concern about employment, job security and working conditions. However, it also showed a significant appetite to be a part of the transition to a zero-carbon economy, with over 80% of those surveyed saying they would consider moving to a job outside the oil and gas industry and over half choosing to transition into renewables and offshore wind if they had the opportunity to retrain and were supported in doing so. New clauses 14 and 15 would help to realise that ambition, while ensuring that in achieving our climate goals we do not leave communities behind and repeat the mistakes of the past.

The Minister may point to the North sea transition deal, announced by the Government last year. However, in reality that initiative has failed to provide any real support for workers to transition into renewables, either in investment or policy. Unfortunately, as things stand, training is a barrier and not a passport to future success. Training certificates for wind energy and the oil and gas industry are not transferable between the sectors or recognised by the two separate training standards bodies, with both OPITO and the Global Wind Organisation claiming that their training courses are too specific.

That means that offshore workers seeking to transition into renewables from oil and gas are required to complete entirely new training courses, which often come at a prohibitive cost. That is an insurmountable barrier for workers who are already paying an average of £1,800 a year, out of their own pockets, to maintain their training and safety qualifications. While some courses are unique to different environments, many cover core skills that run across the offshore energy sector, including first aid, fire safety and working at heights. Rather than narrowly focusing on courses, we should move to a skills-based approach, with standardised training where possible and top-up training available for specific environments.

Paul, an offshore oil and gas worker, says very clearly that the

“biggest problem that faces the energy work force wanting to make the transition from offshore oil and gas to renewables is the cost of the extra training needed. Some of the GWO (renewable training governing body) training is essential but most of it is a duplication of the courses used in offshore oil and gas.”

That comment is reinforced by Jack, another worker, who says he has

“thought about working in renewables, but that’d be thousands of pounds you’d have to pay to work in both industries. It’d just be too much, it costs an absolute fortune just to stay in one sector… Shelling out all this money does cause stress, and it does have an impact on your family and your living costs. There are lots of people worrying about how they’re going to pay the mortgage.”

This situation simply cannot go on.

Before recess, the Government announced that they were hitting the

“accelerator on low-cost renewable power”

by moving to annual contracts for difference auctions, yet to genuinely realise this ambition, offshore workers must be supported to transition into renewables, not face multiple barriers to do that. This is a skilled workforce whose knowledge and experience are absolutely essential if we are to achieve the UK’s climate goals in a timely manner.

What would these amendments do? New clause 14 would require the Secretary of State to produce and implement a strategy to achieve the cross-sector recognition of core skills and training in the offshore energy sector, and to ensure that training standards bodies adopt a transferable skills and competency-based approach to training. Crucially, this strategy would apply to all workers whether they are directly employed or contract workers, and they would have to be consulted in its development. This amendment would enable oil and gas workers to access jobs in renewable energy. It would also mean that, while there are not sufficient jobs in renewable energy as capacity continues to be built up, workers are able to take contracts in both sectors and then move between them. It would prevent a skills drains as people leave the energy sector altogether due to difficulties with finding work, and the cost and time involved in maintaining training certificates.

New clause 15, which is complementary, would establish a retraining guarantee for oil and gas workers seeking to leave the sector, thereby supporting them in transitioning to green energy jobs. It would also ensure that they are able to access advice on suitable jobs based on their existing skillsets, as well as the funding and training needed to transition. Again, all oil and gas workers are eligible for the retraining guarantee, as well as those who have recently left the sector. This amendment would provide clear pathways for oil and gas workers into clean energy, meaning they are not left behind in transitioning to a zero-carbon economy. It would also be infinitely more affordable if accompanied by new clause 14, meaning that workers are not required to duplicate training courses. Amendment 11 would ensure that the new clauses are applicable to Scotland, which is of course essential to facilitate a just transition for workers in the North sea.

