The Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
It is an honour to open today’s King’s Speech debate on behalf of His Majesty’s Government.
Education is the key that unlocks the door to opportunity. Get it right, and it is the single most transformative thing that any Government can do. That is why this Conservative Government have spent the last 13 years doing just that. We have been taking the long-term decisions to ensure that the next generation have a brighter future, because we know what happens when Governments get it wrong—[Interruption.] When we started this journey in 2010—Opposition Members are going to like this—we inherited Labour’s legacy. It was a legacy defined by politicians saying, “Education, education, education” but failing to deliver. The results speak for themselves. At that time, more than a fifth of children left primary school without achieving basic levels of literacy and numeracy, and two fifths finished full-time education without even the bare minimum qualifications. That failure entrenched inequality and locked the door of opportunity. The education system worked against children from places like where I grew up in Knowsley. It was a system that widened the gap between the richest and the poorest in society.
Politicians often say that talent is everywhere but opportunity is not, and they are right. I know that, because I lived it. My failing comprehensive school left many of my classmates without those precious opportunities. Although some came to education later, many others never did—so much so that some are now in prison and others sadly have died many years before their time. It did not have to be this way. For five years, I sat next to those children. We all thought we had a bright future ahead of us, as children often do, but sadly that was not the case for too many of them. Education is about removing the barriers to opportunity and the belief that talent is everywhere. It is about the growth in confidence that our teachers inspire and the understanding that if the playing field is levelled, no one’s dream will be out of reach. That is what this Government are delivering, from the moment someone enters this world until they retire.
Gillian Keegan
Let me make some progress before I take interventions.
Earlier this year, we announced the largest ever investment in childcare in England’s history. Very soon, we will be spending £8 billion a year. That investment will ensure that every child gets the best start in life. It means that working parents will be entitled to 30 hours of free childcare from the end of parental leave until their child starts school. To give parents the flexibility they need, we are rolling out universal wraparound childcare for primary school children from 8 am to 6 pm. These Conservative policies will end the choice that some working mums and dads feel they need to make between having a family and having a career, and it will save parents up to £6,500 a year.
The generation having children now will not remember what was on offer under Labour, but let me remind the House: 13 years of Labour delivered only 12.5 hours of free childcare for some three and four-year-olds. That is less than one hour for every year in office. Our childcare package gives people wanting to start a family the confidence to do so. May I invite the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), when she stands at the Dispatch Box, to finally offer Labour’s support for our record childcare investment? Can she tell hard-working parents in Wales why her party is not rolling out the same support that English parents will benefit from?
I know that the right hon. Lady, like me, did not grow up with privilege. I have heard her speak eloquently and passionately about the help and support she received from Sure Start, and I know she was grateful for that support. I am sure there were many positives from that programme—indeed, my best friend used to run a Sure Start centre—but there were also some serious failings in the design and delivery. First, Sure Start was not a universal offer, and it stigmatised people who used the services. Plus, it only helped families for the first five years of a child’s life, but any parent will say that challenges can arise at any time. [Interruption.] This is important: the National Audit Office found that Sure Start had failed to target the most disadvantaged families and was even unable to identify families needing support in the most disadvantaged 30% of communities. It simply did not reach the right people.
When we launched our family hubs programme, we ensured that the hubs provided a service to anyone who needed it. They are supporting families with everything from mental health to breastfeeding, and housing and debt services—challenges that many of us need support with. The service is universal, available to anyone. Family hubs support families with children of all ages, from conception to 19, or up to 25 for those with special educational needs. They join up services, ensuring that every family gets the right support at the right time. As part of that, the best start for life programme provides focused support during the crucial first 1,001 days of a child’s life, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) for her work to get that right.
Before I talk about how we have transformed our schools, I will address one of the key challenges we face in delivering opportunity: school attendance.
