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

Baroness Morris of Yardley Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Morris of Yardley]

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).

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

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.

I looked at presenting this in two ways. There is the universal provision—the institutions and the bits of the system that are designed to meet the needs of all people, whatever their background or ability—but, too often, this does not meet the needs of people with disabilities. These things affect every single one of us, whether you are talking about schools, colleges or workplaces; about how we assess the qualifications we give; about careers education and guidance; or about vocational pathways, apprenticeships or recruitment practices. They are part of the universal provision in this society, and they work less well on the whole for people with disabilities than they do for anyone else.

When you look at the specialist provision specifically designed to support young people with disabilities transitioning from education to work, you find some excellent examples, and we have lots of them in our report. But, on the whole, the summary is that they lack the continuity, with Governments of all parties changing names, changing focus, scrapping one thing and introducing another, and they lack the consistent funding at the necessary rate that is absolutely essential if they are to succeed. We often get isolated examples or pilot schemes at risk of being scrapped. That was one of the most frustrating things. When you sat and listened to somebody giving evidence about something that worked, you just wondered why, as a Government and as a society, we did not seem to have the capacity to roll that out to everybody else.

If this problem is to be solved, the transition from education to work has three elements that need to work. First, what goes on in our educational institutions needs to work; secondly, that process of moving from one to the other needs to work; and thirdly, it needs to work when people get into employment. We all know that, whatever our background or ability, those transitions from one set of institutions or one set of support services to the other is the place where you most often fall off the bus; that is where it most often goes wrong. That is even more so if you are a young person with a disability. I just want to look at each of those areas and examine some of the evidence we took.

On the educational institutions, we made a number of SEND recommendations. I shall not touch on those, because I know that the Government are producing a report that I hope will be launched shortly. I just hope that the Minister and the Government have looked at our recommendations. It would be great to see them reflected in the recommendations in the SEND review to be published in the new year, but I do not think it is particularly a priority for me to go over that now. When we look at these institutions, there are no doubt lots of individual lecturers, teachers, tutors and classroom assistants who do a great job. There are lots of people who make a successful transition from school to work and can name particular individuals without whom that would not have been possible. But we also heard that there are individuals who still have low expectations of what might be possible for somebody who has a disability. Both those things are true, which means that how well you get on is as likely to depend on who happens to teach you as anything else.

However, I really wanted to talk about the system in those educational institutions. I know that the Minister is particularly interested in this and I want to spend a bit of time on it in the hope that we might get somewhere with it. I know that the Government have produced a White Paper on 16-plus qualifications and vocational routes and I know that it is a priority. I also understand well that we are a high-skilled nation and that we have to push people to levels 3, 4, 5, 6 and wherever you want to go. What we heard was missing was anything substantial at levels 1 and 2. We are not saying for a minute that all young people with disabilities are at level 1 and 2; they are all levels, including master’s and PhD—the highest levels in the land. But some are at level 1 and 2 and working towards level 3 but may never get there.

We heard from a particularly impressive principal of a college in the East Midlands,

“we find ourselves scrimping around for qualifications”.

He is working with young people who are learning skills and working towards targets, but they are not recognised by any formal qualification because they never reach level 3 or anything like that. What was lacking was a robust qualification at levels 1 and 2 that can be used, first, to record the achievement and, secondly, as a stepping stone, perhaps over a number of years, to something at a higher level. Young people may be learning skills and working towards targets, but they may never be recognised in any formal qualification because we have not incorporated that in our schools framework.

One of the things that rang a bell with me, because it was familiar from when I taught all those years ago—it was sad to think it had not improved—was young people with disabilities, who were not at level 3, being put on one college course after another. These claimed to prepare them for employment and a job, but they did not. It was six weeks on this and six weeks on that—“Take another course. You’ve finished a year; sign up for something else”—but none of these were vocational pathways. When that young person started that course, they and their parents believed: they had the same enthusiasm, aspiration and hope as somebody starting a university degree or a professional qualification. It is no different; it is where they are at. They are as ambitious as anyone else, but there are too many courses that do not lead to a meaningful qualification and a route into employment.

So I ask the Minister to reflect, in the work she is doing on post-16 qualifications, to check what the vocational route is for young people with disabilities. As I say all the time, I am not putting all young people with disabilities into the level 1 or level 2 qualification framework as I know that is not true, but it is where we found a lot of work still to be done. The same is true for apprenticeships. It must be possible for somebody to go on an apprenticeship scheme below level 3. They have a role to play and a contribution to make. Some of the most heartening things we heard were from young people in work in level 1 or level 2 jobs feeling as proud as possible. When you spoke to their employer, they said they were useful members of that company. If we do not get that right, we are all losers.

The last thing that I want to mention about these education institutions is that this group does not get work experience. It is difficult to sort it out and they are not a priority. Can the Government make sure—especially when they are rolling out the work experience entitlement in years 10 and 11—that this group does not get left behind?