These amendments are backed by the workers who operate in this industry. Crucially, they reflect the concerns of workers and their call for cross-sector recognition of skills and training. Some 94% of respondents to a 2021 survey of offshore workers said that they would support an offshore passport that licenses accredited workers to work offshore in any sector through a cross-industry minimum training requirement. An offshore training passport is also backed by the RMT and Unite Scotland. These organisations have also called for the establishment of a training fund for the offshore passport as part of the North sea transition deal. The RMT is backing these amendments, and as Lewis—no relation—a drilling consultant from Aberdeen with 40 years of experience in the oil industry, says, “An offshore passport would be a fantastic thing. I think it is absolutely brilliant and essential for my future.”

As it stands, the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill is a missed opportunity for climate. A recent Green Alliance report revealed a significant skills shortage in every major sector of the economy, from energy efficiency to battery manufacturing and the energy industry. The Bill could have been an opportunity to close the green skills gap and prepare us for the zero-carbon economy of the future. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said:

“Skills are about investing in people all across our country, about strengthening local economies”.—[Official Report, 15 November 2021; Vol. 703, c. 381.]

These amendments would deliver just that, ensuring that offshore oil and gas workers are able to gain the training and skills they need to access good green jobs, while ensuring that we support communities affected by the UK’s transition to a zero-carbon economy and maintain vibrant local economies. These amendments also complement the objectives of the Bill to

“ensure everyone, no matter where they live or their background, can gain the skills they need to progress in work at any stage of their lives”,

and to

“increase productivity, support growth industries and give individuals opportunities to progress in their careers.”

I hope that the Government look closely at these amendments and recognise that there is much more they need to do to genuinely support oil and gas workers and to make a just transition in this sector a reality.

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for adding his name to this amendment, as a lead sponsor, and I think he has made a very important point. Coming off the back of COP26 and all the warm words we heard then, does he agree with me that for the Government, over the course of the next six months, simply to publish an energy sector skills strategy—we are not expecting them to go any further than that at this stage, but simply to show that they have a plan—is the very least that people listening to those warm words from the Prime Minister at COP26 would expect?

[Clive Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I agree entirely. We can already see, before the ink is dry on the COP26 agreement, that the Government are back-tracking. We only have to look at history. Many Conservative Members will look at what happened in the 1980s with the demise of the mining industry and say, “Well, we were the first to ensure that we decarbonised our economy”, when actually this was a tragedy. If we look at what happened with deindustrialisation and what happened in the mining industry, we see that actually the whole reason for the necessity of the levelling-up agenda is that there was not a just transition. This is an opportunity for us to ensure that we do not make the same mistakes as we have in the past, and that we play our part in making sure that we get to net zero in a timely manner. I think that is what most people in this House and out in the country would want, and on that I shall finish.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the vocational nature of BTECs. I recently went to Derby College, and I saw five times more students doing BTECs than the equivalent T-level courses. It would be great if, ultimately, T-levels proved themselves and students moved towards choosing them, but does she agree that, while such small numbers are doing T-levels, it would be a huge mistake to shut the path to BTECs in favour of something that is largely unproven?

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an important point with which I thoroughly agree.

Our creative sector is a key export to the world and is part of our global influence. Why should young people in Luton not have the ability to train in these areas? They will not necessarily be able to follow a T-level in this subject area, so I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

I hope the Minister will accept Opposition amendment 15 to prevent the defunding of many successful and much-needed level 3 BTECs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

I will certainly ensure that there is time for the voices of other Members to be heard, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Let me first thank the Secretary of State for what he has just said, and for being here for the Bill’s Third Reading. He appears to be wearing an ostentatiously large “Truss for Leader” badge. I do not know whether that is a scoop or not, but he is certainly very welcome. [Hon. Members: “It stands for ‘T-levels’.”] In that case, I apologise. I misrepresented the right hon. Gentleman, and I am happy to set the record straight. We have heard today that 5,000 people are taking T-levels this year; I have no idea whether there are more or fewer in the “Truss for Leader” camp, but at least I have been able to clarify the meaning of the Secretary of State’s badge.

