| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Allan: I speak to new clause 1 and amendment No. 104, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and me. They highlight two important matters to which the Learning and Skills Council should pay attention.
New clause 1 addresses the shortage subjects of science and engineering, where problems could arise owing to the number of recruits across the board, but especially in respect of the number of women entering those professions. The new clause would require the Learning and Skills Council to collect data on the number of people both entering and completing courses in those subjects and to break down the information by gender, so that we can consider the number of women as a separate category.
The background to the new clause is that there are too few women at all levels of science and engineering. That is a matter of concern for the Learning and Skills Council, because the problem is especially acute in post-16 education. Up to GCSE, all girls study science and mathematics, so 51 per cent. of those obtaining a maths GCSE and 38 per cent. of those obtaining a physics GCSE are female students. However, the percentage of female students completing A-level courses is down from 51 per cent. to 33 per cent. for maths and from 38 per cent. to only 20 per cent. for physics.
Clearly, there is a huge fall-off at the A-level end of the education spectrum and the number of female students is further depleted by the time they reach higher education, where women constituted only 14 per cent. of applicants to engineering degree courses in 1998. However, there are variations across the different disciplines in engineering. For example, 24 per cent. of the applicants to study chemical engineering are women, but in mechanical engineering the figure is only 9 per cent. I hope that the House will recognise from those figures that the number of women studying science and maths falls off dramatically from the age of 16 onwards.
The Learning and Skills Council will have a direct responsibility for female students over 16. Further education often offers engineering courses as an end in themselves, but they suffer from a fall-off in numbers even though they can provide a gateway into higher education. The council should therefore take action to deal with that problem.
Although groups such as Women into Science and Engineering have performed valuable work and raised the number of female engineering graduates from 7 per cent. in 1984 to 15 per cent. today, that work is not in itself sufficient. We hope that it will be boosted by further Government action, particularly through the new bodies, such as the Learning and Skills Council, that they are setting up.
There are a variety of reasons for the figures, and one explanation can be found at the careers guidance level. Amendment No. 104 deals with careers guidance more
generally, but women appear to be pointed in directions that are not entirely helpful in achieving a balance between the genders on engineering courses.The Department for Education and Employment could do more to promote active role models for women going into science and engineering. Such role models are perceived not to exist and that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fewer women who study such subjects, the fewer there are to encourage other women to copy and aspire to their example.
If we do not tackle the problem, we shall miss out on a huge pool of talent. Women make just as competent scientists and engineers as anyone else. However, only 14 per cent. of the graduates in these subjects are women and if we were to achieve a 50:50 gender balance, a huge gap would be filled. A significant number of women would make good professional scientists and engineers, but for one reason or another they are not entering those professions.
Britain needs top-class engineers. By increasing the number of women in science and engineering, we would not only enhance and the assist the abilities of women wishing to enter those professions, but we would enhance the reputation of the professions as a whole. Men who are thinking of entering science and engineering may similarly be put off if they perceive them to be not truly modern, representative professions, but ones that conform to old-fashioned stereotypes about what science and engineering are for.
If the Government are not able to accept the new clause, I hope that they will at least accept the principle behind it. Will they give us an idea of how their new structure of a Learning and Skills Council that is responsible for policy in this matter will improve on the status quo? I hope that they will accept that they need to improve the position and that they will tell us that a priority of the Learning and Skills Council will be to achieve a better representation of women in the shortage subjects that I have mentioned.
I do not need to remind the Minister that this issue also follows through into the teaching profession. If people are not given the opportunity to study science and engineering at A-level and at degree level, they will not be able to become teachers. We have shortages in those key subjects and the Government are trying to deal with that problem. However, the first way of increasing the intake into teaching is to increase the number of graduates. That means expanding the pool across the genders.
9.30 pm
Amendment No. 104 is a response to many concerns that have been raised by the careers service about the new focus that the Government will have on 14 to 19-year-olds. We debated the issues in Committee and I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments about Connexions. I merely propose that the Government could provide reassurance by indicating that the national Learning and Skills Council will at least collect data on guidance services. We are all receiving plenty of anecdotal evidence about how careers services are being withdrawn. I have been given examples of schools, for example, which say, "We have only a few disaffected youngsters as a proportion of the yearly cohorts, but many others will not have the quality time and attention which
all youngsters require. The individual vocation and guidance interview is pivotal in all 11 to 16-year-old students' lives."Many schools reflect this and ask, "How can we have equality of opportunity if we risk moving into a situation in which guidance services, while they are properly focused on disaffected youths in the key 14 to 19-year-old group, are not available to others?"
