Think Work First: The Transition from Education to Work for Young Disabled People (Public Services Committee Report)

Motion to Take Note

Moved by

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Public Services Committee Think Work First: The Transition from Education to Work for Young Disabled People (1st Report, HL Paper 12).

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this report from the Public Services Committee. In doing so, I will offer some thanks—first, to the team of officials who supported us. I do not want people to think that we have more officials than anyone else, but I have a particularly long list, because it was Sam Kenny’s last inquiry as clerk, it was Dan Hepworth’s first inquiry as our new clerk, and we had Nick Boorer in the interregnum. We also had Tom Burke, Claire Coast-Smith and Clayton Gurney, as well as a special adviser, Professor Charlotte Pearson. In a difficult time, with a general election in between and a new Parliament, that team of officials served us very well, and I am grateful for their expertise.

I thank the officials of the many departments that contributed to this, but I have to say to the Minister— I realise that this was not due to her or her department—that we waited 10 months for a reply to our committee’s report. It was particularly annoying that this was during a period when this issue was at the top of the Government’s agenda. An excuse that, “We can’t reply to your report because we’re discussing the policy” did not go well with us. Could the Minister therefore kindly pass back that 10 months is too long, when the expectation is two months? Apart from that, we are very grateful to the officials who gave of their expertise.

I thank my committee members who, as ever, worked hard to bring their knowledge and skills. They helped to make it a happy committee that has brought about a good report. Most of all, I thank our witnesses—there were many over the year or more that we took evidence. I do not want to single them out, but I will single out two groups. One is the young people with disabilities who, in round-table discussions, talked to us about their lives. We probably learned more from them than from anybody else.

This is really—to use a football phrase—a report of two parts. The statistics paint a story of things not going right: of failure and of us not being successful in this area. It is still the case that, at 19, 43% of students with disabilities get level 2 in English and maths, compared to 84% of students overall. Look at the university drop-out rate and the drop-out rate from apprenticeships: you are more likely to drop out if you are a young person with disabilities than if you are not. The employment gap of 30% has barely moved in decades, and the pay gap shows that people with disabilities do not get paid as much as those who do not have disabilities. All that is true, and it is all one picture or view of how we are doing in this area, but it is not the only picture we found. There were many evidence sessions where we finished listening to examples of good practice that left us inspired, encouraged and knowing that we could get this right if only we made the best available to everybody. Overall, the system is not a success story, but overall there is hope and expectation that it could be.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, and I commend her and her committee members on producing such an important and well-considered report. I will pick up on the point that the noble Baroness ended on, which is the title of the report. For me, it implicitly recognises that, for too long, work has been the very last thing that policymakers and politicians have instinctively associated with disabled people. The preconception that disabled people cannot contribute or realise their potential at work and, on merit, reach the top of their professions goes to the heart of our professional psyche. Indeed, its roots go deep in our societal culture. It is a culture which spawned the term “invalid”, a term still experienced today, in practice, in so many aspects of their life by disabled people.

So I thank the committee not only for recognising the scale of the challenge and for proposing a joined-up package of solutions, but for the title of its report, Think Work First. It is not just absolutely appropriate; it is instructive of the scale of the change in mindset that is required. For that is exactly the change we must make, and quickly—not just as policymakers but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, implied, all of us.

I will give two figures. The UK’s £2.9 trillion national debt and the £100 billion that we spent in the last year servicing that debt surely underline the fact that we are all paying the consequences and the costs of the 30% disability pay gap highlighted in the report and the unsustainable disability benefits bill for those who are out of work. It is therefore in all our interests to think work first. I am glad that, as the noble Baroness said, in several respects the Government have indicated that they intend to do so and to think work first, whether on vocational profiling, supported internships, in-principle support in education, including through EHCPs, and mandatory reporting of the disability pay gap, the efficacy of which, I argue, depends on disability employment reporting as well—this is a theme to which I will return. The fact that the Government are engaging with some of the committee report’s recommendations is surely a fitting tribute to its deliberations and its 36 common-sense recommendations.