I repeat the right hon. Gentleman’s thanks to everyone who served on the Public Bill Committee. We heard some excellent contributions from Members on both sides of the Committee, and we have heard some powerful contributions today. That should give all of us confidence that there are many people in this place who recognise how critical the further education and skills agenda is. There is a shared passion, throughout this place, for ensuring that we offer better opportunities to a whole generation of younger people. We recognise the importance of the sector, and the fantastic contribution played by so many professionals in it, as well as their commitment to ensuring that that new generation have the opportunities that they deserve. I think there is agreement on, at least, the importance of that agenda.

I have to take issue with what the Secretary of State said about the Bill leaving this House stronger than it was when it arrived from another place. Amendments were tabled there by people with tremendous experience, including a whole raft of former Education Secretaries and a number of other people with real commitment to the sector, and we felt that those amendments would have greatly strengthened the Bill. That view was shared by the Association of Colleges and many other contributors to the debate. It is a matter of tremendous regret that those amendments were removed by the Government and that the very sensible amendments that were proposed tonight were either voted against or not put to a vote. That is a regrettable step. The Secretary of State speaks about his obsession and passion for getting this right. We have heard from his colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart), that in many of the areas that we were pushing, the Government agreed with the principle of what we were saying but felt it unnecessary for our proposals to be put in the Bill.

Throughout my 12 years in this place, we have had a raft of reforms from the Government, and have often heard the same sort of rhetoric. I mentioned at some length in my speech that employers are being put in the driving seat. That has been the stated aim of every reform from this Government over 11 years. We have heard about schools knowing their pupils best, and about schools being the best placed to ensure that careers guidance and work experience are delivered, yet throughout those 11 years we have seen the failings of that approach, which is why we believe that getting some of these things into the Bill and into statute is a matter of real value. I will not repeat the contributions that I made in Committee and in this debate, but I would reinforce to Members in the other place that we Labour Members believe that there was a lot of merit in their amendments, and we will continue to push for the values that were outlined in them, even though we were unable to win the votes tonight.

I thank the Bill Committee, and all those in the Public Bill Office for the substantial support they gave us on the huge number of amendments that we tabled. I also thank Lindsey Kell in my office for the huge amount of work that she has done in supporting me on this Bill. Unlike those on the Treasury Benches, we do not have an army of civil servants, but we have been very well advised and supported. I thank all those organisations in the sector that have engaged with us and supported our amendments with evidence. They have been incredibly helpful in enabling the Opposition to do our job of holding the Government to account, suggesting a better direction of travel, and outlining how a Labour Government would approach these matters differently. I recognise that other hon. Members would like to contribute, so I simply thank all those involved in getting the Bill to this stage. I look forward to continuing these debates in the future.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

I would recommend about three minutes each for the remaining speakers.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Michelle Donelan]

As so many companies, such as Byworth Boilers, are recognising the benefits of growing their own, there have been 130,000 apprenticeship starts in the first quarter of this academic year, up 43% on the same period last year and 3.5% higher than before the pandemic. Apprenticeships can be transformative, and I am sure that Suzanne Rutherford, Jago Harry and Curtis Daly will find that for themselves.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Apprenticeships are the best way to support young people into high-quality jobs, but Government data shows the total number of apprenticeships fell by almost a quarter from 2001 to 2019, even before the pandemic. The levy has been described by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development as having failed by every measure and that it shuts out small businesses and young people. Is the Minister really satisfied with this failure? Can she explain why no reforms to apprenticeships are proposed in the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill?

[Michelle Donelan]

Our high-quality apprenticeship do not just satisfy us; they satisfy the thousands of people undertaking them. There have been 130,000 apprenticeship starts in the first quarter of this academic year, which is up by 43% on the same period last year.

Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Bill

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 14th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his interest in this important Bill and for focusing the debate on the importance of good-quality careers guidance. I note that he took interest in the Westminster Hall debate held by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), as I did, and I was happy to see so many in that debate refer to this Bill. He and I are on the same page on the importance of good-quality careers guidance, but I hope to assuage some of his concerns. His points about consistency are exactly what this Bill seeks to address, in extending the statutory requirement to provide careers advice to all state-funded schools and across the entirety of secondary education. His other point was about the single point of careers guidance. I am not convinced that that is the answer. Although it might help with consistency, it may also bake in consistently bad advice from a single source.

