Education Bill

My Lords, the amendments in this group aim to improve the careers advice to which young people would be entitled in the classroom. They cover different aspects of the provision that we think pupils have a right to expect. While each of our amendments has validity in its own right, they have also been consolidated into Amendment 57CA. The Government's proposals in Clause 27 amend the Education Act 1997 so that in the future maintained schools and pupil referral units would be required to secure independent, impartial careers advice for pupils aged 13 to 16. However, schools will be free to decide how best to fulfil this duty based on the needs of their pupils and as the Bill stands there is no guarantee that the advice would be from a trained professional, nor that it would be face to face. Our amendments would ensure that all pupils receive face-to-face careers advice from year 8 onwards. This is the year that the majority of pupils turn 14 and start to make decisions about their study options for GCSE, and it is vital that they understand the implications of those choices for their future careers. Our amendments also require that advice is provided by a qualified provider, not a teacher to whom the responsibility has been given as an afterthought or someone employed by an accredited service provider who is none the less not personally qualified. This is vital to ensure a consistent quality of careers advice throughout the education system. We had an excellent debate on this subject in Grand Committee and noble Lords from all sides of the House recognised the need to drive up standards in careers advice for young people, and the need to influence them early enough to make wise choices about their course of study. I acknowledge receipt, rather belatedly, of the Minister's letter of 20 July, in which he tried to address those concerns. Regretfully, I do not think the letter goes far enough and I do not believe that his proposal of guidance to schools will give sufficient guarantees to young people who should have a right to these services. I do not believe that measuring outcomes via the destination of pupils or relying on a future Ofsted report, both of which would take time, gives pupils and parents sufficient reassurance about the provision that will take place now. We all understand that careers decisions for young people are very complex these days, more so than when many of us were making our first career choices some time ago. There is increased competition for higher education places, a greater range of opportunities, including apprenticeships, and an awareness nowadays that jobs are less often jobs for life. Young people may need to equip themselves for a range of jobs and a degree of flexibility in their career plans. They also have to factor in the higher costs of staying on in education, which has not been made any easier by the cutting of EMA and the increase in tuition fees. Evidence shows that lack of information about the choices available is seen by young people as one of the main barriers to their participation post-16 and an even greater number see this lack of information as having placed constraints on their choices post-16. They need expert help and guidance on a regular basis to help them achieve their ambitions. The Government believe it is sufficient to offer careers guidance by phone or online to the vast majority of pupils but we fundamentally disagree. Where a young person has access to a wide network of family and friends with a variety of careers, phone and internet advice might be helpful. Where a young person's family is able to arrange internships and job trials for them, it might be helpful. However, phone or internet advice might be helpful but it is not enough. It does not meet the challenge of ensuring that young people get nuanced guidance, tailored to their talents, drive and ambitions. Of course, this is particularly true for young people who do not have access to a social network of people in a variety of jobs or who do not have role models in different careers, and even more so for young people from families where there is intergenerational worklessness. However, it is not just a certain category of young people who need face-to-face advice, and I do not accept the Minister's proposal that disadvantaged pupils and those deemed to be at risk should be singled out for some kind of special personal service. Having studied the Minister's letter, I do not see any guarantee that even disadvantaged children will be given this special help. All young people should have access to someone who can talk through their skills and aptitudes and encourage them to aim high. With the best will in the world, I do not know how a computer would be able to do this. There is particular skill in drawing out young people and getting them to talk about their ambitions. This applies equally to middle-class children, as anyone who has attempted to talk to their own teenage children, or those of friends, will know. Without high-quality careers advice for all young people, think of the waste to them and our society. If young people's ambitions and talents are not nurtured, so that they can go on to be the best that they can be, and pursue the careers in which they might flourish, think of the lost potential. Good careers advice can make a big difference in driving social mobility, in expanding pupils' horizons, and in helping them to see themselves working in different environments. If Britain is going to be successful in an increasingly competitive world, we need young people to lead the charge. Instead, at the moment youth unemployment is at record levels, and college enrolment rates have fallen for the first time in 12 years. Interestingly, they went into decline shortly after the EMA was cut, but that is an issue for another day. It is more important than ever, therefore, that young people get high quality careers advice, so that they can go on to fulfil their potential, and we can avoid a further increase in NEETs. I mentioned earlier the need for those providing careers advice to be qualified. I believe this to be essential. In his letter, the Minister talked about the Careers Profession Alliance creating a register of professional members. That is fine, but what is not clear is whether everyone involved in giving advice to young people therefore has to be qualified—perhaps the Minister could clarify this. In the mean time, our Amendments 59B and 59D would require the Government to issue guidance specifying the qualifications that would be necessary for every individual providing that independent careers advice. In Grand Committee we discussed the appalling waste of Connexions centres, which are closing around the country. There are already thousands of skilled careers practitioners losing their jobs at a time when young people are facing some of the biggest challenges of a generation. If the future is to be schools-based, we should be utilising the skills that already exist, as the core of a new generation of careers professionals able to go into schools and help our young people make the right choices. This would have the added advantage that the advice would be guaranteed to be impartial, rather than subordinated to the self-interest of the school, which might be the outcome if the decisions are delegated purely to schools alone. This should not just be an optional provision in schools: it should be a right, set out not in guidance, but in the Bill. I therefore draw your Lordships' attention in particular to our Amendment 57CA, which summarises our position, with Amendment 59D being a consequential amendment. I also give advance notice that we would like to withdraw Amendment 59A in favour of Amendment 58, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on professional qualifications. I beg to move.