My Lords, as ever, I feel quite embarrassed to follow that particular contribution. I begin my contribution by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for leading this inquiry so effectively, as indeed she has led every other inquiry since we worked together in the House of Commons 15 years ago, or whenever it was.

It was longer ago than that.

Was it longer? I am sorry; I try to think I am younger than I am.

This was a very challenging report. As ever, I thank the committee clerks for their excellent preparation of material and witnesses, particularly young people and their parents. Sometimes, when you do an inquiry of this sort and you meet real people who are involved with their youngsters in an issue that is really life-threatening, you go away thinking that you have to write reports that are fundamental to government support. That is really what has happened.

For me, this was an extremely moving inquiry, as it reflected quite dramatically my own involvement in the education of young people with highly complex educational and physical challenges during the whole of my career. In 1978—I am not going to do it year by year—I was given my first headship, of Ormesby School in Cleveland, at the same time that the late Baroness Warnock produced her ground-breaking report on the future education of children with special educational needs and physical impairments. For a variety of reasons, partly due to an on-site specialist primary school for children with complex physical challenges, the local authority and the governors agreed to adopt the Warnock recommendations and include, at secondary level, all pupils in south Cleveland with severe physical difficulties, including a key number of pupils who were severely disabled due to thalidomide. With the support of the Department for Education, we became the first state school in the UK to make such a fundamental decision.

The teaching challenge was significant but highly rewarding. However, post-16 education and employment were even more challenging, and I constantly receive letters from my former pupils and their parents who, despite their excellent educational skills, could not get appropriate employment. That challenge remained with me for the rest of my career. When I moved to Leeds, with the support of the former Labour MP, George Mudie, who I think all your Lordships will know, we expanded the inclusion of pupils with special educational needs and physical needs to include pupils with impaired sight and hearing, and Down syndrome. However, the task of moving pupils on to skill training or employment, even in a highly progressive city such as Leeds, became even more challenging, despite our attempts to include external and internal career staff.

My Lords, at the outset, I once again emphasise how greatly the committee was helped by hearing from children with a disability and their parents. They very generously helped us to have an insight and to understand something of their experiences. That was so valuable.

It is worth while constantly reminding ourselves that childhood is a time of very great change and individual growth. It is the foundation of personal development. That being so, I am sure we all agree that, as a society, our aim should be for each and every child to have every opportunity to reach their full potential. Of course, change brings with it uncertainty, so it is not possible to predict what the outcome for each child may be. That said, sadly, there is often the temptation in some areas to make an assumption about the future prospects of each child. This especially applies to a child with a disability. Indeed, for children with a disability, sad to say, it is not unusual for a catalogue to be created from a very early age of things that they will never be able to do or skills that they will never possess. That is tragic.

This is why we should put in place, at a very early stage in a child’s life, both a personal development plan and a programme of support, for the child and their parents. The parents of a child with a disability often face very real challenges, so they deserve our support and encouragement. Alas, the evidence from the committee shows that, at best, the services provided for children with a disability and their parents are, to put it mildly, very patchy. Indeed, it is right to record that in some places, the services offered to children with a disability and their parents were seriously inadequate.

The movement from education to employment is a milestone in the life of every child. In the case of a child with a disability, it is a key stage in their development. In too many places, however, the arrangements are unpredictable, unreliable and negative. The good news, though, is that the committee heard of some heartwarming and outstanding work with children with a disability at this important stage in their lives. In each case, the good work was based on a vision and the determination to ensure that each child matters. In some areas, there was a well-developed plan of preparation for the transition from school to work in place for each child. In other areas, there was nothing.

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who has been incredibly kind and generous to me since I first joined the Public Services Select Committee. I am sorry that he will be leaving us very shortly. I also pay tribute to and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, for excellently chairing the committee, leading to the report today. I echo the comments of many noble Lords in thanking the excellent team who provide the support that we require.