On amendment 1, I take my hon. Friend’s point about removing subjectivity, but of course the idea of good careers advice is that it is subjective and depends on many things, which the Gatsby benchmarks address, such as local labour market provisions. He will be pleased to know that section 45A of the Education Act 1997 makes it incumbent on schools to “have regard to” statutory guidance. The statutory careers guidance, which continues to be updated by the Minister’s Department, imparts the need to adhere to the Gatsby benchmarks. On his personal experience of his daughter’s careers advice, let me say that that does include addressing the needs of each pupil. The Bill, in extending the duty and putting all state-funded schools on the same footing, gives Ofsted the teeth it needs to apply that statutory guidance and the Gatsby benchmarks to a level playing field, across the board.

On amendment 2, I think there is a slight misunderstanding as to what clause 1(5) does, which is to disapply the need to offer advice on 16 to 18 options to those over 16, for obvious reasons. The statutory careers guidance to which all schools need to have regard does include the provision of careers guidance at 16 to 18, and that will remain. This provision disapplies the need to talk about 16 to 18 options once people get past 16, for fairly obvious reasons. The Minister may wish to address some of the points in more detail, but I hope that I have been able to assuage some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I hope that he will not force the House to decide on his amendments.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Let us start by congratulating the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) on reaching this stage with his Bill. I fully anticipate that he will ultimately achieve his aim of aligning academy provision with current state-maintained provision in the sphere of careers guidance, and I am pleased to give Labour’s backing for this small but important Bill. Careers guidance is an important component of any serious social mobility strategy. For many people, and certainly for people in my family and other young people I have spoken to in Chesterfield, careers guidance and work experience are often the first time that young people really get a chance to put their head up and start looking into the future.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Is the hon. Gentleman making a Third Reading speech or speaking to the amendments?

[Mr Perkins]

Am I going to get two different opportunities?

[Mr Speaker]

Yes.

[Mr Perkins]

Okay, so I will just speak to the amendments. That will speed us up nicely. None the less, I thought it was important to give some background to that point. Let me turn to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). I suspect it would not be a sitting Friday if we did not hear the view from Christchurch. I have often wondered whether a sitting Friday when we did not hear what the residents of Christchurch thought would be followed by a Saturday at all. Today, we have heard their views on careers guidance.

The hon. Gentleman made a number of significant points, and I have good news for him. We in the Labour party share his fear about quality, breadth and objectivity when it comes to understanding whether provision is of a high standard. I think his proposed amendment is not necessarily the way to address that, but several of the Labour amendments to the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill are. Quality and breadth of provision are important so that young people have the opportunity to consider a broad range of alternatives, and some careers guidance may be of a high standard but lack breadth. Our amendments to the Skills Bill—they have been supported by Lord Baker and others, and I hope they will return from the other place—will give the hon. Member for Workington the opportunity to get the assurances he seeks about quality and breadth. I look forward to speaking to the Bill further.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If Members wish to speak, it would be helpful if they stood when the Member who is speaking sits down. I am just trying to put some names down.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Jenkinson]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that important point. I will talk later about funded bursaries and the training that is available for careers leaders, and will explain how the Minister’s Department is putting careers leader training at the forefront of careers advice. We cannot abandon our children to the whims of fortune without a map, a compass or a torch to light the way.

The Bill is particularly timely given the disruption and disorientation caused by covid-19. It is hardly surprising that young people are worried about their education and employment prospects in these unprecedented times. Uncertainty and change inevitably fuel anxiety, and covid-19 has forced many young people to reconsider their options and look again at their career paths.

As I said in my earlier speech, unexpected change and challenges are not necessarily bad. They can open new doors, and encourage us to be adaptable in our goals and innovative in our approaches. Difficult experiences can help us to see new opportunities that we may not have considered before, bringing out latent talents and teaching us new skills. However, the support structures and safety nets must be in place to help young people. It is incumbent upon us—indeed, it is our duty—to help our children to negotiate these obstacles and to encourage them when they lose their way, or, even worse, lose faith in themselves.