Then there is the transition into work. Low expectations in school move into low expectations in the workplace. I want to mention a few things we found problems with. First, careers advisers are great, but we heard time and again from young people with disabilities that the advisers had no specialist training and there was no continuity. That is not a criticism of careers advisers; it is a criticism of the system. Every young person, whether they have a EHCP or not, should have careers advice from a careers officer who has some sort of specialism in their needs.

Secondly, we had good reports about disability employment advisers, but there are only just over 700 of them, which means one or two for each Jobcentre Plus. That does not work. There are good schemes, such as Access to Work. When it works at its best, it really helps, but the shortest waiting time to get it in place is 90 days. By that time, we would all have lost enthusiasm, let alone somebody who has probably had to fight hard right the way through the education system to get to that point.

We spent a lot of time hearing about things that work, so what does work? Supported internships work. I know from chatting to the Minister that she has a historic connection with Whipps Cross Hospital. We left our day there absolutely enthused, chattering all the way back about what we had seen. It was out of this world. It should be recognised far and wide because it works.

Supported employment schemes, such as Connect to Work, work. We met young people on supported employment schemes. They told us different stories from the people whose opportunities I described previously.

I met employers and people who run vocational profiling projects in Essex and Kent and they explained how they were an integral part of careers guidance. Vocational profiling works and makes a difference.

What all those things have in common is that they manage to join the joins. They are not disjointed; they have some continuity. They are examples of schemes where work takes place between a young person and a specialist to identify the young person’s strengths, skills and aspirations and then match them to an appropriate job or career.

It took me some time to grasp what the difference was. What we usually do is give someone a job and then, once they are in employment, try to fit them in or find something they can do—or compromise, or spend six months preparing for what they can do. What this does, in conjunction with the employer, is work out with the young person what their strengths are, so that, when they do go into work, a job match has taken place, the employer understands the young person’s need, and there is continuity.

Those are the underpinning things that happen: supported internships, supported employment and vocational pathways. That is why 60% to 70% of children on supported internships that are part of the education system go into full-time work, and those who are on supported employment are more likely to go into full-time work than if they have not been in a supported-employment system. So what we found there was a successful route into work. The frustration is that that is taking place at the same time as this merry- go-round of college courses, six months at a time, which are not a vocational route into work.

I will say just one thing here. Some of those courses are available only to people with EHCPs. So I say to the Minister that, when the Government are looking at the SEND review in general, if they decide to have a more inclusive framework, it would be awful if access to EHCPs was lost: I would like to see that access go to anybody who has a need, not anybody who has managed to fight to get an EHCP.

I will finish by looking at the employment bit. It is the same story. We heard stories about where it works. I think the difference here was in culture and aspiration. Changing culture is more difficult than changing policy. But, where it has been changed, it is a success story. We found a lot of employers who were honestly nervous about taking on people with disabilities. They worried that they would say the wrong thing and it would not go down well with their employees, and they worried that there would be an economic cost. We also heard from the Chambers of Commerce, the Humber Learning Consortium, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Business Disability Forum that it can work. So, again, it is an example of people paddling like mad below the water to get some bits of it working, and they can give us evidence about what works.

I will finish by referring to the title of our report. The first bit—the strapline Think Work First—was something one of our witnesses said to us. She was running a very successful project getting young people with disabilities into work. She said that, so often, when you are working with young people with disabilities, you do not “think work first”; you think of lots of other things. She said, “It’s tough. If you want to get people into work, you think work first. That’s what the young people want”. I believe that is what we all want, and we have to have it higher up the agenda than we do at the moment. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)]

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.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

It was longer ago than that.

[Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD)]

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.

Of course, there have been a number of initiatives by successive Governments to address these issues since: the Education Act 1981, the Children and Families Act 2014 and the Commons Select Committee report of 2019 all sought changes to the landscape and tried to address the issue of education and skills for employment training. Indeed, the current EHC plans and access to work are positive initiatives to address the issues, but so much more needs to be done.

The Government’s response to the committee’s report is, frankly, outstanding. Nineteen of the 36 recommendations have been accepted in full; a further 12 have been partially accepted; four have been noted for action; and only one has been partially rejected.

Incidentally, I say to the committee that, two years after the production of the Warnock report in 1978, the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, said, “On all the main conclusions and recommendations, we were in complete agreement”. I would like the Minister to agree with Baroness Thatcher that that is the case here as well.

The current legislation is not sufficiently strong or appropriate to reduce the 30% disability employment gap that has existed for the past 50 years. Further legislation, which will require action, is probably necessary. There may be criticism, or indeed ridicule, by some that the current Government’s mission, expressed in response to our report, saying that

“economic growth is at the heart of the policy to improve access to work”,

is unrealistic. But the recommendations in this report provide, time after time, opportunities to carry out the promised mission and I fully support them.

