Clause
66
Careers
education: information and
advice
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): I beg
to move amendment No. 58, in clause 66, page 37, line 9, leave out from
‘manner’ to end of line
16.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 46, in clause 66, page 37, line 12, leave out from
‘concerned’ to end of line
16.
Mr.
Hayes:
We are back to where we left off this
morning, discussing careers education. Clause 66
amends part 7 of the Education Act 1997, which requires state schools
to provide all pupils with a programme of careers education,
appropriate information and up-to-date reference materials related to
career options. Section 44 of the 1997 Act requires schools to provide
access to external careers advisers to provide careers advice and
guidance to pupils.
Clause 66(2) requires all
secondary schools to present careers information in an
“impartial manner” and to provide careers advice that is
in the “best
interests” of the pupil, and not to promote the interests of the
school or of “other persons or institutions” in a
way that is “contrary” to the pupil’s interests.
Subsection (3) requires that the information and reference materials
provided represent a “full range” of learning career
options and not to “unduly promote” one option over
another. Subsection (4) requires schools to have regard to guidance
issued by the Secretary of State that is intended to support them in
delivering all of the above. Those comments refer to the Education
Skills Bill as introduced in the House of Commons on 28 November 2007.
Those, effectively, are the duties in part 7 of the 1997 Act as amended
by subsections (2) and (3) of clause 66. The amendments are designed to
ensure impartial careers advice. As I said, clause 66 amends part 7 of
the 1997 Act, which requires state secondary schools to provide pupils
with appropriate careers advice and appropriate information of the sort
that I have detailed.
Amendment No. 58 would leave
out paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed new subsection (2B) to section
43 of the 1997 Act. How can those giving careers advice in schools,
many of whom kindly take up this extra responsibility, know exactly
what is in the best interests of pupils with regard to their future? In
many schools, only those who give up time in addition to their teaching
responsibilities are able to provide advice and guidance to pupils, but
they cannot always do so with the degree of expertise, and therefore
empiricism, that should be required by the law and is certainly needed
by pupils.
The legal
requirement is that all options should be made known to pupils. The
information should be made available to them. Proposed new subsection
(2B) states
that
“Any such
information must be presented in an impartial
manner”.
Both things are
more likely to happen if we are clear now about the expertise and
impartiality required in every type of school and every set of
circumstances. That is what the amendment is designed to
achieve.
Similarly,
amendment No. 46 would remove paragraph (b), because if careers advice
is both full and impartial, it clearly will not be promoting the
interests of a particular school or institution. By definition, it is
likely to offer a range of options, detached from those narrow
considerations. My suspicion is that the paragraph was inserted as a
result of the Government’s desire for more pupils to take up the
new diplomas.
My
support for the diplomas is known; indeed, in Committee I
welcomed them on behalf of the Opposition. It is important that we do
all that we can to ensure that diplomas are a success, but we will not
do it by skewing the advice that pupils are given to promote diplomas
rather than letting them stand on their merits, with people choosing
them because they feel that they are the right option.
There are worries about the
future status of A-levels and how advice might play a part in that.
Those worries have been broadcast in the media and I will deal with
them, perhaps more appropriately, when we discuss amendments Nos. 47
and 48. At this juncture, however, it is worth saying that certainty
about the empiricism of advice would to a large extent assuage
fears that A-levels were likely to be undermined by a Government
determined to make diplomas work at all costs. I do not want to say more than
that at this stage, but I hope that the Minister will give an
unequivocal assurance that he is as committed as I am
to professional, independent and empirical advice and guidance being
offered in
schools.
Jim
Knight:
Clause 66 aims to ensure that schools
discharge their statutory duty to provide careers
education impartially. If the intention of the hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings is impartiality, we are as one in that
respect.
Schools
should not seek to promote their own interests over those of the
pupils, and that is the clear intention behind the clause. As the range
of learning options increases in the coming years, and particularly as
the set of qualification choices distils down, by and large, to
A-levels, diplomas and apprenticeships, it will be important that young
people are provided with high-quality and, importantly, impartial
advice on the full range of options that are appropriate to them as
individuals. Research evidence suggests that some schools are not
acting impartially and are, for example, directing pupils into their
own sixth forms, where they might not be able to pursue a full range of
learning
options.
Stephen
Williams (Bristol, West) (LD): Does the Minister concede
that the existence of league tables sometimes encourages schools to act
in such a perverse way that is perhaps in the interests, not of the
pupils, but of the school, the perception of the school, and perhaps
the career of the head
teacher?
Jim
Knight:
We are talking about careers advice and, in that
regard, about choices that are made at 16. League tables, in so far as
they are published by local and national newspapers that rank the
assessment and attainment tables that the Department publishes, focus
largely on GCSEs rather than on post-16
qualifications, so I do not think that the hon. Gentleman’s
point, interesting though it is, necessarily applies in this
case.
Stephen
Williams:
I am not sure that I accept that the media focus
entirely on GCSEs. When I was in my previous shadow ministerial role,
August was ruined for both the Minster and me because we had to comment
on a succession of exam results. I think that he would probably agree
that there was far more media interest the day before and the day of
the A-level results, when we were both on duty from about 5.30 in the
morning until after midnight. That was not the case for GCSE results a
week
later.
Jim
Knight:
Indeed, the media take a huge interest in
broadcasting images of attractive young women opening A-level result
envelopes. That is a truism that will continue for many generations to
come, I am sure. I am not saying that the media are any more or less
interested in A-levels over GCSEs, but on the hon. Gentleman’s
specific point about league tables, there is a difference between how
A-levels and GCSEs are used.
The clause
requires information given to pupils to be impartial and that any
advice promotes the pupil’s best interests above those of the
school, as I have said. Amendment No. 58 would remove entirely the
specific duties placed on schools when giving advice. There would no
longer be an explicit duty to give advice promoting the best interests
of the pupils over those of the schools. That strikes at the heart of
the intention of impartiality behind the
clause.
4.30
pm
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister implies that, unless
instructed to do so, schools and teachers will not give high quality
and impartial advice, is that right? He suggested that only by
stipulation is that degree of impartiality likely to prevail. That is a
bit of a snub to the head teachers and teachers throughout Britain, is
it
not?
Jim
Knight:
Naturally, I would love to believe in the notion
that every school will act perfectly. However, as I
said earlier there is evidence—a departmental research report, a
National Foundation for Educational Research report for the Nuffield
review of 14-to-19 education and training, and a further departmental
research review— showing that there are schools that do not act
impartially in their advice and guidance, and put the interests of the
school over those of the individual pupil. Therefore, regardless of
whether I would like to believe that everyone will act in the best
interests of the pupil over the school, the evidence is to the
contrary.
The
amendment seeks to remove only paragraph (b) of proposed new subsection
(2B). The intention of the inserted paragraph is to clarify the
importance of presenting pupils with advice covering all the options
available to them, rather than those available only at the institution
at which they are
studying.
