Lecturer wins £44k payout after five-year safety row with college group

Capital City College Group has been ordered to pay over £44,000 to an art and design lecturer after it failed to act on classroom safety complaints, including regular flooding, causing him to resign.

An employment tribunal judge found the college group had constructively dismissed Kevin Hope, a former art and design lecturer at City and Islington College in London, when it failed to address flooding concerns raised by Hope over the years and failed to deal with a grievance with a lab technician.

The judge acknowledged that the college made “strenuous and repeated efforts” to stop the leaks but had failed for “many years” to consider applying for capital funding for renovations.

He also said that only a “major” renovation of the “old and dilapidated” Centre for Business, Arts and Technology building could permanently stop the flooding.

“[The college] strove to work within its limited budget as a public sector organisation and it was only after many years of failed attempts that it could justify a capital bid for over £2 million (the funds necessary to renovate),” the judge said.

The college group has been awarded £2.4 million of capital funding to completely renovate the CBAT building including the provision of a new roof. The project is currently at tender stage awaiting quotes from contractors.

The former lecturer won his complaint of constructive dismissal – whereby he resigned because of his employer’s inaction around the flooding and his working relationship with the lab technician.

For a constructive dismissal case to succeed, there must be a “breach by the employer of an essential term, such as the implied term of trust and confidence, and the employee must resign in response to that breach,” according to the tribunal.

The college was ordered to pay £44,068.33 to Hope as a compensatory award including loss of earnings and a 15 per cent ACAS uplift.

‘Last straw’

The flooding in the CBAT building at the college’s Camden Road campus began in 2017.

The court heard the flooding was caused by problems with the roof, windows and gutters as well as a Japanese Knotweed from the next-door building, which had damaged the foundations causing water to come up through the floor.

From then on, Hope reported the leaks as well as various problems in one of his workshops to a lab technician, such as the lack of resources and personal protective equipment (PPE).

But in September 2020, Hope addressed the failure to procure the protective equipment face-to-face with the technician, and three days later, the technician lodged a formal grievance against Hope.

Hope then lodged his own complaint against the technician and continued to email HR for the next 10 months about the lack of progress with the complaints.

The court heard that a further episode of flooding in August 2021 was Hope’s last straw, causing him to resign just a few days later.

The judge ruled that the both the flooding and the relationship with the lab tech were each an effective cause of his resignation.

“It follows that the grievance failure, being so concerned with these, was an effective cause of his resignation,” the judge ruled.

“In this context, it is plausible that a further episode of flooding on 8/9 August 2021 could have confirmed to the claimant that nothing was ever going to improve, thus acting as the last straw,” they added.

A Capital City College Group spokesperson said: “It is unfortunate that while Mr Hope’s claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed, the judge did award some costs linked to constructive dismissal. The amount to be paid is yet to be confirmed.

“We regret that attempts to prevent this building flooding, caused by Japanese knotweed, were not successful until the college was able to secure a significant capital grant from the government to make the substantial investment required. We are pleased to say these capital works are now underway and will futureproof the building for all staff and students.”

Kevin Hope was contacted for comment.

Former Ofsted chief to lead watchdog’s independent review

Ofsted has named a former chief inspector to lead the independent inquiry into its response to Ruth Perry’s death. 

Dame Christine Gilbert, who served as Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector from 2006 until 2011 and now chairs the Education Endowment Foundation, will lead the learning review.

A coroner ruled in December the Caversham Primary School headteacher’s death by suicide was contributed to by an Ofsted inspection. 

In her prevention of future deaths report issued in the wake of Perry’s inquest, coroner Heidi Connor noted that “no learning review was conducted by Ofsted” into its handling of her death and that there was “no policy requiring this to be done”.

Ofsted pledged to appoint a “recognised expert from the education sector” to lead the review. 

Review will not reexamine Caversham inspection

The review, to start this month, will consider the actions Ofsted took in response to hearing about the death of Perry.

This will include Ofsted’s communications, its engagement with stakeholders and information-sharing regarding the incident, the support Ofsted offered internally to staff, including inspectors, and how its approach was informed by clearly defined policies.

Gilbert will have “access to relevant internal records and be able to speak with any member of Ofsted staff she chooses”, the watchdog said. Staff can speak anonymously and will not be named in the report.