In my constituency, as in others across England, there are pockets of deprivation, unemployment and sometimes, I have to say, hopelessness. I am acutely aware of the stark disadvantages faced by so many young people. They have so much to contribute, but so often they are written off too soon. If we are serious about “levelling up”—if it is to be more than just a slogan or a soundbite—giving all children access to good-quality careers advice is one of the most important weapons in our fight against poverty and despair. We must leave no child behind.

Providing this enhanced careers education and guidance makes economic sense too, as it will contribute to a high-skills and high-productivity recovery. The Bill will help all young people to develop the skills and attributes that will enable them to succeed in the workplace, and in some cases it will nurture the community leaders of the future.

[Mr Perkins]

As the hon. Gentleman has already heard, we support the aims of his Bill. He has spoken of giving every child access to good-quality careers guidance. Does he agree that that must involve face-to-face conversations? It is not good enough to say, “Do it on the internet.” We need to ensure that every child can sit down with a careers professional.

[Mark Jenkinson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support, and for making an important point that takes us back to the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) about trained careers leaders. We must ensure that there is face-to-face careers guidance, rather than children being plonked in front of a computer to figure out their own paths.

The Bill extends careers advice down from the current year 8 to year 7 to ensure that children are given the information they need to make the best possible choices at the earliest juncture. The sooner we can provide children with careers options, the sooner we can address some of the gender, class and other work stereotypes that are already starting to bed in. The Bill also brings academies into line with local authority-controlled schools, ensuring that everyone has the same opportunity regardless of their postcode. As we know, some academies are not statutorily bound but are bound by their funding agreements, while others are subject to no requirements at all. The Bill gives Ofsted the tools that it needs to guarantee that our children benefit from first-rate careers advice throughout their school careers and across the country.

As a direct result of the Bill, approximately 650,000 year 7 pupils across England will become entitled to independent careers guidance, and we are bringing 2,700 academies into scope. The Bill puts into statute the Government’s commitment in the “Skills for jobs” White Paper for the UK's post-pandemic recovery. It builds on the important work that is already being done nationally to develop a coherent and well-established careers system—a sector in which Cumbria is a leading light.

As Members will know, the Government are already committed to the national roll-out of careers hubs, and have taken action to support the careers of young people through schemes such as kickstart. As I said earlier, the Careers & Enterprise Company is increasing young people’s exposure to the world of work, and helping schools and colleges to deliver world-class careers guidance for their students in line with the Gatsby benchmarks. The National Careers Service provides careers information, advice and guidance through a website and a telephone helpline. More than 3,300 business professionals are now working as enterprise advisers with schools and colleges, doing a lot of the face-to-face guidance that strengthens employer links with schools. The result is that 3.3 million young people are now having regular encounters with employers, up 70% in just two years.

Education providers, training providers and careers services in my Workington constituency continue to rise to the challenge in the face of often large socioeconomic challenges. The Cumbria careers hub was launched in January 2019 to deliver the Government’s careers strategy for Cumbria after the local enterprise partnership’s skills investment plan identified a significant challenge in developing skills in our county.

The process is accelerating, with 100% of schools in the hub matched with an enterprise adviser from a pool of senior business volunteers. It has been successfully replicated across the country, with 45% of secondary schools and colleges now in careers hubs. We are seeing rapid improvements in hubs, with disadvantaged areas among the best performers. The link between careers and career pathways is essential for developing and attracting talent to Cumbria, owing to the area’s declining working-age population, and their success is to be celebrated.

It is therefore critical that we nurture homegrown talent by giving young people the skills and confidence they need to make the most of the opportunities within a forward-looking global Britain, to help close the skills gaps in areas like Cumbria and to attract investment. It is simply not enough to nurture talent; we must also work to retain it and attract it. Furthermore, careers advice, in line with the Gatsby benchmarks, must be tailored to the jobs market in a local area, which is why conversations and relationships between employers, schools and careers advisers are so important. This Bill ensures that those channels of communication are built upon. The Bill helps to ensure young people are aware of the opportunities that lie on their doorstep, as well as those that exist further afield. Young people often tell us that one of the biggest barriers is not knowing what careers exist.