There is
some relationship to the new 14-to-19 curriculum and set of
qualification choices that we are offering. We have said that the full
entitlement that will be available from 2013 to every 14 to 19-year-old
of all 14 diplomas plus the new three that will also come on stream and
the new expanded apprenticeship options, will not be deliverable by one
institution alone. We have always been explicit about that, even when
describing only the original 14 diplomas. It is therefore important
that we make it absolutely clear to educational institutions that they
should not be partial in favour of an
institution.
The
amendment substantially reduces the degree to which impartiality is
defined by the clause by removing the paragraph that makes it explicit
that schools, in giving advice, must not seek to promote their own
interests over those of the pupil. We believe that the paragraph that
would be removed is a key element of the clause, as it makes clear the
type of impartiality we are seeking to address. Its removal would have
no benefit and would undermine the potency of the clause. I am sure
that, as a potent politician, the hon. Member for South Holland and The
Deepings will therefore wish to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister is not entirely convincing on the
matter. The general secretary of the National Union
of Teachers—a gentleman for whom I know that the Minister, like
other members of the Committee, has the highest possible
regard—states:
“If there is a major
educational reform, then the professional judgment of teachers has to
be trusted. You can’t put a set of restrictions in there about
their judgment.”
He was
speaking specifically in relation to the clause and to this
matter.
There are
doubts about whether the purpose of the Bill, as it
is currently drafted, will deliver the impartiality—the
empiricism, as I described it earlier—that the Minister says
that he wants, or whether it is designed, in its critics estimate, to
slant the system towards a particular outcome that the Government
want.
That is the view
of some parliamentarians. From the discussions that I have had with my
hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, I think that
he has doubts in that regard. It is certainly what a number of people
in the media think. In no less a paper than The Times, a
headline on 14 January stated, “Teachers told not to promote
A-levels—Ministers accused of favouring new diplomas”.
Again, that is specifically in relation to the clause and to the
Minister, so it is
worrying.
Jim
Knight:
Let me make it absolutely clear to the hon.
Gentleman that he really should not believe everything he reads, even
in The
Times. Even in “The Thunderer”, they
sometimes get it wrong and they got it wrong in this case. The hon.
Gentleman quoted the NUT. I would reply by quoting the CBI report
“Shaping up for the Future”, which
says:
“There is
a worrying bias. This is particularly the case in schools with sixth
forms which promote academic options above other post-16 routes of
progression.”
The
hon. Gentleman is an advocate of vocational learning; he should surely
understand that there is evidence of impartiality and he should
withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
How things change. How we are truly now the
people’s party. The Minister quotes the CBI, and that must be
taken into account. But I do think that our shared
ambition for high-quality, independent advice is best guaranteed by the
quality of those offering that advice. As I said when I moved the
amendment, it is critical that both the people giving and receiving the
advice are made aware of all the options and the implications for
subsequent employment
opportunities.
To that
end, I will go with the Minister as far as to say that I have little
doubt that he believes in vocational education as strongly as I do. I
hope that by the end of our considerations, he will share a faith in
A-levels with a similar passion to that of my hon. Friend the Member
for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. If we can reach the balance in
Government that we already have in Opposition, we will have travelled a
very long way indeed. In hope, rather than expectation, therefore, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
The
Chairman:
Just before we move on the next group of
amendments, I heard a mobile phone go off. It may not belong to a
member of the Committee—it could have been in the public
gallery—but I ask everybody to switch their phones off so that
the Committee can concentrate fully on the
Bill.
Mr.
Hayes:
I beg to move amendment No. 47, in
clause 66, page 37, line 16, at
end insert—
‘(c) any such
advice should include encouragement to study one or more GCE
‘A’ level courses provided such courses would be in the
best interest of the pupil
concerned.’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment
No. 48, in
clause 66, page 37, line 16, at
end add—
‘( ) any such
advice should include, where appropriate, advice about studying for a
degree course at Oxford or Cambridge
universities.’.
Mr.
Hayes:
This set of amendments is very much on the same
theme. Amendments Nos. 47 and 48 suggest that the advice that is given
to young people in respect of their educational
options should include encouragement to study one or more A-level
courses, provided such courses would be in the best interests of the
pupil concerned. So it is a “caveated” amendment, because
clearly, it would not be in the best interests of all pupils to study
one A-level. Indeed, the Minister has alluded to this, so I will rise
to the challenge and say that I am strongly in favour of a vocational
route with the same rigour, integrity, transparency and accessibility
as the well-established academic route.
As I have said, there are
doubts about the Government’s commitment to A-levels, and, both
in the Government’s interest and certainly in the
nation’s interest, those doubts should be assuaged. The
Government have done themselves no favours in this
respect, by introducing the so-called academic
diplomas. The Minister said in response to the previous debate that
“he was a great advocate of vocational education, so what was I
talking about?” That was the gist of what he said, but in a
slightly more elegant way—I do not want to undersell him.
However, he really should have drawn attention to not vocational
diplomas but the academic diplomas, which will be direct
competitors to A-levels.
Jim
Knight:
I hate to seek to correct the hon. Gentleman,
especially when he has been so generous in giving way, but we do not
recognise such a thing as “either” academic
“or” vocational diplomas. They all will offer
both.
Mr.
Hayes:
It is the tragedy of the Government’s
unwillingness to accept the integrity of vocational learning, that, in
their view, to have legitimacy the subjects must be academicised. The
Government have so little faith in practical competence, so little
belief in the idea that the acquisition of practical skills could
deliver individual worth and do good for the country, that they have to
dress them up as quasi-academic qualifications. I do not buy that any
more than William Morris or John Ruskin would have bought it, both of
whom the Ministers should see as people who inspired their side of
politics when it was a more noble thing than it is
now.
The Minister does
himself no favours when he admits that the qualifications will not be
rigorous, vocational ones, but some kind of halfway house between
practical and academic subjects. That is why
we have tabled the amendments. If people want to study an academic
subject, it is much better that they go by an academic route towards
well-established, highly-regarded, already-accepted
A-levels—accepted by both the world of work and the world of
learning. The second
amendment deals with Oxbridge. That is an interesting subject about
which I have interesting things to say. The Minister is a product of
Cambridge university. With the greatest respect, Mr. Bayley,
I am not so sure that you are not yourself an Oxbridge
graduate.
The
Chairman:
I am not to be brought into the
debate.
Mr.