She will also have the opportunity to meet Perry’s family for the review and will be assisted by Ofsted in “obtaining any specialist advice she requires, such as in the areas of mental health and well-being”.

But the review will not examine the inspection of Caversham primary, in November 2022, or the judgements it made.

‘Concern about former HMCI leading review’

Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union NAHT, said Gilbert has the “insight and determination to carry out a comprehensive review”.

But he added it was “important to confront head-on the concern that some might express about a former chief inspector reviewing the work of Ofsted”.

“It is therefore crucial that the review demonstrates a robust level of independence and impartiality.”

Gilbert said she “intends to take a very detailed and thorough look at all areas of Ofsted’s work – from the moment the Caversham inspection ended, through to the conclusion of the Coroner’s inquest”.

She added Perry’s death was “a deeply sad and shocking event” that Ofsted has “accepted that it is vitally important for it to learn from”.

Ofsted will publish a written report on Gilbert’s findings and its response as part of its wider ‘Big Listen’ consultation response in Autumn.

Recommendations will focus on “future actions” the watchdog can take to “improve our policies and processes for responding to incidents”.

Ofsted’s chief inspector Sir Martyn Olliver added Gilbert has a “wealth of experience in schools, in inspection, and in undertaking a range of reviews”. 

Her work will “help us build an Ofsted that is trusted by the professionals we inspect and regulate, as well as the children, parents and carers we are here to serve”, he added.

Who is Dame Christine Gilbert?

Gilbert had an 18-year teaching career, including a stint as a secondary headteacher, before becoming chief executive of Tower Hamlets council.

During her tenure as Ofsted chief inspector from 2006 to 2011, she oversaw the watchdog’s expansion to include wider social care and adult learning responsibilities. She also launched a “crackdown” on ‘boring’ teaching.

Gilbert now chairs the Education Endowment Foundation and schools partnership Camden for Learning, and has led several other education reviews, including the academies commission ‘Unleashing Greatness’ report in 2013. 

She was also part of the review team that supported Baroness Casey in her probe into the Metropolitan Police. The damning report concluded the force is institutionally racist, misogynistic and homophobic. 

Gilbert received a damehood in 2022.

Not all inspectors have done mental health training yet

The inspectorate also previously pledged that all its inspectors would complete new mental health awareness training by the end of March. 

Last week, the watchdog said that all inspectors currently conducting inspections have completed the training.

A spokesperson said that in total, 3,318 out of 3,414 inspectors, 97 per cent,  completed the course by March 31. 

Of the 96 who did not, they said 31 are employees who have been absent from work due to illness or parental leave, they will be required to complete the training when they return to work and before returning to inspection. 

The other 65 are contractors who will either complete the training before they return to inspection, or will stop working for Ofsted, they added. 

Ofsted rolls out key complaints process changes

Two key changes to Ofsted’s updated complaints procedure come into force today, following a consultation last year. 

The watchdog has also added detail to its policy on pausing inspections in exceptional circumstances and widened it to apply across all childcare, education and social care inspections and regulatory visits, whereas before it just applied to schools.

New complaints rules kick in

New arrangements for considering formal challenges to Ofsted inspections apply from today.

Schools and FE providers can now seek a review of their inspection, including inspector conduct and the judgements made, by submitting a formal complaint when they receive their draft report.

Providers concerned their complaint did not correctly follow the right process can also now to go directly to the Independent Complaints Adjudication Service for Ofsted, after its internal review process was axed.

The inspectorate committed to making the changes in November following a consultation which received more than 1,500 responses from providers in all sectors it inspects.

More details of pausing inspections

In January, Ofsted said school inspections could be paused for up to five days. 

Today’s updated guidance details how long the others organisations it inspects can pause for before an inspection would automatically become incomplete.

For instance, for inspections of initial teacher training, the early career framework and national professional qualifications, further education and skills or area SEND, a pause can last up to 15 days. 

It has also combined its deferring, pausing and gathering additional evidence policies into a single policy.

Ofsted has also listed “considerations” for pausing inspections across its different remits. For instance, for ITT “where the event is a multi-phase inspection of provision, it may be appropriate to only pause one phase of the inspection”.