Simplifying the current system whereby careers duties are imposed on secondary schools by a combination of statutory provisions and contractual arrangements, while there are no requirements whatsoever on some of the older academies, is an important part of this Bill. The importance of extending the careers duty to all secondary pupils cannot be overstated. Extending the duty to all academies and alternative provision academies places the same requirements and standards on all types of state-funded schools, which puts all state-funded secondary pupils on a level footing and gives Ofsted the tools it needs.

We need to start setting out to children, as soon as possible, the options that will be available to them—not just sixth form and university but further education, apprenticeships, T-levels and other technical education qualifications. The earlier our young people start to consider these options and receive the appropriate guidance, the greater their chance of making the best possible choice.

University technical colleges—I have a fantastic one in my constituency—form an important part of the offer, but that could mean changing schools at 14. This option should not be put in front of a child at 13. It should be talked about from a much earlier age. Although it is important that young people are aware of their options, the last thing we want is for them to get to year 9 and feel like options are being imposed on them or, worse still, are non-existent, which is why flexibility must also be built into the guidance.

Engaging with employers from an early age can inspire young people and help them relate to the career opportunities to which their circumstances, abilities and interests are suited. The Bill recognises and makes use of the work already undertaken as part of the national careers system and, more importantly, it continues to raise young people’s aspirations through regular and meaningful engagement with employers and workplaces.

Having spoken in depth with education providers, parents and guardians, careers advisers, employers and, most importantly, young people themselves, I am more convinced than ever that this Bill will help to unlock the potential of generations to come. It is difficult to imagine a more worthy cause than to give our children the confidence and skills they need to be able to fulfil their dreams.

I am grateful to everyone who has worked on the Bill and helped to shape it. Their research, knowledge and observations have been invaluable and have created something that will serve our young people well. This Bill is about helping young people navigate through obstacles and avoid blind alleys, and it will prevent them from ending up in a career cul-de-sac.

We spend so much of our lives at work, so it is paramount that we give our young people the tools to find employment that is worth while and fulfilling. It is not simply about boosting the economy; it is also about wellbeing and helping to foster a culture of personal growth and aspiration from the starting line. More fundamentally, it is about creating a fairer system across our education system that allows everyone to realise their potential and make the best contribution possible to their communities, wherever they live and whatever their background.

[Mr Perkins]

I would like to repeat my congratulations to the hon. Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) on reaching this stage with his Bill. I think it is a very valuable thing that he is doing with the private Member’s Bill allocation that he successfully won. I think he is absolutely right to express the importance of careers guidance, particularly in communities where opportunities are not necessarily plentiful and people need to have an opportunity to see different kinds of careers from those that their parents have enjoyed and that others in their school previously have enjoyed.

For all the reasons that the hon. Gentleman has outlined, we entirely agree that ensuring that every student, whether they be at an academy school or a state maintained school, can avail themselves of a minimum standard of careers guidance is a necessary provision. We know that many schools already have excellent provision and constructive, successful and transformational relationships with employers, but there is a real lack of consistency across the board, and anything that sets out to consolidate and improve that provision across schools should be welcomed.

I have to say that it would be impossible to debate careers provision as an MP who was elected in 2010—as I am—without stopping for a moment to lament the vandalism to careers education that took place under the 2010 to 2015 coalition Government. The Minister said that the Government had done well from a standing start, and goodness me, wasn’t it a standing start? The reality is that, between 2010 and 2015, the Government almost deliberately set out to set fire to careers provision such as it was. I think there were legitimate questions about the effectiveness of the Connexions service, but it was scrapped without any serious replacement and then Ministers celebrated—in preparing for this Bill, I looked back at some of the debates we were having in 2010—that the £200 million saved by shutting Connexions would prevent further cuts to the schools budget. It was really an extraordinary approach that, as I say, was an act of vandalism that left a whole generation of schoolchildren without careers provision. I am glad to hear from the hon. Gentleman that this idea is now utterly rejected.