Hayes:
I am from a red brick university and am proud of
that. The university of Nottingham is an Ivy League red brick
university, but it is not Oxbridge. Nevertheless, I am more than happy
to emphasis that Oxford and Cambridge universities are widely regarded
as being among the best in the world. Yet, we read once again in The
Times—the Minister has said that he is not a great fan of
The Times —that there are alarming
misconceptions in state schools about the
opportunities that exist for pupils at Oxbridge. It
said:
“The MORI
survey of 500 teachers was commissioned by the Sutton Trust, an
educational charity committed to increasing university intake from
deprived backgrounds. It found that nine in ten teachers underestimated
the number of Oxbridge students from state schools. Sixty per cent.
thought that fewer than 30 per cent. of Oxford and Cambridge students
were from state schools. The correct figure is 54 per cent.
More than half thought that it
was more expensive to study at Oxbridge, although both charge the same
tuition fees as most other English universities, and offer generous
bursaries.”
The take-up
of bursaries is a problem, however, which it is not appropriate to go
into now.
Most
disturbingly, and highly relevant to the amendment is the fact that
while 54 per cent. of teachers said that they always or usually
encouraged their most able and gifted children to apply to Oxford or
Cambridge, 25 per cent. of the teachers surveyed said that they would
very rarely do
so.
Angela
Watkinson (Upminster) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree
that among the group at which the legislation is aimed—the 10
per cent. least likely to go on to further education—there might
be individuals who have been disaffected at school for any one of a
number of reasons, but who are extremely able and if given the right
encouragement could catch up and so should aspire to just the sort of
course that he is
mentioning?
4.45
pm
Mr.
Hayes:
Absolutely. It is vital that we broaden access to
higher education and my hon. Friend is a persuasive advocate of that
cause. The Government and the Opposition share that
objective, but access should be broadened not by imposing curious
sociological targets on universities, but by providing the right
information and support to young people early on about the
opportunities that are available. If young people’s expectations
are changed, mountains can be moved. If we combine that with a more
creative approach to modes of learning—part-time study, modular
study
and so on—we can broaden access in a much more effective way than
we are doing
now.
Amendment No. 48
states that any advice offered in respect of the obligations in the
Bill should include, where appropriate, advice about studying for a
degree course at Oxford or Cambridge. Much more must be done to dispel
the myth, which is prevalent among many young people and, according to
the study that I have described, among many others including those who
are advising young people, that Oxbridge is for the very few
and are not the sorts of places that disadvantaged young people should
aim to go to, as my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster mentioned. I
think that this amendment will at least oblige the Minister to consider
that. If it is pressed, it could have a legislative effect. However, at
this stage let it be taken as a means of doing the former, not the
latter.
Stephen
Williams:
I shall speak briefly to amendments Nos. 47 and
48. Despite what the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
said about the parity of esteem that exists in his own mind between
vocational and more traditional academic courses, that is not the
signal that is sent by the amendment. There is a lack of consistency
compared with his normal logical strain of
argument.
Despite his
mention of William Morris and his interest in arts and
crafts—perhaps he should have mentioned Pugin in this
setting—I find it rather strange that the hon. Gentleman is
asking to put in the Bill the deliberate promotion of one course of
study that is open for somebody aged 16. If that proposal was framed in
the legislation, it would suggest that that course is held in higher
esteem than all other courses open to young people now and in 2013 when
the provisions will become law. I have heard him talk many times with
passion and interest about apprenticeships and diplomas, which is
probably quite out of character compared with most of his colleagues,
so I am rather surprised that he is seeking to promote one course of
study over another in the
amendment.
I have more
sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve with
amendment No. 48. I would have even more sympathy if he had included
Bristol and Nottingham and not just Oxford and Cambridge in the
proposal.
Mr.
Hayes:
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to discuss his
sympathies, I wish to ease his doubts about supporting the amendment. I
remind him that it specifically talks about the course being
“in best interest of the pupil
concerned.”
It is worded
in that way precisely because it is not in the interests of all pupils
to go down that
route.
Stephen
Williams:
I had noted that caveat. I read the amendment
several times, and I wished to support it—we have been fairly
consensual so far. However, if such a caveat were in the Bill, it would
send the wrong signal to young people at 16 that a course of study
should be specifically promoted over and above all other level 3
alternatives that will be available by 2013, when compulsion kicks
in.
Amendment No. 48 would promote
Oxford and Cambridge universities. I would perhaps have more sympathy
if it promoted my own university, Bristol, or the hon.
Gentleman’s, Nottingham. There is still a mystery,
Mr. Bayley, as to where you went, but I gather that you are
not going to enlighten us on that. Perhaps it was York, which is a fine
university.
I am sure
that we agree that the advice that should be offered to young people of
whatever age should be as aspirational as possible to ensure that they
aim high and that they are stretched to their full potential. They
might not spot that potential in themselves, and perhaps some of their
teachers or their own family would not spot it. However, quite
often—the hon. Gentleman is right whether he is citing The
Times or any other source—young people are held back not by
their own limitations, but by the limitations that are placed upon
them, perhaps by the community that they come from or because of their
family background.
I
have some empathy. As the hon. Gentleman and other members of the
Committee may know, I come from a deprived community in south Wales. My
father was road worker and my mother was the school dinner lady. It was
considered almost heresy in my school in the south Wales valleys when I
rebelled against what was traditionally expected and applied to English
universities. The teaching staff in my school had been to
either Swansea or Aberystwyth. They are undoubtedly fine
establishments—I do not wish to denigrate them in any sense
whatever—but if I had gone to Swansea or Cardiff, I might have
had to live at home. Part of the attraction for me at the time was
going away from home to study at another institution and at a top-rated
history department, which Bristol university certainly had. The advice
and support that I got at the time was sorely lacking. That was 20
years ago, so I hope that the situation now would be different for
somebody in similar circumstances.
We hear—perhaps from
research from the Sutton Trust to which the hon. Member for South
Holland and The Deepings alluded—that young people can be held
back by a lack of encouragement; encouragement that they need if they
are to see those dreaming spires that they might not otherwise
recognise. Ironically, when I was at school, the only teacher who
really encouraged me to apply over the border to Oxford was the
needlework teacher—her brother had been to Oxford. It will not
surprise people to learn that I did not take needlework myself; I am
vocationally self-taught in such matters—being single, I had to
be. Seriously, that was the only encouragement that I was given. None
the less, I ended up at Bristol university, which certainly changed my
life for the
better.
Twenty years
on there are still some serious issues. We have discussed them, so I
shall not go too far down this path, but when we discuss widening
participation or higher education in general in the Chamber, we find
that there are still some serious issues about the intake at some of
our top research-intensive universities. I have some sympathy with the
amendment, but I wonder whether it is right to put the measure in the
Bill.
Jim
Knight:
What a fascinating debate it has been reliving the
student days of members of the Committee. I obviously agree with the
intention—when
I judge it charitably—behind the amendments, but I would argue
that they are unnecessary. I should say in passing that I was delighted
to hear the hon. Member for Bristol, West disagree with the hon. Member
for South Holland and The Deepings, because I had begun to worry that
the Opposition parties were joined at the hip on the Bill. To hear some
disagreement is healthy.