The gap in employment between disabled and non-disabled people had been narrowing for a number of years, at least until the Covid-19 pandemic. But since then, progress has stalled. According to the latest estimates, just over half of working-age disabled people are employed, compared to more than four in five non-disabled people. Tackling this gap is, of course, important from a financial standpoint, not least given the significant increase in the costs of working-age welfare and the broad consensus across the political divide of the need to reduce this. Crucially, tackling this gap for those who can work and want to work is far more important on a human level.

There will always be some people unable to work due to disability and they must get the full support that they require. As disabled people transition from education, we must do everything we can to help them find suitable and fulfilling jobs. Making use of all the talent we have in this country means more people with the security of work and with the independence, improved well-being and social inclusion that it brings.

It is timely for the Public Services Committee, of which I am a member, to have undertaken this inquiry: Think Work First: the Transition from Education to Work for Young Disabled People. The committee’s extensive report makes over 30 recommendations, ranging from education and employment services to workplace rights and support to employers. I hope that these will provide much food for thought for the department.

My Lords, I am very pleased to contribute to this debate on an important and extremely thoughtful report from the House of Lords Public Services Committee. I thank the committee members and their chair for this great publication.

I read it through both a personal and professional lens. After my accident nearly 30 years ago, I was lucky: I had access to resources, mental and physical support, and people in business who believed I could still contribute. Many young disabled people do not have that combination today. That is what this report challenges us to change.

The scale of the issue is sobering, as we have already heard today: the figures have barely moved in a decade. If we halve that gap, the Government estimate an economic benefit of £50 billion a year through higher tax receipts and reduced welfare spending. This is not just a social challenge—it is a national economic priority, particularly at this time of growth focus.

The committee identifies several structural problems: low expectations in schools, careers advice that is too generic, weak co-ordination between education, employment and health, and employers who want to help but do not know how. It also spotlights what works: internships, vocational profiling and integrated services. I agree wholeheartedly with all these points; the evidence base is strong. But I want to go further in three areas where we can act faster or think differently: co-design, partnership through business networks and entrepreneurship.

Too often, systems are built for young disabled people, not with them. One in four told the committee that they received no careers advice relevant to their disability. Too many described leaving education as “falling off a cliff.” That is a design failure, not a resource one. Co-design means embedding lived experience from the start: shaping programmes, testing ideas and feeding back on what works.

My Lords, report was, for me, slightly depressing but also reassuring. It was slightly depressing because I have either said or agreed with everything said in this report over the past 20 or 30 years. A series of themes here have dominated government ever since it has looked at this area, particularly in the education field. It comes down to the fact that you have X number of people who do not fit the education system that well who are still going through it.

Then we come to a series of roadblocks, such as level 2 English language. The president of the British Dyslexia Association, who is dyslexic, of course would say this, would he not? But you suddenly bump into things that get in the way. The one battle that I won partially was thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Nash— I give him eternal credit for taking on his own department—who turned round and said that a recognised dyslexic should not be made to pass functional skills English at GCSE level with a C, as it was at the time, to get their apprenticeship. It was inspired by meeting people like carpenters and hairdressers, who could not get a job that would allow them to be employed properly because they had a disability that meant they could not do something. That took a long time—and that degree of rigidity in standards is something that we must resist. To go through all the dys’s, a dyspraxic just will not fill out the form in time. For a dyscalculic, it is often even worse. I recently met somebody who had failed maths 14 times in trying to get an apprenticeship. The degree of black humour builds, does it not? We get around it; we do not address it. The Government have to interject here, to remove the traps on the way through.

I hope we are about to hear—the Minister is being threatened by a piece of paper from her officials—that we will try to remove this with a little common sense. It is just one of the things I think we have to do. We have to adapt the education and training programme to get through. I hope this will come forward. I was ignorant before I started this that Scotland has the Compass tool; apparently it works. I hope the Government will tell us how they will integrate this, or something very like it, into our own system, guiding people through.