Gillian Keegan
I will in a moment, honestly, but this is important. I want to address one of the key challenges we face, which is school attendance. Following the pandemic, we have seen a phenomenon where more children are staying home and not going to school. That challenge is not unique to the UK. At the G7, my counterparts from the US to Japan were all grappling with the same issue. I reassure the House that it is a top priority. We are making progress through our attendance hubs and mentoring programmes, as well as more specialised support for key cohorts, such as those with mental health issues or special educational needs. In just the past year, 380,000 fewer children are persistently absent, and we will keep driving at this issue until all our children are back in school.
I notice that the Labour party had a lot to say about attendance this morning, but the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) may have missed the 380,000 fewer children persistently absent in the past year. Yet again, Labour offers little more than empty words, with a touch of student politics. In Labour-run Wales, attendance rates are still far behind those in England. Last year’s attendance data showed that Wales only managed an attendance rate of 85.5%, compared with England’s 92.5%. That means that English children are benefiting from well over a week more education than those just over the border. I advise the Labour party to spend a little less time playing politics, and more time helping children. The children of Wales deserve better.
Munira Wilson
I thank the Education Secretary very much for giving way. What was crystal clear from the King’s Speech yesterday was that, despite her grandiose statements here, education is not a priority for this Government. There were two re-announcements, nothing new and no new legislation, and her speech so far is revisiting old announcements, which is shocking, considering the crisis in our schools and colleges. She talks about persistent absence, so can she explain to the House why there was no announcement yesterday about bringing forward legislation for a “children not in school” register, which Ministers promised to do when they scrapped the Schools Bill in the last Session?
Gillian Keegan
The progress we have made on education is phenomenal. The legislation we have put in place has enabled us to make many of these improvements, but we remain committed to legislating to take forward the “children not in school” measures, and we will progress those at a suitable future legislative opportunity. We continue to work with local authorities to improve the non-statutory registers, and have launched a consultation on revised elective home education guidance. There is a lot of work going on. The consultation is open until 18 January 2024, and we intend to bring forward that legislation.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)
This is a King’s Speech for the UK generally. Does the Secretary of State intend to say anything positive at all about Wales today?
Gillian Keegan
As somebody who grew up in Liverpool, I have had many a fabulous holiday in north Wales. In terms of the education department, unfortunately Wales suffers from a poor Administration.
Let us move on to schools. Nowhere is the difference between Labour and the Conservatives clearer to see than in our school system. When we came into office, Labour had overseen a decade of decline in our schools. Fortunately, thanks to the tireless work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and, notably, that of the Minister for Schools, we have reversed that trajectory. Today, 88% of our schools are “good” or “outstanding”—up from just 68% under Labour.
By the end of the Labour era, we had plummeted down the international league tables: our children were ranked 25th for reading and 27th for maths. Now, we are up 10 places in both. Better still, the progress in international reading literacy study shows that when it comes to reading, English primary school children are the best in the west, coming fourth in the world—an amazing, phenomenal achievement, for which I thank our teachers, parents and children.
How have we done this? We have reformed the school system, putting teachers and experts—not politicians—in charge of schools. Through our free schools and academies programmes, we have empowered heads and focused on academic excellence, improving discipline and ensuring that schools are calmer, happier places to learn. We have built on the evidence, not the ideology, over the past decade.
The Education Endowment Foundation has carried out over 200 evaluations to understand which approaches are the most effective in closing the attainment gap. It has engaged 23,000 nurseries, schools and colleges and, as a result, teachers are better trained in the things that make a difference, and children are taught in ways that we can prove work, such as phonics and maths mastery. We have made our exams more rigorous and reliable; and we have changed how we teach for the better. And at every turn we were met with a barrage of opposition from the opportunists on the Labour Benches.