[Joy Morrissey]

Just on the point of the 2010 changes, I was working in schools at that time and I would like to point out that there was an emphasis on apprenticeships and skills, and moving toward students for the first time being put into jobs. I organised apprenticeship fairs, and I worked with schools that for the first time were actually trying to help children in low educational attainment areas to find careers. I found that the challenge, while we were there promoting apprenticeships, was that the schools only wanted to send children to university. So I do believe that the 2010 shift was a positive shift towards apprenticeships and skills.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)]

Order. Interventions should be quite short and a question.

[Mr Perkins]

The thing that the hon. Member sets out that is welcome is this shift—[Interruption] if she would listen to me—towards apprenticeships. I entirely support that, but I think that getting rid of professional careers advice and moving to a “let the schools decide” model actually did the opposite of that. I think it meant that the rather narrow environment that sometimes exists in schools became the very prevalent one, and I am going to reflect on that in more detail.



As I was saying, the Government’s approach was born of an idea that careers guidance could be provided by a child’s parents or their parent’s networks. Young Jonny could go and do a week in the City with his father’s firm. It bore no relation to the reality of what that meant to children whose parents did not have those networks. It was a move that kept children in their place, with work experience becoming voluntary or something additional for schools to do, rather than an integral part of supporting children to leave our schools ready for the world of work.

The Bill is narrow in scope, but it is an opportunity to discuss what the Government’s commitment to the nation’s young people and employers should be. As the hon. Member for Workington expressed, as is often the case, much of the Bill will end up being what is in the guidance, rather than what is on the face of the Bill. It is an opportunity for the Government to ensure that they put in place the mechanisms to make the rhetoric about quality and breadth a reality.

Labour believes very strongly that every child should be able to expect quality work experience that opens their horizons and is assessed not just on whether they are safe, but on whether it helps them to experience the wonderful world of work. That means much more than what many of us as parents have seen with our own children, which is a letter home from school saying, “Work experience fortnight is coming up. Go and sort it out and get the employer to fill out this form, so we can assure ourselves that no one is going to die while they are away from the school.” It is about much more than safety. Work experience should not just be “go to work with mum or dad week”, which is what it so often is around the country. The milkman’s son helps his dad on the milk round for a week, while my lad sits in my office upstairs helping an MP. All that happens is that children repeat the experiences they have been hearing about around the breakfast table for the previous 15 years.

I therefore welcome the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has sought to go further, announcing a bold offer that will be introduced by the next Labour Government. It will include the equivalent of two weeks’ worth of compulsory work experience to connect young people with local employers and build the skills needed for work, ensuring that every child has access to quality careers advice in their school by giving every school access to a professional careers adviser once a week.

One crucial point made earlier is that careers guidance is a profession. It is not an add-on to the deputy headteacher’s job, but a career in its own right that needs respecting. There are many fantastic teachers and school leaders, but often their horizons and experiences are narrow. Many people have been schoolchildren, university students, and then schoolteachers and school leaders. How is that an appropriate background to lead careers guidance? We need people with a breadth of understanding of the many different careers out there. How likely is someone with that kind of background to introduce children to the multitude of different opportunities and alternative paths that follow post-school?

The point the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) just made is very important. If the experience in many schools has only been going to school, university and then back to school, and if those schools feel that Ofsted wants to judge them on the number of people who go to university, then of course if we put school leaders in charge of careers guidance we should not be surprised if that guidance ends up being, “Get yourself into our sixth form and stay there; don’t look at apprenticeships or any of that.” I agree with her point.

In defending the abolition of professional careers guidance back in 2013, Lord Nash said in another place:

“That is why we gave responsibility for securing careers guidance to schools. They know their pupils best and can tailor provision to their individual needs.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 March 2013; Vol. 743, c. 1268.]

What happened was precisely what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield says. Some schools carried on providing a great service, but in many cases schools got as many pupils as possible into their sixth forms, perhaps because they wanted to stuff their sixth form with students or perhaps because they did not have the experience to know what other opportunities were out there. There was an idea prevalent at the time that it was all about university and that apprenticeships were a second-rate option. That is very much not the approach the Labour party takes.