The amendment is designed to
ensure that schools specifically promote the take-up of A-levels if
they are in the child’s best interest. It is unnecessary.
A-levels are one of the range of options on which the young person
would be provided with information. Under the clause as drafted, if the
careers adviser believed that A-levels were in the young
person’s best interests, they would already be required to
advise them of
that.
I
fear that the reality behind the amendment is that Opposition Members
are seeking to anticipate the 2013 review, which the Government are
doggedly refusing to anticipate. We remain impartial. Opposition
Members have made it perfectly clear on a number of occasions that they
are partial in respect of the future of A-levels, so they want to make
explicit provision for A-levels in the Bill. I disagree: it is
important that we approach the review with an open mind. I will
therefore resist the amendment if it is pressed, but I respectfully ask
the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw it.
Incidentally, I agree with the hon. Member for Bristol, West that it is
inappropriate to promote one qualification over others in the
Bill.
Regarding advice
on studying at Oxford or Cambridge, that will, of course, be one option
available to the highest-achieving young people and will, I hope,
remain an attractive option, as has always been the case. The hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings was right: I studied at one
of those two universities. I was the product, first, of an independent
school. One of that school’s reasons for being appeared to be to
get as many people as possible into Oxford or Cambridge. In relation to
getting sufficient numbers of people from state schools and poorer
backgrounds into those universities, I think that the ambition of the
school is as much a part of the problem as the efforts of the
universities themselves to attract and admit those sorts of young
people. I was delighted, when I studied at Cambridge university, to
meet the person who is now my wife, who was the first person from her
institution to get into either Oxford or Cambridge and who had a very
different educational background from
mine.
Mr.
Oliver Heald (North-East Hertfordshire) (Con): I am
wondering to what extent the type of advice that we are talking about
would cover the advice that schools of the type that the Minister
attended give their sixth formers on applying to Oxbridge. It is quite
a complicated process. There are many interviews, which need to be
tackled in a particular way, and so on, as he will know. Will that type
of advice and guidance be given in further education colleges and
similar places? It is very hard to get into Oxbridge colleges unless
someone has had that little bit of extra training on what they are
looking for in interviews and, indeed, the whole
process.
Jim
Knight:
We certainly expect the impartial advice that
young people receive from schools and other institutions to reflect
both ambition and familiarity
with the systems of application for Oxford and Cambridge or any other
university or higher education institution, so that every young person
is given an equal chance of successfully applying and competing
on the basis of their achievements rather than their
background. The state-maintained school that my son attends does a very
good job in that respect. It works very hard at offering trips for
young people to both Oxford and Cambridge to enable them to become more
familiar with those universities and to feel that they could be a part
of their lives, rather than something that is very distant from them
and is for different sorts of young
people.
Mr.
Hayes:
Will the Minister say something about the mentoring
that that implies? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East
Hertfordshire suggested, children from the most disadvantaged
backgrounds often have the additional disadvantage of not having
parents who have been through the process. The middle-class child not
only has a school environment that is supportive of such an
opportunity, as the Minister suggested, but will commonly have a
familial link to education that is not enjoyed by working-class
children who might well have the potential to enjoy going to Oxford or
Cambridge.
5
pm
Jim
Knight:
It is probably common sense that the
more it is familiar and normal for young people,
through the experience of their friends, family, parents and teachers,
to have accessed the full range of universities, the more their sights
and ambitions are set at the appropriate level rather than being
artificially capped.
The
proportion of students entering higher education from state schools has
risen in the last 10 years from 81 per cent in 1997 to 86.9 per cent.
in 2005. I am sure that it has increased further since then. The
statistics for the lower socio-economic class backgrounds, show that
participation in higher education has risen from 27.9 per cent. in 2002
to 29.1 per cent. in 2005. That implies that there are more families
who are experiencing higher education who can then pass on that
experience and that expectation to their
children.
Mr.
Gibb:
I am sure that that is correct. But what does the
Minister think about the staggering survey which showed that 45 per
cent. of teachers either rarely or never recommend pupils in their
schools to apply to Oxbridge? I know of
comprehensives with 2,000 students that send nobody, or perhaps one
pupil who has parents who are very keen on Oxford or Cambridge, to
those universities. But 45 per cent. of teachers rarely or never make
such a recommendation and a fifth of teachers would never encourage a
bright pupil to apply to Oxford or Cambridge. What is the
Minister’s opinion on why teachers would hold such a
view?
Jim
Knight:
As I have said, there is more that schools need to
do and that those who work in schools should do to raise the ambitions
and sights of young people. I do not want into be drawn, or even
distracted, into thinking too much about why such a large proportion of
teachers in that survey seemed to have ruled out Oxford and Cambridge
for their young people. I
certainly would not condone it. If it is an appropriate choice for young
people, whatever their background and whatever school they are
attending, that choice should be promoted as an option for
them.
The purpose of
the clause is not to prevent teachers from promoting any particular
option or to force them to promote any other option, but rather to
ensure that the advice and information given to pupils in each case has
at its heart the pupil’s best interests. I therefore believe
that the amendments are unnecessary as their intent is already covered
in the clause as drafted. I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
We have had a good debate about the importance of
extending opportunity to all kinds of young people and the need to make
available to them high-quality advice about the opportunities at Oxford
and Cambridge universities. We have also discussed the need to advise
them on the right route to take in terms of A-levels or otherwise
leading to opportunities in higher education or elsewhere. These were
probing amendments designed to highlight the concerns that I have
articulated and the concerns reflected by some of the evidence that my
hon. Friends and I have brought to the Committee’s attention
today.
Having made
the point, I acknowledge that it would probably be wrong to put this
information into a Bill. It is very specific. As the hon. Member for
Bristol, West argued, it might be something that would be included in
guidance, particularly in relation to the second of the amendments. I
hope that the Minister will consider that. The survey data which my
hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton and I cited
are compelling. It may mean that we have to soup up the guidance to
schools about offering Oxford and Cambridge as an option to those
children whose families would not typically have a knowledge or
understanding of those options and who would not historically have
enjoyed a close relationship with those
colleges.
Jim
Knight:
All I want to say is that the reason I ask the
hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment and why I would not consider
naming a specific university in the Bill is that I do not want a
situation where a teacher advising a young person on careers almost has
to tick a box and say, “The law says that I am supposed to think
about whether or not you are going to Oxford or Cambridge,” and
then they give an answer. I do not think that is the right approach. We
need to change the culture, and I do not think that we will do that
just by naming individual institutions in
legislation.
Mr.
Hayes:
I acknowledge the sense of that comment. However,
we need to reflect closely and carefully on how we can counter some of
the misapprehensions that are clearly abroad about the
opportunities on offer at Oxford and Cambridge universities, so
that we can ensure that all those children with
the potential to do so can enjoy the very best chances.