In 2011, the Opposition said that our literacy drive was “dull”. In 2012, they said that phonics would “not improve reading”. In 2013, they called free schools “dangerous”. All three accusations have been categorically proven wrong. Our results simply speak for themselves, and we are not stopping there. Our new advanced British standard will remove the artificial divide between academic and technical education, and place the two on an equal footing, bringing together the very best of A-levels and T-levels to form a single overarching qualification. Right on cue, what did Labour call this? A “gimmick”. Given Labour’s track record, that condemnation is a very good sign that we are on the right track.
The advanced British standard will ensure that every child studies a form of maths and English until they are 18, and equip our children with the skills they need for the future. They will be entering a very different workplace—one where artificial intelligence, and quantum and digital systems, are a big part of every working day—and they will be competing for the top jobs internationally, so we will be increasing the time spent in the classroom, bringing us more in line with other countries, including Denmark, Norway, France and the US.
Sarah Dyke (Somerton and Frome) (LD)
The Government’s disregard for school pupils with special educational needs has never been clearer. The silent assassination of any new mental health Act has let down my constituents, who are struggling to get a diagnosis and to get continuous support in schools. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that pupils and schools urgently need new legislation?
Gillian Keegan
We published our special educational needs and alternative provision improvement plan in March 2023—the hon. Lady may have missed that as she was not yet in her place—and we have backed the plan with investment of £2.6 billion between 2022 and 2025. That will fund new and alternative provision places, and it is also a significant investment in the high-needs budget. We know that we need to invest in improving the special educational needs and alternative provision system, and I am happy to go through that plan with her.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Secretary of State’s plans to increase maths teaching up to 18 are interesting. I wonder how she expects to deliver that when there is currently a shortfall of over 5,000 maths teachers and the retention of maths teachers is at an all-time low. How does she think she can deliver maths teachers to increase maths education when she cannot deliver enough for children up to the age of 16?
Gillian Keegan
We have some initiatives in place. First, we are raising the starting salary to £30,000 for all new teachers across the country, and more in London. Secondly, we are increasing—in fact doubling—the premium we pay to maths, computer science and some science teachers to enable them to earn more. That is the plan. We are also updating our retention and recruitment strategy before the end of the year.
Anyone who wants a blueprint for a Labour Government does not need to look back to the ’90s and early-2000s, when Labour oversaw a decade of decline. No, they should look to Wales. After a quarter of a century running the education system in Wales, the Labour Administration preside over the worst-performing education authority in the UK. While in England we have increased the number of teachers by 27,000, the numbers have fallen in Wales. While our standards rise, Wales consistently has the worst results for maths and reading in the UK. Those are facts. Even before the pandemic, the head of the OECD said that the Welsh education system had not just “underperformed” but “seen its performance decline”. There is nothing that stifles opportunity more than an education system in decline under Labour.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Gillian Keegan
I will in a second. We believe in the values that I have talked about—aspiration, standards and rigour—precisely because they deliver a brighter future for our young people, and one that means that, as they grow into adulthood, they can be sure that they are getting the skills they need to succeed in life, to get a good job and to earn a good wage. That is the purpose of education: to help ensure that we have the skills to prosper and that every young person can reach their potential.
Gillian Keegan
I will; just give me a second. The hon. Gentleman might want to answer this point. One thing that Labour did do was set an arbitrary target of 50% of young people going to university—a policy that favoured the most advantaged in society and only widened the gap. Today, under the Conservatives, children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are 71% more likely to go to university than when we took office.
Let me be clear: university is a brilliant choice. For many, it will be the best thing they ever do—life-changing—and a degree will be the first step on a wonderful career journey. But for some, in a minority of cases, it will be a ticket to nowhere, saddling students with debt and no prospects.
Stephen Doughty
As a Welsh MP, I think that learners and teachers in my constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth would be shocked to hear the Secretary of State denigrate their work and efforts. The reality on the ground in Wales is that, in my constituency, I have seen new brand-new schools at Eastern High and Penarth Learning Community, and a brand-new further education college. We are also just opening a brand-new school in Fitzalan. They have all had significant issues with performance in the past, but have turned things around thanks to the dedication of their teachers and the support they have had from Welsh Labour councils and the Welsh Government. Will the Secretary of State apologise for denigrating and running down Wales?