Sir Martyn Oliver, Ofsted’s chief inspector, said the changes “offer a further opportunity to resolve complaints, should it be required.

“I want to assure providers that we will acknowledge any mistakes made and take steps to put them right. I’m determined that we will learn from complaints to improve the way Ofsted works.”

Ofsted’s updated complaints process applies to inspections and regulatory activity carried out across all education and care provider it inspects from today onwards.

Changes to provide “enhanced” on-site “professional dialogue during inspections to help address issues” and to allow providers to contact Ofsted the day after an inspection to raise concerns were introduced in January.

Keegan refuses to retract remarks about punching Ofsted inspectors

The education secretary has said her comments about punching Ofsted inspectors were “off-the-cuff remarks made in a light-hearted manner”, as she swerved a trade union’s call to publicly retract the statement.

Gillian Keegan said she would have “probably punched” disrespectful Ofsted inspectors, during a question-and-answer session at the Association of School and College Leaders conference in Liverpool last month. 

Dave Penman, general secretary of the FDA union, which represents inspectors, wrote to Keegan on March 11, urging her to retract the “inflammatory language”, which he called “unacceptable in any context, let alone coming from the secretary of state”.

But, in a response sent on Tuesday, seen by FE Week, Keegan said: “As I think you know, the comments you refer to were off-the-cuff remarks, made in a light-hearted manner in a very particular context, and in the spirit of expressing support for headteachers and teachers in the audience.

“Clearly, I would not be punching anyone, or advocating anyone else do so, and to imply otherwise would be completely wrong.”

Keegan goes on to state she is a “strong advocate and staunch defender of Ofsted, and the important work it does”.

“It is precisely because Ofsted and its inspectors play such an essential role that we must strive to ensure that all inspections are conducted to the highest possible standard. The vast majority are, but not all.”

At the ASCL conference, Keegan recalled feeling “shocked” after hearing from a school leader about the conduct of inspectors during an inspection.

She told the audience: “I heard recently actually from a fantastic school I went into, [and] they told me how their Ofsted experience had gone.

“I was shocked, I was actually shocked. I thought, ‘God, if I’d met these people, I’d have probably punched them.’ They were really rude.”

Sir Martyn Oliver, Ofsted’s chief inspector, was asked about her comments at the time and said he thought “people should act with professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect on both sides”.

Sir Martin Oliver Ofsted chief inspector

In her letter, Keegan echoed Oliver’s remarks, saying she “strongly” supports “his mission to make sure that Ofsted’s culture and practice always has professionalism, courtesy, empathy and respect at its centre”. 

But Penman rebuked Keegan for her response and said she “could have gone further to rebuild trust with inspectors”

“It’s disappointing that the secretary of state has not publicly retracted her comments, as we urged her to do in writing last month,” he said. 


“We welcome her acknowledgement that Ofsted inspectors play an essential role and I know our members share her belief that we must strive to ensure that all inspections are conducted to the highest possible standards.

“However, it’s clear she could have gone further to rebuild trust with inspectors, so that crucial work to improve inspection arrangements could be carried out in a collaborative approach, based on mutual respect.”

FE Week’s sister publication Schools Week previously revealed Ofsted data on complaints relating to inspector conduct.

In the 2020-2021 financial year, 39 complaints from 2,585 inspections related to concerns over the conduct of inspections (1.5 per cent). The number of inspections this year was lower than normal amid Covid.

In the 2022-2023 financial year, Ofsted received 171 complaints raising conduct concerns out of a total of 7,615 inspections (2.24 per cent).

What Ofsted will hear when it listens to training providers

The breadth of experiences relating to Ofsted inspections are vast. No two providers share the same experience other than the passion! For some, the passion relates to extreme elation and delight about every aspect and for others frustration, relief, exhaustion or devastation.

Since Ofsted launched its Big Listen, members of the Fellowship of Inspection Nominees (FIN) from across the sector have been feeding in proposals for reform. Starting with the dreaded phone call that an inspection is imminent, nominees are adamant that five days’ notice should be given to providers of all sizes.

This is particularly important for work-based learning where the provider has to liaise quickly with employers and apprentices. They also want an end to Friday notification calls from Ofsted because this will avoid the need to contact employers and learners over the weekend.