Notwithstanding that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Nia
Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): I beg to move amendment No.
206, in clause 66, page 37, line 16, at end
insert—
‘(c) any such advice
must challenge gender
stereotypes.’.
Thank
you, Mr. Bayley, for the opportunity to speak to this
amendment, which is designed to ensure that those involved in giving
advice to young people not only avoid gender stereotyping in giving
their advice, but actively challenge gender stereotyping and ensure
that young people, both young men and young women, consider all the
options available to young people with their qualifications and
experience. Young people should be encouraged to consider all the
options, both those in what are traditionally thought of as male jobs
and those in what are traditionally thought of as female
jobs.
When the
institutions involved have probably signed up to equal opportunities
principles, why is it necessary to challenge gender stereotypes? The
Committee has heard evidence from the further education sector that, in
some schools, there can be a tendency to push the type of courses
provided by that school; indeed, we have been debating that precise
point just now. That may happen even though it may not be in the best
interests of the pupils.
I think that there are two
reasons why that happens. It may be a conscious effort to boost the
numbers in the school, so that people stay on in that school and take
the courses available there. In many respects, one can understand the
legitimacy of a teacher pushing their own subject area and wanting to
encourage and inspire pupils. However, to ensure that the advice given
is impartial, each institution should ensure that the opportunities are
there for young people to meet with and speak to advisers, lecturers,
tutors and so on coming from other institutions, who can put in front
of them the full range of
options.
I
also think that this type of academic-focused advice sometimes happens
unconsciously; it is simply a matter of people reiterating their own
experiences. Those who have only ever been in a school environment, an
A-level environment and a university environment will inevitably have
some difficulty in talking to young people about the many other options
that could be available to them.
It is very easy to forget that
it is not just the careers adviser and the careers interview that has
an influence on the young person. The young person
also comes into contact with form tutors, personal tutors, mentors,
parents and other adults in their lives, who will all have a
significant influence on them. Of course, it is precisely for that
reason that clause 66 emphasises the importance of having information
presented in an impartial manner.
Naturally, we are influenced by
our own experiences and what we have seen around us. I must tell the
Committee that I was quite shocked to hear the hon. Member for Bristol,
West suggest that he needed needlework because he was single and that
if he were not single he would no longer need to sew anything. That
certainly suggests to me that he was a product of that Welsh
“mam” who spoilt her son rotten and never expected him to
do anything at all in the house.
Stephen
Williams:
I am not sure if I should say this. The hon.
Lady probably does not know much about my biography, but I would not be
marrying a woman.
Nia
Griffith:
I shall continue to talk about the way that our
own experiences influence us. It is very important to be aware of the
fact that we all tend to reiterate the things that we have seen around
us. Of course, that can have very serious consequences for our young
people.
I would like
to give you an example of a training exercise that I have carried out
with numerous teachers over the past few years. Surprisingly, even in
recent times, the results do not seem to be very different from what
they might have been 20 years ago. In this exercise I give out a CV of
a fictitious young person and I ask the participants in the course to
suggest what suitable courses and jobs they would offer to the young
person. Shockingly, depending on whether you give the
fictitious young person a distinctively male or distinctively female
name, the list provided by the participants in the course tends to vary
extremely. In other words, if you tell them it is a boy, they will give
you one set of suitable options; if you tell them it is a girl they
will give you a completely different set. That is illustrative of the
situation we find ourselves in at the moment. Although we are striving
to create equal opportunities, in practice we still bear the prejudices
that we have been brought up with.
Mr.
Heald:
Is the hon. Lady not confusing two things?
Obviously equal opportunities is absolutely crucial, but is it not the
case that girls may want to do some things in a job that boys do not
want to do and vice versa? It may be that we are
different.
Nia
Griffith:
What is important is that all the options are
presented to every young person, because what often happens is that
young people are bundled into one area or another. Some of the research
by the Equal Opportunities Commission suggests that many young women
are shipped into placements in areas such as child care even if they
have never expressed an interest in child care. Likewise, young men are
shipped into various placements in manual work in semi-skilled or
unskilled jobs when they have never expressed any interest in those
types of work. Because we have prejudices and because we all know that
we come from a certain background and we have seen certain things in
our lives, it is important that we make that extra effort to put things
on an even keel and say to young people that they can equally well do
this or that.
Young
people will also be subject to a fair amount of peer-group pressure
which will pressurise them into taking options which are stereotypical.
It is very difficult sometimes to be one of two or three women in a
very macho male environment or, conversely, to be one of two or three
men in a very female environment. That can lead to bullying and other
difficulties. It is important that we send a positive message about
choosing options—a message that a young person should choose
whichever option they genuinely want to do, rather than something that
merely reflects other people’s expectations. Just as we want
young people to aim high, we want them to challenge some of the
stereotypes that they have been brought up with. As the clause
requires, we want to give pupils the advice which will promote their
best interests.
The
problem is that so many people influence young people. It is not just
careers advisers. There is a training issue here for the many adults
who are in various ways
involved with the 16 to 18-year-old group, including the various support
agencies and the people in both the educational world and the voluntary
sector, to make sure that we try to combat gender
stereotyping.
Mr.
Gibb:
Does the hon. Lady share my view that we should be
optimistic about this problem? When I joined KPMG in 1984, there was
one woman partner out of several hundred partners. Now at that firm,
just 23 years later, the majority of new trainee chartered accountants
are women and there are thousands of female partners at KPMG. That is
the continuing trend. I am therefore optimistic about the future,
though I share the hon. Lady’s
concerns.
5.15
pm
Nia
Griffith:
If we are going to reminisce on our own
experiences as we seem to have been doing in this Committee, I would
say that at the institution I attended, when I attended it, only one
fifth of the places available there were open to women. We have come a
very long way. In many respects the progress has been made largely in
white collar areas of work. Where we are really falling down is on what
one might call the more industrial side, the trade side, or the more
working-class side, where there tends to be far more pressure on young
people to conform to stereotypes, and where there is far less
confidence to break through the barriers. I think that is why,
particularly in respect of the 16 to 18-year-olds we have been talking
about, we really need to push the boat out and challenge gender
stereotypes.
I am
talking about the young women who do not have the confidence to say,
“I am as good as any man,” or—for a man looking at
a more female-type job—“I can do this just as well as a
woman.” It is very important that we give them those
opportunities, and that we do not just say, “Oh well, what do we
do with this one? Let’s shove her into this option, because that
is what we have done with girls before.” That is what I think we
are trying to challenge in the Bill and in this clause in particular.
It is a serious issue, which affects not only the choices young people
start off with, but their whole life, because so much of our pay
structures are clearly linked to initial options that people take in
courses and jobs.
We
have had equal pay legislation for some time, but we are still seeing
the problem of an enormous pay gap, quite simply because those jobs
known as traditionally male jobs very often attract better wages than
those known as traditionally female jobs. I have, over the course of
many years, met many women who have simply not pursued skills, training
and careers in trades and technological areas, because they were
steered away from them.