Gillian Keegan
I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question. I always want things to improve in Wales, and I very much care about the Welsh children. It is not my words; it is the OECD and the international league tables—which I believe they have actually withdrawn from now because they do not want the scrutiny. We have to be open and transparent and put ourselves forward for international scrutiny, and that is where these words are coming from.
Emma Hardy
The Secretary of State is being generous. I was interested in her comments about some university degrees not being of high value. I wonder how she seeks to calculate whether those degrees are not worth the same as others. Does she intend to use the longitudinal educational outcomes data that looks at average earnings? Does she acknowledge that children who wish to stay in areas such as Hull will earn less because wages are lower in certain areas, and that that has nothing to do with the degree? Would she reflect on the presentation given to the Treasury Committee recently, which said that outcomes in life and how successful someone is in terms of job and income are everything to do with their parents’ background and not the background or anything to do with the university that that person attended?
Gillian Keegan
I am happy to come to that later. I am concerned about ensuring that children and young people in Knowsley, Manchester, Hull, Blyth, Teesside and all over the country get fantastic opportunities, so that their earnings rise. That is what we in this party will continue to do.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Before the Secretary of State moves on to what I assume will be higher education, I want to raise with her a serious problem particularly in inner-city schools in England: falling rolls and, therefore, falling income to the school, which usually means the loss of teaching assistant jobs and all sorts of other issues. This issue has affected rural areas a lot in the past, and special arrangements have been made. Is the Secretary of State aware of that? Is she considering what can be done to ameliorate this very serious problem, which damages the life chances of so many inner-city children?
Gillian Keegan
The right hon. Gentleman made a good point. Local authorities usually work with us to capacity plan for demographic changes, which often happen from time to time—they go up and down. When we were first elected in 2010, we had to find 1 million more school places because the previous Administration had failed to do so. In some London inner-city schools, the pandemic has changed that more rapidly. We are looking at that and the impact that it has had on rural schools, as some have increases in demand. We are aware of that and we will work with schools on it. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question.
In a minority of cases, higher education could be a ticket to ride to nowhere, saddling students with debt and no prospects. That is bad for students, the taxpayer and the reputation of our universities, many of which are truly exceptional and admired all over the world. A meaningless and arbitrary target of 50% of students going to university focuses on the wrong thing: quantity over quality. That is why this Government introduced new powers to clamp down on rip-off degrees—something the Opposition claimed was an attack on aspiration. That could not be further from the truth.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy) may want to listen to this point, because it directly answers her question. Average earnings for computing graduates five years after graduation can vary from £23,000—barely above the minimum wage—to £85,000, depending on the university. Students who choose computing probably listen to their parents and have thought about their future career. They think that they have made a wise and smart choice. The attack on aspiration would be to let the next generation spend their time and money, only to end up with a degree that does not help them to achieve their goals. Those who lose out from low-quality courses are not the universities but the young people who have been sold a false dream. Many of us will know those young people. Defending that is a short-sighted and, quite frankly, snobbish mindset that fails the very people whose education it is meant to help.
I make no apologies for this Government’s commitment to high-quality education, whether at school, college or university. We have already announced that we will introduce recruitment limits to reduce the quota of low-quality courses and account for earnings as part of the quality regime, so that students know that they will get value for money and a return on their investment. I will make no apologies for our work promoting apprenticeships and technical education as an equally valid route. I know how transformational a good technical education can be: it got me to where I am today. As the only degree apprentice in the House of Commons, I will always champion high-quality technical education. It changed my life and it has the power to change many more.
As Conservatives, we will always work to break down the barriers to opportunity. Today, there are more options to access high-quality technical education than ever before, but that has not always been the case. Under Labour, T-levels did not exist. Under Labour, high technical qualifications did not exist. Degree apprenticeships for jobs such as lawyers, accountants and space engineers did not exist. Skills bootcamps did not exist. The lifelong learning entitlement did not exist. Institutes of technology did not exist. Why? They were all introduced by this Conservative Government.
In case Opposition Members are confused about what institutes of technology are, let me tell them: they bring together education and business, providing skills in everything from aerospace to agriculture, and energy to engineering. Does that sound familiar? It should do; Labour’s big new policy of technical excellence colleges is, effectively, little more than a rebrand of something that already exists. We have already delivered it. Once again, Labour demonstrates that it has no new ideas. It has had 13 years to come up with an original idea, and has failed even that.
Apprenticeships are not a new idea, as demonstrated by the fact that I did one many more years ago than I care to admit. What is new is that people can become a doctor, lawyer, account or space engineer. They can take degree apprenticeships in the NHS, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Amazon, KPMG, PwC—the list goes on. Any career they aspire to, anywhere, they can do now via an apprenticeship. In fact, there are now more than 680 standards, including 170 degree-level apprenticeships, all developed hand in glove with more than 5,000 employers, none of which existed under the Labour Government. Anyone doing one of those apprenticeships today is doing it because of the work of this Conservative Government.
Since 2010, we have seen 5.5 million people benefit from those apprenticeships. We want to support even more people to access these life-changing opportunities, which are now on UCAS. From next year, young people will be able to apply for them alongside undergraduate courses. My apprenticeship was my golden ticket. Today, thanks to this Government, millions more people are being offered the same opportunity. Hopefully, many future Secretaries of State will sit here, having gone through that fantastic route.
It is not just the younger generation who need opportunities. We are all living and working longer. Many of us will have a second career, including me—this is my chosen second career. For me, politics came after three decades working in international business. Like me, many people will want to change. Often, that will require new skills. Some 80% of the 2030 workforce are already in work today. We know that we need more people with new skills, unlocking new opportunities. That is why we launched skills bootcamps. These are free, flexible courses of up to 16 weeks, training people with an offer of a job interview at the end. They support people to gain skills in key sectors such as digital, HGV driving, civil engineering, electric vehicle charging installation or as a wind technician. Often, they are the first step into a brand-new career. Our new lifelong learning entitlement also removes barriers to gaining new skills later in life. People will have real choice about how and when they study, enabling them to acquire life-changing skills to improve their employment prospects. Both those programmes will give people the chance to transform their lives totally at any stage and any age.
This Government have been defined by our relentless drive to spread opportunity through better education. Yesterday, the King’s Speech continued that legacy. Today is the perfect time to take stock of the impact of those reforms. Those who entered school in 2010 are the first generation of children educated under this Conservative Government. They will take their A-levels and T-levels this summer, and their future is brighter than ever before. Standards of reading are higher, standards of writing are higher, and standards of maths are higher. The next generation are coming through, and their potential and their achievements are higher than ever before.
Let us never forget how the Labour party left us with an education system in decline—as, unfortunately, it continues to be in Wales. Labour left us with a limited childcare offer, declining standards in schools, poor technical education and an arbitrary target of 50% of kids going to university. And we know why: because they are political opportunists with empty words and meaningless promises, which will inevitably change.
That is the difference between us: Conservatives deliver. We have delivered the most generous childcare package in our country’s history; we have delivered the highest school funding ever; we have delivered more high-quality technical education than any other Government; and we have delivered for adults looking to learn new skills. As Conservatives, we do more than break the barriers to opportunity; we take the long-term decisions to create opportunity. Now and in the future, every child will benefit from a world-class education because of the decisions made by this Conservative Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I think the best word to describe what was in the King’s Speech is “inadequate”. It is clear that the Government have neither the energy nor the vision to deal with some of the difficulties facing so many people in our country. The disappointment of the speech adds to the general feeling of decline over the past 13 years. What the country really needs is change. That is the sense I get from each and every person I go out and speak to: it is time for a change. What they really need is a mission-led Labour Government focused on putting right the mistakes of the past 13 years.
We heard a perfect illustration of the Government’s governing by slogans from the Education Secretary at the Dispatch Box earlier when she talked about the idea of low-value degrees. She and other members of the Government often use that phrase, but they have utterly failed to define it. Every time they try, they realise that it is impossible to work out.
I am going to quote that well-known socialist Lord Willetts, who I believe still holds the Conservative Whip over in the House of Lords. We talked at the Treasury Committee about the impact of somebody’s degree on their life chances. I questioned him about evidence from the Resolution Foundation, which said that
“it is clear that much of what happens post-university is still determined by certain socio-economic characteristics chosen for us by chance at birth”.
It added that
“the IFS have utilised anonymised tax records and student loan data to show that”—
this is the bit that I hope the Education Secretary is listening to—
“even accounting for institution attended and subject studied, graduates from wealthier families earned more.”
That is the evidence that we have been given. It was collected from anonymised tax data, and it shows that even among people who do the same course at the same university, if someone comes from a wealthier background, they go on to earn more.
I put that to Lord Willetts—I am sure Members understand that he is not a well-known socialist—and he said, “That is absolutely fair.” He absolutely acknowledged that that is the case. He said:
“It is indeed the case that your background, even if you partly overcome it in your time at university, for any given degree, then has an impact in the labour market. The presumption”—
this is how he explained why some people do better at university than others, and why background is important—
“is that this is to do with all the networks and the social capital and the wider opportunities you bring to your hunting for jobs after you have finished your time or in your last year at university.”
So the background, the networks and the social capital of the parents had the greatest impact on how well someone did at university.
That is exemplified by the way in which this Government seem to operate, and their apparent view of teachers. Teachers do an amazing job, as do many of the people in universities, but they are not divorced from the environment in which they exist. Someone may go to university and have to work without that social capital or network. Another example given by Lord Willetts related to the unpaid internships that many employers continue to offer. If people are not able to take those up, they will not have the same opportunities as others.
Lord Willetts also gave some interesting evidence about degrees. He said that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds tended to go for degree courses in which they were trained specifically for one occupation, because, he said, they were unable to take the risk. Those people do not want to study a subject such as history—which, I should point out, is the degree held by most top CEOs in the FTSE 100—because they sense the risk of not being employable. We already have a two-tier system in our university jobs market and in our degrees market. This attack that suggests that somehow universities are responsible for the inequalities in our country that so many people face is ludicrous. Once again, the Government are pushing the blame on to someone else rather than accepting the fact that inequality has grown on their watch. If they really want to address the need for aspiration and social mobility, they need to consider addressing the background that so many people come from.
Robert Halfon
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. We used to serve on the Education Committee together, but I think that her argument is fundamentally wrong. If it is not wrong, why are there some incredible universities—I am thinking of Nottingham Trent University, the University of East London, which I visited last week, and Staffordshire University—with an extraordinary number of disadvantaged students, who do not have the networks and so on to which the hon. Lady referred, but many of whom get good jobs and good skills? If that is the case, it is not to do with networks; it is to do with good teaching at good universities.
Emma Hardy
I have the utmost respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and I remember his love of Nottingham Trent University from when we served together on the Education Committee. There are some examples of universities doing great things to generate the correct networks for pupils, but the anonymised data, including the anonymised tax records, show that even when all that is taken into account—and of course there are excellent universities doing excellent work—what determines the jobs that people get when they leave university is their parents’ background. Those are the facts. The right hon. Gentleman can have alternative views, but he cannot have alternative facts.
In the context of schools and teachers and the difficulties that people may experience when they go to work, I now want to say a little about women with endometriosis. I have spoken about this many times in the Chamber. One in 10 women have the condition—it is as common as diabetes or asthma—but if I asked everyone in the Chamber about it today, I would probably find that many had never heard of it. It is a debilitating condition that affects a woman’s entire body, and is often linked to the menstrual cycle.
Many of the women I have spoken to who have the condition want to work and to do well. Indeed, many work as teaching assistants in schools or as teachers, because it is a female-dominated profession. Our survey established that half of them took time off work often or very often because of their condition, two fifths worried about losing their jobs because of their endometriosis and a third believed that they had missed out on promotion opportunities because of it, while 90% said that it had had an impact on their long-term financial situation, and one in six—remember, this condition is as common as diabetes or asthma—had had to give up work all together.
All that is required to keep these women in work are the usual reasonable adjustments and a consideration of the way in which work is structured. Some great cross-party work has been done on the menopause, and policies in the workplace seem to be changing, but I would have really liked to see in the King’s Speech a measure to address endometriosis and some of the other conditions affecting women.
Locally in my constituency, the Hull and East Yorkshire endometriosis group, which is full of amazing, formidable women, is working with the trade unions to create a rights charter and to encourage workplaces to look at how women with endometriosis are treated. But again, we did not see anything on rights at work in the King’s Speech. There was no employment Bill. There was no new deal for working people. There was nothing. Fundamentally, if we want to get the changes that people need—the genuine opportunities for all people from all backgrounds and the opportunities for women to continue in work—what we need is a Labour Government.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (Jacob Young)
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson). Both she and I entered the House of Commons aged just 26, grew up in working-class families in the north-east and think that she would be a better leader of the Labour party than the current one.
The title of the debate is “Breaking down barriers to opportunity”. It is testament to the progress that the country has made that myself, the Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan), the deputy leader of the Labour party, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), and the shadow Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South, are all from working-class families in northern towns and are now responding to the King’s Speech in the mother of all Parliaments. I think that is a good thing.
It is a huge honour to close the debate on His Majesty’s Gracious Speech, the first in over 70 years, and on the vital issues of unlocking the great potential of our young people and unleashing opportunities across all parts of our country, on behalf of the Government. As has been widely acknowledged during the debate, education is one of the most powerful levers we have to help achieve this Government’s defining mission of levelling up economic growth, improving people’s quality of life and restoring the pride in the places they call home.
I thank everyone for their contributions to the debate, in particular my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), my hon. Friends the Members for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), and who could forget the chair of the APPG for Shakespeare, my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris).
Like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education, I started my career as an apprentice, before spending nine years in Teesside’s chemical industry, so I am especially passionate about ensuring that the next generation has the best possible choices and opportunities.
As the Prime Minister has said, for the next generation, and indeed for our country, that means taking difficult decisions for the long term, so that we lay the foundations for sustained success, enabling people everywhere to build a brighter future. And in that, as my right hon. Friend, the Education Secretary, has rightly said, we are building on a proud record.
Huge credit must go to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and the Minister for Schools, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb), for their ambition and vision back in 2010 for taking on the soft bigotry of those who believed that some are pre-destined for success while others are not.
None the less, we know that there is more to do to equip children starting school today to take up the jobs of tomorrow, starting with no more rip-off degrees, no more arbitrary targets for university, and no more assumptions that university is the only route to success. Instead, we are giving every generation real choices and a commitment to a real return on their investment.
Jacob Young
The hon. Lady has spoken many times in this debate, so I think I shall make some progress.
Jacob Young
We are giving a commitment to a real return on their investment, their hard work, their hard cash by delivering more high-quality technical education—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
If the Minister was going to give way, I am sure that he would give an indication that he wishes to do so.
Jacob Young
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, we are giving every generation real choices and a commitment to a real return on their investment, their hard work and their hard cash by delivering more high quality technical education than any other Government, through T-levels, Higher Technical Qualifications and apprenticeships. We are also delivering for adults looking to learn new skills through skills bootcamps, the Lifelong Learning Entitlement—bringing universities, colleges and businesses together through Institutes of Technology. We are demanding excellence all round for academic and technical routes.
Our family hubs and “Strong Start for Life” programmes will also provide wide-ranging support that joins up services, including targeted help during those first critical days of a child’s life, giving the next generation the best possible start in life.
Just as we are making sure that all children and young people are set up to succeed, so we are making sure that every part of our country is set up for success. The White Paper that preceded our great Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which I am delighted to say is now on the statute book, recognised a fundamental truth: that while talent is spread equally across the UK, opportunity is not. Although our country is such a success story, not everyone shares equally in that success. We are putting that right by shifting opportunity and power decisively towards working people and their families. We will empower local leaders and invest billions to: create high-skilled, well-paid jobs; improve transport; improve health outcomes; protect community spaces; invest in research and innovation; and increase pride and belonging. Since taking on the job of Minister in the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, I have seen what a difference this is making in places such as Middlesbrough, where I grew up, Keighley, Grimsby and Hull, because, for prosperity to be shared, we must first attract the good jobs that our towns and regions need by creating the right environment for businesses to operate in.
A wind farm manufacturer who is looking at where to base their next production facility needs a reason to pick Redcar or Hull over Antwerp or Rotterdam. Only by investing in the full package of incentives—from skills to infrastructure, business environment to quality of life—can we make this happen. That is exactly what we are doing through the UK’s network of freeports, which offers a comprehensive package of measures, comprising tax reliefs, customs, business rates retention, planning, regeneration, innovation and trade and investment support. They also create opportunities in left-behind communities. I am thinking of my own constituency of Redcar and Cleveland and the Teesside freeport where BP is investing in carbon capture and storage. It has partnered with Redcar and Cleveland College to provide scholarships for young people to train as clean energy technicians. We are providing the skills that are preparing people for the jobs of the future, so that they can embrace the opportunities that are being created by this Government. But that is not all. We have listened to those who feel that their communities have been left behind. Through our £1.1 billion long-term plan for towns, we are putting power and flexible funding in the hands of local people, so that they can invest in what is most important to them. Towns such as Mansfield, Great Yarmouth, Blyth, Oldham, Grimsby, Merthyr Tydfil are just some of the 55 communities that will receive this support.
As this Government invest in creating opportunity and driving aspiration across our Union, we are channelling the investment that our towns and regions need to succeed, led by local leaders who know their communities best. In 2010, Greater London was the only area in England with devolved powers. We want more to follow, bringing decision making closer to the people it affects. Now, under this Government, we have 10 areas with implemented mayoral devolution deals, and five deals in the process of implementation.
Devolving education and skills is at the heart of our devolution framework, because unless there are good schools with high standards, and institutions offering qualifications that employers value, prosperity cannot be shared across all communities. When we think about disadvantage, all of us will be acutely aware that disadvantaged children have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. We are determined to support them to catch up and reach their potential, which is why we have invested in education recovery programmes such as the recovery premium, the national tutoring programme and the 16-19 tuition fund.
Unlike the Labour party, we will never accept that family background or geography should ever dictate destiny. Long before there was a levelling-up Minister, levelling up was exactly what we had been doing over the past 13 years in our schools, in our world-class universities, on skills and through apprenticeships, reversing a decade of decline, low expectations and low ambition. The rewards that we are reaping now are very real. We have better schools than ever before, with schools in some of the most deprived parts of the country producing some of the best results. More young people from state schools are going to our best universities. Our nine and 10-year-olds are topping the league for reading in the west. We have the best universities in Europe.
While others talk the talk, we walk the walk, and just as we have succeeded in turning the tide in education and skills, so we will succeed in turning the tide for people and places long taken for granted by the Labour party. As we have seen from today’s debate, levelling up growth, opportunity, prosperity, pride and belonging for everyone in all parts of our country to contribute to and share in is a mission for us all—but there is only one party that can be trusted to deliver.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Andrew Stephenson.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.