Providers believe that inspection reports are sanitised and lack either the detail about strengths or insufficient information to expand on the areas for improvement. Where ‘Requires Improvement’ (RI) has been the overall judgement, the outcome could be in sharp contrast to the learner and employer feedback in Ofsted’s surveys, which are not published. This leaves providers feeling very unfairly represented.

FIN members have suggested one of two ways forward: that Ofsted produces two reports, including a private one for the provider (and the funder) with more specific details, strengths, areas for improvement and most importantly recommendations to improve, or alternatively that Ofsted publishes a richer, more meaningful report that shows survey outcomes and other elements of provision.

For providers awarded RI or ‘Inadequate’, improvement recommendations are essential, especially for independent learning providers who will need to show how they can meet them to keep trading.

Over half of the respondents to FIN’s Big Listen survey felt that the size of their inspection team was not appropriate for their provision. For some larger providers, the team’s size limited the learner sample size and therefore some of the negative findings were disproportionate. On the other hand, one provider was allocated a team of six inspectors to look at just 116 learners.

Emotions run high and the sense of urgency is overwhelming

Ofsted should therefore provide clarity on the rationale for the number of inspectors or learner sample sizes, for instance by stipulating the number of learners and employers or a percentage that constitutes a sample to help providers with their preparation process.

Even if these issues are addressed, we still need to tackle the poor alignment of the provider contract for delivery and the inspection framework (EIF). Ofsted is generally valued by the sector for its professionalism and ability to make fair judgments, but inspectors are limited to only judging against the framework.

FIN looks at reports by provider type and the number of sixth form colleges achieving ‘Outstanding’ is extremely high and disproportionate to all other types of provider. Our research of ‘Outstanding’ outcomes shows a clear correlation with the requirements of the EIF:  a fixed term time and a full-time education programme which includes a pastoral curriculum,  selective entry and a well-established exam system. By contrast, adult education short courses, apprenticeships and bootcamps are being shoehorned into the EIF.

We are not trying to devalue the richness of provision that Ofsted reports on, but as the grades are business-critical for so many contracts, there needs to be a different approach. The EIF should be streamlined to reflect different types of provision. Reform should follow the principle that if it’s paid for, it should be graded; if it is not in the contract and therefore not funded, don’t grade.

A highly technical apprenticeship provider should not be prevented from achieving ‘Outstanding’ because they do not spend precious off-the-job hours promoting healthy eating or personal fitness. The judgement should be primarily focused on the technical training, potentially fantastic career progression and valued output into the employer’s business.

As FIN continues to gather nominees’ feedback and form judgements for submission into Ofsted’s consultation, emotions run high and the sense of urgency is overwhelming. Change is needed fast. 

College Financial Handbook 2024: making the best of a bad job

The College Financial Handbook 2024 (which we will call the “Handbook”) has been released and comes into effect on 1 August 2024. It sets out restrictions on colleges post-reclassification.

We already knew that the Handbook would be bad news for colleges. It could only ever bring more regulation to an already over-regulated sector.

The Handbook will indeed increase the regulatory burden on colleges and its overlap with other documents could bring confusion.

But there is nothing outrageous in the Handbook; none of the new obligations on colleges look unfairly limiting and the sector and DfE have done a good job of producing something with which colleges can work.

Nevertheless, I still do not think that we needed it in the first place.

A bit of background

Reclassification of colleges to public bodies in November 2022 has changed their financial landscape and obligations. The ESFA has aimed to capture this new framework and combine the financial rules and requirements into a single document for the FE sector.

The Handbook applies to further education and sixth-form college corporations and bodies designated as being in the FE sector. It does not apply to 16-19 academies, sixth-form colleges forming part of an academy trust, LA maintained schools within a sixth-form, 16-19 free schools or University Technical Colleges.

The document will be refreshed annually and, in the words of the ESFA chief executive, takes a principles-based approach demonstrating to the sector “what needs to be done rather than how it should be done”.

The Handbook is a combination of well-established obligations with which colleges will be conversant, such as compliance with procurement principles and subcontracting standards, but also provides further detail, such as when colleges must obtain DfE approval for certain transactions.