This problem has been
particularly highlighted by the YWCA, which does excellent work with
some of our most disadvantaged young women. It is not easy to be one of
the only two or three in an environment, and that is why it is
important that we work towards achieving critical mass and give young
people proper opportunities to take part in placements where they feel
they are with a good mix of male and female, rather than with two or
three females in a big male macho environment, or vice versa.
Although we have made progress,
it is very worrying that some very recent research, done in 2005 by the
Equal Opportunities Commission, has shown that we are still directing
young people in very stereotypical ways. For this
reason, the amendment is very important. It is absolutely essential
that guidance and training on the implementation of the Bill should
include guidance on how to tackle gender stereotyping and how to give
advice that is genuinely in young people’s best
interests.
Angela
Watkinson:
I find that I jumped to completely the wrong
conclusion when I first read the amendment, because I thought it
referred to the gender stereotyping of the young people themselves.
Having listened to the hon. Lady’s presentation of the
amendment, I realise she is referring to gender stereotyping among
teachers and careers advisers, which rather dismays me. I recall the
only careers advice I ever received at my co-educational grammar
school. One day the girls were all herded into the hall and told that
there were only two respectable occupations for girls: teaching and
nursing. Anyone who did not choose either was considered to be a lost
cause.
I rejected
that advice. So did my youngest daughter, who is a
member of the London fire brigade, and has been for about 10 years. A
more male-dominated working environment one could not imagine. She is
also very philosophical and of independent thought. That is an example
of an occupation which is unlikely ever to attract 50:50 applications
from men and women, simply because it is a job that does not appeal to
large numbers of women. It also requires a lot of physical strength,
which some women could not achieve. We would not say that all men are
physically stronger than all women, but it is probably true to say that
most men are physically stronger than most women. My daughter is 6 ft
tall and well able to do the job. She has survived in a very
male-dominated environment. I am the only woman in the Opposition Whips
Office, so I, too, am used to dealing with a male-dominated
environment.
I was
extremely dismayed to hear the hon. Member for
Llanelli. I wondered why she felt it necessary to have
“must” in the Bill. Would “may” not meet
the requirements? However, I started with the bare presumption that it
was the students themselves who were limiting their own opportunities
by not looking more widely at the whole range of career of
possibilities. I changed my mind while the hon. Lady was speaking. I
hope that all teachers and Connexions advisers will ensure that all
ranges of opportunities are made available to young people, including
things that they might not normally have considered. There may be
predisposition in the genders towards certain careers, but the
opportunities should be as wide as possible. I thank the hon. Lady for
tabling the
amendment.
Sir
Peter Soulsby (Leicester, South) (Lab): I rise to support
my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and to respond to the comments
of the hon. Member for Upminster. The gender stereotyping that needs to
be challenged is encountered both in young people
themselves and, in some cases, sadly, in those who advise them. Others
have talked about personal experience; I speak as the father of three
girls. I was angered and saddened
when my eldest daughter was advised, not that long ago, that physics was
not something to be studied by a girl. Frankly, she was in the
position—confident enough, coming from a middle-class
background—to be able to challenge that and to go on and
successfully take a physics degree. However, it might have been very
different had she not come from that sort of background, had she not
had that sort of confidence and had she wanted, for example, to take up
a building apprenticeship. She may well not have had the confidence to
ignore the advice that she was given and, to some extent, the peer
pressure that was there as well, which stereotyped that degree as
unlikely to be appropriate for her as a
girl.
Gender
stereotyping is often as much a problem for boys as it can be for
girls. It can limit what boys and those who advise
them see as appropriate career options as much as it can girls. In
education, we only have to look at the comparatively small proportion
of primary school teachers who are male to recognise that gender
stereotyping can cut both
ways.
I
very much hope that the Minister will give a sympathetic hearing to the
amendment. If he cannot accept the amendment, he might at least assure
us that the guidance, which will go with the Bill once enacted, will
give clear encouragement to all involved in advising
young people not just to avoid gender stereotyping, but to
challenge
it.
Mr.
Heald:
When I intervened on the hon. Member for Llanelli,
I had misunderstood her point. As her remarks continued, I found that I
agreed with
them.
Stephen
Williams:
Despite the hon. Lady teasing me about the
teacher at my school who was a needlework teacher—I nearly said
my needlework teacher—I have considerable sympathy with her
amendment.
In
my role, I get to visit lots of universities and further education
colleges. When I visit universities, it is very apparent to me that 57
per cent. of undergraduates now are female. The medical profession, the
accountancy profession—which the hon. Member for Bognor Regis
and Littlehampton mentioned earlier—and the legal profession
will in the future be dominated by women. That is a marvellous
thing.
When visiting
further education colleges, however, what with usually being shown the
bricklaying or plumbing courses and the hairdressing salon, it is
noticeable that gender stereotypes are certainly active. They do not
usually have much luck suggesting services to me in the hairdressing
salon—probably not to the Minister for Schools either. They
often offer to wax my legs, which I have had to decline many times.
Gender stereotypes seem to have fed their way through into the more
vocational courses that people take at further education colleges. If
the hon. Lady were to press her amendment, I would support
it.
Mr.
Hayes:
I started my adult life—I remember it
well—thinking that men and women were probably more alike than
was generally supposed. Having reached the age of 49, I have now
concluded that men and women are probably less alike than people
generally suppose. That is reflected in the choices they make and the
aptitudes they have.
The hon. Member for Llanelli has
tabled a useful amendment, on which we have had a useful debate. What
is absolutely clear is that the options available should not be
tarnished by prejudice. However, we should not be surprised if, even
with the sort of objectivity that the hon. Lady wants in the advice
that is offered, a preponderance of one gender or the other go in a
particular direction. I want to ensure that if women choose to be
bricklayers, plumbers, or any of the other jobs that are usually
mentioned in such discussions, there should be no bar to them, and we
should celebrate that fact. Similarly, if men want to go down one of
the roads that stereotypically tends to be associated with women, there
should not be any restriction or bar to their so doing. None the less,
I would not be surprised if, notwithstanding that, there were
differences in the numbers involved in different professions based
around their gender, nor would I be even slightly worried about
it.
Nia
Griffith:
Does the hon. Gentleman think that that is
perhaps what people thought about medicine years ago—that it was
something that only men did, and that women would never
do?
Mr.
Hayes:
My deafness is so profound today that I did
not pick up a word of that. I am sure that it was extremely apposite to
the debate and my contribution to it.