The title Think Work First: the Transition from Education to Work for Young Disabled People is the philosophy that needs to be in line from nursery to employment. But, frankly, that is not and never has been the case. I understand just how challenging it is to link employers in both the public and private sectors with appropriate levels of support for SEN and disabled students. But that must be the Government’s objective because, if it does not happen, changes to the education system to improve links to employers will quite frankly be very difficult. How the agreed recommendations will be initiated and, crucially, how they will be financed and when they will be introduced are what we need to hear in the Minister’s response today.

For me, the following are priorities. Too often in the past, SEN was regarded as the sole area for guiding pupils from education to employment. Thankfully, the committee, and indeed the Government, embraced as the key challenge that the Government must include in future policies all young people with disabilities, long-term health conditions and special educational needs, and their families. I say “their families” because what is constantly missing from successive Governments in support of young disabled students moving to employment or further education is including parents or carers in research and decision-making. We heard that from our witnesses and it is something we should emphasise.

Committee members were deeply moved by the description by both parents and students of the mediocre level of support that often exists in schools. Two fundamental challenges emerged, as they have over many years: the need for better careers education and the need for more appropriate internships. The previous Government’s commitment to double the number of supported internships should be continued and indeed combined with the proposal to develop an English version of Scotland’s Compass tool, to assist the transfer from education to employment. This would certainly help the transfer and support system, but schools will need to radically increase their existing careers education system, which frankly has rarely been successful, particularly for pupils with SEN and disabilities. Education, health and care plans are extremely useful, but the continued failure to adequately fund them must be addressed to prevent the constant delays that simply undermine support and lead to people leaving their employment.

Crucially, too, the Government must totally review the careers service in schools. To be honest, it hardly exists in many schools. This affects most students but can be devastating for SEN and disabled students. The committee wanted to see this issue seriously reviewed, with an analysis of the number of existing careers advisers, their training and their qualifications. It would be useful if the Minister could say whether this has happened or will happen and whether the introduction of improved qualifications is being considered.

The final points that I wish to make concern employment opportunities for young disabled people. Unless there is a change to current policy, which will be radically affected by the use of artificial intelligence, et cetera, the situation examined by Baroness Warnock, which has not really changed in 50 years, will simply continue for decades to come.

We can radically increase the quality of education and skills in our schools, colleges and universities for disabled and SEN young people, but unless as a nation we can increase the level of employment for young people—and, indeed, more mature people—in both public and private environments, little will change. The committee discussed how this would be possible, but without a bold recruitment policy to include a wider range of employers, it simply will not happen. I was disappointed when the Minister did not fully accept the committee’s proposal to seriously improve the availability of ready-to-work programmes such as that provided by Think Forward, which would have engaged local authorities with employers much more readily. I hope that the Minister agrees that without a legal framework to expand links between schools, colleges and universities, as well as local authorities, the increased links will not happen.

Interestingly, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Austria and Denmark all have legal employment requirements, which benefit companies as well as individuals, while Luxembourg is recognised as having one of the most successful arrangements for engaging employers with disabled young and elderly people, not only in Europe but throughout the world. There, companies with 25 employees or more are required by law to include a quota of disabled young people, and are compensated by removing social security payments and receiving benefits for an excess of basic requirements. Frankly, we have to give something to employers that will encourage them to do it, rather than simply saying that they must do it ad hoc.

Surely if, as the Minister stated in reply to the committee’s report, the Government

“was elected to deliver change”

and, crucially,

“is committed to tackling economic inactivity, particularly where it is driven by ill health”

which I totally agree with, taking a bold set of actions, including legislation, before the next general election, will help silence the critics and reward the significant population of disabled and SEN young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I will briefly reply to the debate and thank the speakers for their contributions. There has been a lot of unanimity and there is no need to go over the points again, but there was a good balance between optimism and concern. I think that, for somebody listening in, the optimism won out. This is a moment, because the opportunity for really fundamental change does not come around often. If you miss it when it is there, you sometimes do not get another chance for a decade or longer. With the SEND review, with the vocational qualifications framework being changed, with further education becoming a priority for government, with the skills White Paper and with the evidence of what works, quite honestly if we do not grasp this now, we should not be in the job. It is that important.

I particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, who were not members of our committee. They brought different perspectives, and we had not looked at the angles that certainly the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, guided us to, in terms of entrepreneurship. If there is another iteration of that, I would be pleased to hear the Minister say that she would take that back. The noble Lord, Lord Shinkwin, always brings, with his connections, a lot of information that we miss. If we can gather that information and add it to what we have done, we will have something helpful for the Government.

I thank the Minister for her positive, thorough, thoughtful and optimistic reply to our debate. I am encouraged by some of the things she said, particularly on supported internships, where there has been a degree of concern in the sector. That can build and build unless something is said, so I very much welcome the comments made on that. I finish by saying that the wish of our committee would be to see our recommendations embedded in the documents and policy frameworks to be published by the Government in the weeks and months to come. Then it really will have been a report that was worth its while.

Motion agreed.