The requirements are described in two ways: musts, meaning statutory or regulatory requirements to be adhered to, and shoulds which are standards of good practice to be followed, unless colleges can show a good reason for differentiating their approach in individual circumstances.

Compliance with the Handbook is a condition of colleges’ accountability agreements. The DfE may take action if there are concerns with college compliance.

Part 2 sets out the main financial requirements, which cover internal control frameworks, budget and spending decision management and the roles played by governors and college individuals in determining financial management.

What is in it?

Not much of the Handbook is totally new – it tends to repeat obligations to which colleges were subjected post-reclassification, and it sets out other obligations which are already covered in funding agreements or guidance documents.

Where there are new obligations on colleges, these tend to be additional detail in an already regulated area, or things which colleges probably already do.

Some of the obligations include that colleges must:

  • follow procurement processes and ensure delivery whether direct or subcontracted meets the necessary standards
  • follow codes on setting executive pay
  • have an audit committee with oversight of financial controls of the college
  • refer novel, contentious and repercussive transactions to the DfE for approval before the transaction occurs
  • obtain DfE’s prior approval for writing off their debts and losses beyond the delegated limits, entering into guarantees/letters of comfort and entering into indemnities which are not in the normal course of business and beyond the delegated limits
  • obtain ESFA’s prior approval for new borrowing from the private sector and amendments to existing private sector borrowing, regardless of the interest rate chargeable.

Some more difficult provisions

A college now needs DfE consent to appoint an accounting officer who is not an employee of the college. It is very rare that a college would want to do this, but we have seen it happen, for example where colleges are merging.

Accounting officers must adhere to the Nolan Principles. Of course accounting officers will probably be a governor of the college and so should comply with the Nolan Principles anyway. But it is odd that a college is now in breach of its obligations to the DfE if one of its officers behaves in a way which is contrary to a list of principles which cannot be seen as hard and fast rules.

The accounting officer must notify the ESFA if the college acts outside its powers. It would normally be a college’s governance professional who advises the board on vires issues. These can be complicated and nuanced, so it is a bit harsh on an accounting officer to take personal responsibility for this.

Colleges must ensure that “a competitive tender policy is in place and applied”, but then colleges should “consider approving a procurement policy”. These things seem to be contradictory.

Over-regulation and confusion

The college Handbook is mercifully a bit shorter than the equivalent Handbook for academies. Overall the two are unsurprisingly pretty similar, but the DfE and their consultees have done a good job in tailoring the Handbook to the further education sector.

However, this is a sector that is already heavily regulated. Colleges are subject to charity law, multiple funding agreements, many sets of funding rules, dozens of regulatory documents imposed by the DfE, laws which set the powers of colleges, their own constitutions and to restrictions contained in grant agreements for the many stand-alone pots of funding for which colleges must compete.

The Handbook brings more restrictions on the sector which it did not need.

Arguably more problematic than bringing more regulation, is confused regulation through so many different layers. Just to take one example: Why does the Handbook need to cover audit committees when they are already subject to regulation in funding agreements and policy documents? By regulating the same issue multiple times we make it harder for colleges to know where to go to find definitive answers. Worse still, we risk one regulatory document contradicting another.

The Handbook’s foreword sets out that the ESFA is “supporting the sector in the application of these rules in as streamlined and simple a way as possible”. This continues promises to streamline funding and regulation which were set out in the Skills for Jobs white paper.

As things stand, this policy objective is very obviously not being achieved. The further education sector would hugely benefit if the ESFA and DfE could achieve it.

In the meantime, as usual, colleges will just get on with it.

Educators and employers must do more to encourage women into the digital industry

As an 18-year-old leaving school with excellent A Level grades and an unconditional offer at university to study psychology, no one expected me to go to college. However, I had a huge desire to explore the world of IT and knew that this was my chance to do it.

So, without telling my teachers (who I knew wouldn’t be keen), I deferred my university entry, took a gap year and embarked on a Level 3 IT course at Barking & Dagenham College.

As the only girl in my class, it was a daunting start. IT is perceived to be a male-dominated industry, and this was very much reinforced in my mind when starting college.

For many girls, particularly those who come from an all-girls’ schools or who, for cultural reasons, are not encouraged to mix with boys – the lack of girls can be a huge barrier to a digital/IT career.

But what’s become clear to me is that there are many, many amazing women working in this sector. They need to be more visible, more relatable and out there for young, talented women to meet and be inspired by.

There are also many misconceptions around what an IT career even is. I thought it was all about coding and programming before embarking on my college course, only to be pleasantly surprised by how wrong I was.

My IT course only had one Java-based module, with the majority being far more business and project focused. The huge scope of what was actually on offer became clear during a national digital skills industry challenge my college got involved in.

This project was run by Julia Von Klonowski, CEO of Digital Skills Consulting, who has many years’ experience in the sector and is on a mission to break down gender stereotypes.

We had to work in groups over a two-month period, to develop a digital solution for a charity. We were mentored by industry experts, who gave advice and guidance in all areas from software development to marketing.

Colleges should ensure their marketing of IT courses is more female-led

We then went to London to present our ideas to all the other groups from FE colleges around the country, and to a panel of industry judges. This was the first time I’d ever done anything like this. It helped develop my confidence and my public speaking skills – as well as giving me real insight into the industry.

As a result, I secured work experience through one of the judges at the Lawn Tennis Association – somewhere I’d never have thought or dreamed of working. This is when I really understood the scope of career opportunities available in the IT and digital world, including project management, PR and business analytics.

I went on to secure a digital apprenticeship with Accenture, helped by the experience I’d gained in the industry while at college. The experts I met as part of the Digital Skills Challenge were incredibly supportive and gave me the confidence to take this path, rather than going to university in the traditional sense. I obtained a First, which I’m hugely proud of and am now working as a business analyst in the public sector, supporting digital literacy and skills in my local community.

To ensure more young women get the opportunities that I’ve had, employers need to make themselves more relatable and more approachable. They need to demonstrate the full scope of job roles and opportunities available within the digital industry and have lots of female mentors to encourage new talent. People want to work somewhere where they feel they
can fit in and not simply be a number.

Colleges can also help immensely. Getting involved in industry challenges is great, as is encouraging successful women to come in and speak to students about their personal experiences and career paths. Hearing this first hand can be inspirational and make the journey feel more achievable. Colleges should also ensure their marketing of IT courses is more female-led, and be clear that there is more to the curriculum than coding.

I want to play my part in this, so last week I was a judge and mentor in the same Digital Skills competition that had given me such a head start seven years ago. The students were amazing, with fantastic ideas and determination to succeed. We must create more of these opportunities if we are truly serious about being inclusive and attracting the talent
that the industry needs.

How colleges can help students attain the green roles they want

Demand for careers focused on sustainability is accelerating in line with the growth of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) investment and increasing pressure to hit net zero targets.

In construction, many suppliers are moving to improve the sustainability of their operations and products to meet their own and their clients’ environmental commitments. As such, the number of ‘green roles’ in the industry is rising and creating an opportunity for FE providers to encourage more young people to pursue a sustainable path.  

Research has shown that 54 per cent of people interested in green careers are motivated by a desire to help the environment; a further 47 per cent report the demand for these jobs as a key driver while 45 per cent say they want an occupation they can take pride in.

Increasingly, opportunities to satisfy this appetite for green jobs are opening up. The UK’s net zero target could provide up to 750,000 new jobs in low-carbon sectors and in construction. Additional decarbonisation work could create demand for 86,000 project managers and 33,000 building envelope specialists by 2028, according to estimates from The Construction Industry Training Board (CITB).  

Among the key areas driving sustainability in construction are procurement and estimation. Procurement professionals oversee resource investment and can steer a company’s uptake of sustainably sourced materials. This involves assessing the entire lifecycle of products and choosing materials that have lower embodied carbon and can be reused.

Procurement specialists work hand-in-hand with estimators to weigh up the cost of sustainable investment. They, in turn, collaborate with design experts such as computer-aided design (CAD) technicians to map out the feasibility of eco-friendly designs.  

Green duties have become entrenched in other occupations across the building sector too. Companies are setting annual targets as part of their ESG agendas. These include goals to manage waste efficiently or, in the case of projects built through modern methods of construction (MMC), developing zero-carbon-in-operation buildings.  

Early insight could be the ticket to harvesting a green job

With so many green career opportunities in construction on the table, FE providers have a key role to play in encouraging uptake among young people.

First, providers should ensure teaching about green skills and career paths is introduced to every curriculum area, and staff training on these is up-to-date. While demand for green occupations and employers is growing (over half of Gen Zs and Millennials research a company’s environmental impact before accepting jobs),  there is still little awareness of the job options and skills required to secure them. Dedicated workshops and careers education for sustainable employment pathways can help bridge that gap.  

Second, role models really matter. Many green jobs are relatively new, but there are professionals all over the country who have pursued green careers in construction. These include ESG directors, modular building designers and energy engineers who can discuss their experience and route to the role. Consider speakers with different educational backgrounds too; this will demonstrate that green careers are attainable through apprenticeships, vocational courses and other avenues.  

Third, formalised work experience reaches those who already show an interest in a sector, but they miss all those undecided young people who may simply not know what’s available. Many of these may be glad of a steer towards green construction careers. FE providers often have excellent relationships with local or regional companies who not only open up opportunities for young people but will also welcome the chance to promote their activity and vacancies.  

Finally, when applying for green careers with construction companies, FE providers must ensure young people can confidently discuss ESG. Recruitment has evolved into a two-way street: while employers have a greater duty to demonstrate their ESG credentials and perks, prospective employees for green roles will need to illustrate an interest in sustainability, their knowledge of the employer’s environmental credibility and their ideas for improvements they could bring to the given role. 

ESG and sustainability are now a priority for most sectors as well as society as a whole. Green careers are ripe for the taking – and early insight could be the ticket to harvesting one.  

Who is Luke Hall? 11 facts about the new skills, apprenticeships and HE minister

Luke Hall was appointed as a Department for Education minister last week following the sudden resignation of Robert Halfon. 

The DfE has now confirmed that Hall will take over all of Halfon’s responsibilities for skills, apprenticeships, and higher education.

Here’s what we know about the incumbent minister:

  1. Aged 37, Hall was born in South Gloucestershire and worked in supermarket chain Lidl from age 18. He became the manager of the supermarket branch in Yate and then progressed to area manager for Farmfoods.
  2. Hall was first elected as a Conservative MP for Thornbury and Yate in the 2015 general election. 
  3. Since then, he has voted in parliament for schools to become academies and has pushed for the construction of a SEND school in his constituency. He also spoke in 2021 about his work with DfE to carry out the ambitions of the skills for jobs white paper, including the devolution of the adult education budget.
  4. He was one of the MPs implicated in the battlebus expenses scandal in 2015 for reportedly spending more than the constituency cap during the election campaign. The Crown Prosecution Service ultimately did not press charges on any MPs despite finding evidence of inaccurate spending, according to reports at the time.
  5. He has sat on several House of Commons committees, including for work and pensions, petitions, and environmental audit.
  6. Hall has also served in junior government roles as minister for rough sleeping and housing and was a parliamentary private secretary to the ministerial team at DfE in 2017.
  7. In 2017, Hall was re-elected as MP with a 55.3 per cent majority compared to 14.2 per cent in 2015.
  8. Luke Hall originally campaigned to remain in the European Union. Since then, he has stayed on the side of the government, voting to trigger Article 50 – the treaty to begin Brexit. 
    “Prior to the referendum, I personally advocated and campaigned for a remain vote, so I can completely understand the concerns that many people have,” he told local reporters.
    “However, both South Gloucestershire and the country voted to leave the European Union, and I am respecting that result.”
  9. The MP was also minister for regional growth at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government from September 2020 until September 2021. During that period, he came under fire from the opposition for advising rough sleepers to “where appropriate and possible, to return to friends and family”.
  10. He has also held the post of Conservative Party deputy chair until he resigned in July 2022 ahead of Boris Johnson’s resignation as prime minister. Current prime minister Rishi Sunak reappointed Hall as deputy chair last February.
  11. Hall has accepted donations from companies and private individuals alike over the years. Most recently, he received £5,000 from the Bristol Port Company. Hall has also received a total of £18,396.66 from Andrew Godson since 2019. Godson appears to be the CEO of an investment firm in London named Aptimus Capital Partners. He has also received donations from Henry Somerset, an English peer and landowner in Gloucestershire and Wiltshire.