What Lord Nash’s advice meant in practice was that for many children careers guidance and work experience all but disappeared. The legacy of that disastrous approach was that even before the pandemic almost 800,000 young people were NEET—not in education, employment or training. The Government now say—I am sure they are right, because I hear the same thing—that employers tell them that too many young people leave our academic institutions unready for the world of work. We welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Workington is attempting to work with Government to address some of those mistakes and the missed opportunities that previous Administrations have been responsible for. He has our full support, as do the Government. We think that the Bill is a useful first step in ensuring that we have adequate careers guidance for school-age pupils.

From the perspective of the Minister’s response to the amendments, we very much agree that the Bill is a standing start, but we think that the Government need to go further. As he knows, we proposed a number of amendments, and supported amendments from the other place, during the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill that would have done precisely that.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan) said in the House earlier this week, according to Parentkind’s “Parent Voice Report 2021”, just half of parents believe that their school offers good careers advice. As has been mentioned, the CBI survey in 2019 said that 44% of employers felt that young people were leaving education not work-ready. It is vital that children and young people receive the highest quality of independent and impartial careers guidance, setting out the full array of opportunities available to them.

As many hon. Members will be aware, the Labour party recently supported the Baker clause during the passage of the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill, and, as that Bill returns from another place, we will continue to advocate for Ministers to adopt such a rigorous approach to careers guidance to ensure that young people have the opportunity to access it from a range of sources. It is a real shame that the Government removed the Baker clause in another place and in Committee in this House, because it has real value.

All too often, an academic route has been the default option put forward to pupils. Of course, that is a worthwhile endeavour for those seeking to undertake further academic qualifications. We in the Opposition salute and celebrate our universities as a huge national strength and asset, but it is crucial that vocational opportunities are available for all, not just those who do not go to university. They should be seen not as a secondary option for those who choose not to go to university, but as something for A-grade students to consider, too.

It is important that all students are aware of the full range of options open to them. That is why we think there is real merit in ensuring that a range of organisations and institutions get the opportunity to go into schools and engage with pupils throughout their school journey, and that Ofsted rigorously investigates the careers provision at school and ensures that all pupils are aware of the range of options that might be suitable for them. It has been suggested that no school that has poor careers provision should get an “Outstanding” from Ofsted, and that that idea has real merit. If a school’s careers provision is poor, how can its overall education be seen as outstanding?

In my Front-Bench role, I regularly meet and visit companies across all sectors of our economy that have incredible apprenticeship programmes for young people. Too many young people, however, have no idea what an apprenticeship is or any belief that they would be able to access one, and have no idea how they can progress through a technical route. We believe that apprenticeships should be the gold standard for vocational and technical education. We are exploring ways to extend apprenticeship opportunities, particularly among those aged under 25.

We very much welcome the Bill’s central purpose— to ensure that academy provision is held to the same expectations as state-funded schools—but it will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about what that means for the freedoms that academies enjoy. Those of us who were here in 2010 can still remember the messianic zeal with which the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) extolled the freedoms that schools that converted to academy status would enjoy.

Labour’s approach at the last general election was to say not that all academies should convert back into being under local authority control, but that parental expectations and accountability should be the same whether the children are educated in an academy or in a state-maintained school. The Bill seeks, in the sphere of careers guidance, to impose exactly that kind of responsibility on academies, and we welcome that. That is a departure from the approach the Government have taken previously with the majority of schools that were moving to academy status.

It would be good to hear from the Minister about where the balance now lies between Government-imposed expectations on academies, and the freedoms that academies can expect to enjoy. We rather prefer that sort of approach, but it is a departure from what the Government have previously said about academies. It would be good to hear a little from the Government about whether that signals a wider change of approach on the balance between freedoms and guidance.

In conclusion, the Bill is a welcome first step, but it by no means resolves the damage done over the past decade of Tory failures and inaction on careers guidance. I am happy to say that Labour believes the Government’s position is now better than it was in the past. We will continue to push them to go further, but we think there are steps in the right direction for careers guidance. I hope that in the spirit of cross-party co-operation, Conservative Members will look favourably on Labour’s amendment to the Bill in the coming weeks, as it enters Report and Third Reading and comes back from another place.