The only other comment I wish
to make is that in making such advice available, it is critical that we
take account of expectations, which we discussed earlier. It is likely
that expectations are set much earlier than the point at which people
reach college at 16-plus. They are often formed in primary school. You
and the Minister will be pleased to know, Mr. Bayley, that
my seven-year-old son wants to go to Trinity college, Cambridge. That
is because we live in the fens, and Cambridge is in the fens. He does
not want to have to stay in college for hot dinners. He wants to come
home and have his story and be tucked in at night. He knows that if he
goes to a different university that might not happen. He has already
set out his ambition. Whether he can achieve it with our help remains
to be seen.
That
illustrates the fact that children get ideas very early. Those ideas
may be gender reinforced at primary and secondary
school. Therefore, even if the amendment were successful and the spirit
which inspired it were to be reflected in what happens in schools,
there are other issues which have a bearing on the sentiments expressed
by the hon. Member for Llanelli and others in its pursuit. I believe
that all those with potential should be able to fulfil it and not be
prevented from so doing by the prejudices around gender. I am
completely confident and entirely happy that men, because they are men,
will tend to choose one direction and ladies a different one. That is
the way the world is and the way that I want it to
be.
5.30
pm
Jim
Knight:
What a wonderful debate, led by an excellent
contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli and supported
by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South. We heard the hon.
Member for Bristol, West waxing lyrical briefly and,
having had concerns earlier in our deliberations about the personal
details of Mrs. Hayes, we have probably now heard more
personal details about Hayes Junior than he would like to be on the
public record if his classmates were to read the Committee’s
proceedings.
Naturally, I completely agree
with the intention behind my hon. Friend’s amendment and I
welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue, which I have
also discussed with the YWCA. It is often the case that the sectors
that pay the highest wages, provide the most hours of training and have
the best future job prospects are those that are overwhelmingly
male-dominated. At the same time, we know that there is an urgent need
for more men to enter traditionally female careers, such a child care.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South made that point well.
The Connexions service and schools, as well as employers and parents,
have a role to play in providing young people with information and
guidance about future career choices. As the Secretary of State
outlined on Second Reading, it is important that young people have the
chance to consider all the options. For example, evidence shows that
many potential apprentices make stereotypical choices and tend to be
influenced by tradition and peer pressure in terms of the industries in
which they work.
The
needs of a modern economy are such that we cannot afford for the
talents of young people to be closed off because of stereotyping. This
is an extremely important issue and we want to ensure that, as we raise
the education leaving age, the problem is tackled head
on. Traditional gender stereotypes and other
stereotypes, such as those concerning race or sexual orientation, must
be broken down if they stop young people fulfilling their
potential.
However—there is always
a “however”—although I agree with the intention, I
do not think that the amendment is necessary. As well as requiring
schools to deliver impartial careers advice that provides young people
with information on the full range of options available to them, we are
also using clause 66 to introduce a requirement on schools to have
regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The guidance,
which was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Llanelli and
for Leicester, South, will include a set of core principles, one of
which will state explicitly that students should be helped to challenge
all stereotypes and widen their career aspirations. If women want to
enter the fire service, they should feel free to do so; it is an
honourable tradition. The first female firefighter to die in a fire was
Fleur Lombard who died in a fire in Gloucester. Such women, who have
provided extraordinarily good service to this country though the fire
service, have provided good role
models.
Equally, young
people should feel free to make choices about diplomas. Next year we
will introduce the hair and beauty diploma, which is not one that I
will be engaging in, waxing or otherwise. However, some extremely
high-earning hairdressers are men and it is a choice that men should
think about seriously. I fear that the hair and beauty diploma may be
ridiculed by some of our friends in the media as not being substantial
in comparison with engineering. That will simply display their
prejudice; such views are perhaps also informed by gender
prejudice.
In addition, the recently
published children’s plan outlines measures to present young
people with more exciting and challenging careers education in schools.
There will be opportunities such as taster sessions and other
experiential learning that will help to open young people’s
minds to different ideas and challenge traditional learning and career
routes. I hope that this range of measures demonstrates the importance
that we attach to the issue. The amendment is unnecessary and I invite
my hon. Friend to withdraw
it.
Nia
Griffith:
Listening to the Minister, I understand that his
sentiment is genuine and that he has already met organisations such as
the YWCA that have highlighted this problem. In the light of his
comments, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Stephen
Williams:
I beg to move amendment No. 177, in
clause 66, page 37, line 18, after
‘“subsection (2B))”;’, insert
‘“( ) In subsection (5)(a)
leave out ‘14’ and insert
‘13’”’.
My
hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil and I tabled the amendment to provoke
a discussion on when will be the appropriate time to offer independent
advice and guidance. By 2013 when the legislation will kick in, the
educational landscape will be quite different. We presume that there
will still be the traditional academic pathway of GCSEs leading through
to A-levels, but diplomas, whether they are the original 14 lines
or the additional diplomas that the Government have announced,
should have been rolled out nationally and there will also be
apprenticeships and other vocational pathways for young people to
choose from, albeit in a compulsory
environment.
The
advice given to young people will be crucial, not
just at 16, but at a much younger age. I cannot
remember whether you were in the Chair, Mr. Bayley, but in
the evidence sessions I asked several witnesses, including those
representing Connexions, what they felt was the appropriate age at
which to start giving full independent advice and guidance to people
who will be affected by the legislation. When I asked Connexions
directly what was the main focus of its work at the moment, it said
that it was 16-year-olds looking forward to leaving compulsory
education and deciding whether to follow a career choice or go on to
further study. The concentration of its resources is in advising
children in year
11.
By 2013, it will
be more appropriate to concentrate that advice on children in year 9
because the choices that they make at that stage will require
independent and impartial advice. They could be deciding what they will
do in years 10 and 11, whether to exercise their choice in another
educational setting such as a local college or whether to achieve their
diploma through a combination of the two. As we have said during
debates on earlier amendments, that advice must exist in every school
in the country.
The
purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Government can assure us
that the full range of independent advice and guidance will be
available to students in year 9, who are likely to be aged 13. That
advice should be not just on the courses and pathways
that are suitable for them, but on the settings so that there is no bias
in favour of staying in school if that is what the school advisers
want. During the
evidence session, we heard from Connexions that the main focus of its
work is currently aimed at 16-year-olds. If the ambitions that the
Government have for this legislation and through their support for the
Leitch programme are to be achieved, the career and educational choices
that people make at age 13 will be crucial. There is no point in giving
them that advice when they get to 16 if they have made a wrong decision
at 13 because their pathway in life will to a great extent already have
been determined.
I am
looking for an assurance from the Minister that the focus of the
independent advice and guidance that is provided for in the Bill will
shift to a lower age. It should still be offered at 16, but also at 13.
I am looking for an assurance that sufficient resources will be in
place to ensure that Connexions, local authorities and schools are able
to provide that vital impartial
advice.
Jim
Knight:
The amendment seeks to extend the relevant phase
of a pupil’s education during which he must be
provided with a programme of careers education so that it should start
from 13, rather than 14, as originally specified in the Education Act
1997. I should make it clear—it is an understandable
oversight—that the age range has already been extended in
England to include pupils in school years 7 and 8, for 12 and
13-year-olds. That was done by regulations made under section 46 of the
1997 Act: for those who are interested, it was the Education (Extension
of Careers Education) (England) Regulations 2003, which came into force
on 1 September 2004. That means that section 43 of the 1997 Act, as it
currently has effect in England, already includes 13-year-olds in its
scope. To that extent, the amendment is unnecessary. Of course, the
resources go with the extension of the age period down to year 7, so I
hope that that is an adequate answer.
Stephen
Williams:
I got the impression that the Minister was about
to draw his remarks to a close. I hear what he says about regulations
that were passed before I became a Member of Parliament, but could he
assure me that there will be sufficient emphasis on that early advice
in the guidance that his Department prepares for Connexions or whoever
provides the independent advice and guidance, because Connexions told
us during the evidence sessions that the current set-up is geared
mainly towards 16-year-olds and those in year
11?
Jim
Knight:
It is certainly the case that the activity of the
Connexions service does not kick in until someone has reached 13. It is
only at that point that they are notified of the individual’s
existence through the data transfers that we discussed last Tuesday.
However, the wider obligations for careers education, as set out in the
Education Act 1997, do apply from year 7, so schools would take forward
those obligations. Certainly, the guidance will make it clear that the
obligations in law extend from year 7 onwards. On that basis, I hope
that the hon. Gentleman will be happy to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
I am moved to speak by what both the Minister and
the hon. Member for Bristol, West said. I think that the hon. Gentleman
made a valid point about the stage at which advice is given, which
reflects remarks that we made earlier about choices that are
made early and affect people’s subsequent
opportunities and options. There is considerable evidence to suggest
that there is a paucity of advice in schools. It is variable, of
course, but I refer particularly to the advice on apprenticeships from
the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which I have quoted a
number of times. It states
that
“by ignorance of or
indifference to apprenticeship opportunities in
schools,”
young people
are often not given the information from which they would benefit. It
stated that
Connexions
“is failing to
reach a great many of those who need its
services”
and
“should explain the advantages of
vocational...education”
in schools. It also suggested
that
“Special attention
should be paid to informing girls about non-traditional apprenticeships
and to providing information on earnings in different
sectors.”
That was
reflected in the debate on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for
Llanelli. I use that merely as one illustration of the critique that
has been made by the hon. Member for Bristol, West and others of advice
that is given early, particularly in schools, that does not always
fulfil the sort of ambitions that we would want for our young
people.
If the Bill
is to work, we have to soup up that advice, improve its quality and
ensure that it is consistent and appropriate. That may mean that
Connexions has to refocus some of its energy—the hon. Gentleman
is right about that, too—because most of its work tends to be
focused on post-16.
5.45
pm
As the House of
Lords Select Committee and others have argued, Connexions penetration
of schools is limited and, as I suggested earlier today, it may mean
rethinking our whole approach to careers advice and guidance in the
longer term rather than relying on Connexions. That might mean having
an all-age careers service alongside Connexions, as I suggested in
debates on earlier aspects of the Bill. At the very least, it would
ensure that we give advice that does not preclude opportunities, shut
down options or drive people in the wrong direction—all things
that happen now.
The
amendment may be probing—I do not know—but it is useful,
and it covers a subject to which we should return. I am not sure that
we have it right in the Bill. When debating these matters this morning,
I thought that the Minister was a little complacent about advice and
guidance and that he underestimated its significance in the Bill. I
have come to the conclusion that unless we can get advice and guidance
right most of the other provisions will flounder.
To be fair to the Minister,
rather than being indicative of negligence, that complacency may be
merely an illustration of the Government’s failure to recognise
that the current system for advising and guiding young
people—the current careers system—is not up to scratch.
Connexions is fine for what it does best, which is providing
high-quality and wide-ranging
support to those young people who need a multi-faceted approach. I am
not sure that it is best at providing high-quality careers advice to
the majority of young people who do not need that kind of broad-brush
approach, and I am not sure that it is as effective as it might be in
the early years to which the hon. Member for Bristol, West pays
attention in his amendment. It is a pity that the Minister was not more
comprehensive in his winding up, but it is for the hon. Gentleman to
decide what to do next.
Stephen
Williams:
First, I thank the hon. Member for South Holland
and The Deepings for agreeing with the underlying purpose of the
amendment. I heard the Minister’s assurances—he cited
various regulations—that everything that is necessary is already
in place. The purpose of the amendment was simply to get on the record
the fact that the Government recognise that if the legislation is to
succeed, full and independent advice needs to be offered much earlier
in the young person’s educational journey.
I think that
the Minister was giving me that assurance, although he seemed to be
hiding behind regulations that he said would already achieve that aim.
None the less, during our evidence sittings, we heard full confidence
being expressed in the fact that people are adhering to those
regulations. However, we still have some years to ensure that we get it
right. In that spirit, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Hayes:
I beg to move amendment No. 59, in
clause 66, page 38, line 4, leave
out ‘must’ and insert
‘may’.
The
amendment is straightforward enough. Clause 66(4) is about discharging
a relevant duty; the schools
“must...have regard to
guidance to any guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of
State.”
There
is a subtle but important difference between “must” and
“may”. “Must” implies that the Government
will tell schools and teachers—the professionals—exactly
what they should do and how they should do it. “May”
represents the Government facilitating good practice throughout instead
of forcing the great, clunking, centralising Labour fist—that is
what I have written in my notes; it is a rather partisan remark. When
preparing for this debate, I must have been feeling rather spiteful,
which is unusual. [
Laughter.
]
We are also concerned that, by
insisting on the word “must”, the Government
are forcing schools to comply with short-term headline-grabbing
policies, rather than ones improving the advice and guidance given to
students. The amendment allows schools and advisers breathing space,
without harming the possibility for pupils to receive full and
impartial careers
advice.
Jim
Knight:
We believe that the duty to have regard to the
guidance is vital to support the schools in delivering the impartiality
requirement and to raise standards in careers education, which is
something that we all agree is necessary and desirable. In
practice,
schools could disregard the guidance, as long as they met the duty to
provide impartial careers advice. If, however, they disregarded the
guidance and were subsequently found to be failing in their duty, it is
likely that questions would be asked as to why they had chosen not to
follow it. In many ways, the amendment is therefore
unnecessary.
I wish to
ensure that schools are under a duty to have regard
to guidance that includes a set of core principles. That has been
supported by key stakeholders we consulted on the Bill. Along with
other measures, I believe that it will drive up quality so that
students receive high-quality and impartial careers advice and
information. On the basis of my assurances, I hope that the hon. Member
for South Holland and The Deepings will withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes:
The Minister’s fist is never clunking. At
most, it is the fist of an accomplished and subtle pugilist. On that
basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
| 