When the Government rejected an amendment proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Sharp of Guildford, they indicated that they do not wish to see statutory provision to the effect that we must maintain the level of services. In refusing to accept that amendment, they made a clear commitment to the careers and guidance services as a whole that the Government did not intend to see large-scale withdrawal of services from other groups of youngsters. We believe that they will not be able to justify their position unless they accept measures of the sort that we are proposing in amendment No. 104.
If the Government accepted that, we hope that they would seek to accept a base-line study to ascertain exactly what is happening. One of the problems is that we are not aware of the full picture within the careers and guidance services. Some of the provision takes place in schools, some by careers companies, some by other advice agencies, some by employers and some by training agencies.
It would be helpful if the Government were to require the national Learning and Skills Council to establish such a base-line study at this stage and then to report back regularly on it, so that we could see whether Connexions has led to withdrawal of service in other areas as advisers are diverted, or whether, as I think the Government have said they hope will happen, the broad range of provision available to all youngsters will be maintained at the same time as an enhanced service is offered to priority groups, preferably with additional funding made available under the comprehensive spending review. I understand that the Government intend that to happen.
I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to our suggestion that we undertake serious research into what is happening in careers guidance services. I hope also that he will make a commitment to report back in future so that we can establish whether the sort of fears that are being expressed to us from throughout the country are being realised, or whether the Government can pull out of the hat the magic rabbit that will deliver an enhanced service and a broad range of quality service to all youngsters, no matter whether they suffer social disadvantage or whether they are performing adequately at school, and thus risk being excluded from those on whom careers services will be focused.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): I support amendment No. 104. I apologise to the Minister and hon. Members who served on the Committee if I go over some of the ground that was covered in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) spoke of the real fears of many in the careers service and in the school sector about the provisions that are set out in the Bill. I can only echo those fears from the view of my constituency. That was what prompted me to intervene on Second Reading, having had a useful meeting with Peter Renshaw of Somerset careers. My feelings and sense of concern have been increased by
letters that I have received from several secondary schools in my constituency, including Frome community college, Huish Episcopi school and Sexey's school, Bruton. They all make the self-same points, which I shall bring to the attention of the House.Not one of the principals or head teachers who wrote to me expressed discontent with the Government's motivation and intention: they made it clear that prioritising social inclusion was an entirely meritorious aim which they supported and wanted to be reflected in their careers service. Their concern was that there should be no diversion of the resources necessary to provide an adequate service to all children, especially year 11 students who need their school careers service if they are to take full advantage of the opportunities available to them and enter either training or careers that are of value to them.
It strikes me that we are harking back to the debate of recent weeks about elitism in university admissions. The one way in which to break down such obstacles is to provide good guidance at the appropriate time to youngsters who are studying in comprehensive schools throughout our country--not only those who are falling behind, whether for social or educational reasons, but brighter kids who can profit from entering higher education and need to talk through the opportunities available to them if they are to take full advantage of them. There is a need to ensure that the new system continues to provide the same level of careers service in local education authority schools.
A cause of discontent expressed in a letter to me from Mr. Barry Bates, principal of Frome community college, is that the changes will adversely affect the integrity of the careers service as it stands. We are having difficulty finding permanent replacements for staff who are leaving the local careers service; it is a good careers service that achieves a great deal in our schools, but the uncertainty that surrounds the Government's proposals puts at risk the integrity of careers service teams.
The Minister can put our minds at rest by accepting our amendment. That would make it clear that there was an intention to revisit the matter and ensure that overall resources were not diminished by the changes. Not only could baseline data be collected but, even more importantly, baseline provision could be established, which would ensure that every child had access to a basic entitlement, irrespective of any additional support given to some. The Minister could also reassure us by making us confident that funding will be sufficient to meet all of the objectives that the Government have set out for the new service. We do not know how it could be provided--perhaps the comprehensive spending review will provide.
We in Somerset know that, on the whole, our county achieves good GCSE results and that we have relatively low levels of social deprivation, so we accept that we will not be winners. There is a separate argument to be had about schools funding, but we know that if resources are to be redirected to address social deprivation through careers services, the big increases will go to places other than Somerset. What we do not want is children in our
schools to be losers. That is the reassurance that head teachers, parents and students in my constituency and my county of Somerset want to hear this evening.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |