Education and Skills Reform

Thursday 17th September 2026 Lords Chamber

Statement

12:11

The following Statement was made in the House of Commons on Wednesday 9 September.

“With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will make a Statement to update the House on the Government’s education and skills reforms.

It is a real privilege to address Members for the first time as Education Secretary—without question, the best job in Government. I got a reminder of why this is such a special job when I went to GCSE results day in Harper Green school in Bolton. While I was with Micah as he opened his exceptional results, his mum beamed and gave him a massive hug. She then gave me one, too—she was thanking me for his success. That is the power of education: a source of pride and hope, and a sense of achievement and confidence. I was a proud mum myself on GCSE results day this year, and I know how much hard work goes in and how committed our teachers and staff are.

However, results day is not like that for every child. Too many are locked out of opportunity and left behind, which is why we are leading an education revolution. We have real strengths to build on; as yesterday’s Programme for International Student Assessment results showed, a 30-year consensus begun by the last Labour Government and continued by successive Governments, particularly focusing on literacy and numeracy, has raised standards and performance. Generations of children have benefited from world-leading practice in fundamentals such as phonics—introduced by Labour and built on by the Conservatives—and today, more pupils are getting the top grades in GCSE maths and are going on to do A-level. As someone who loves maths and did an A-level in it myself, that brings me huge joy. The whole House should celebrate and thank our fantastic teaching workforce for the latest PISA data, which shows strong international rankings in maths, reading and science.

I will always keep pushing for ever higher standards, but continued improvement is about challenging ourselves about what is going wrong, not just what is going right. An honest appraisal of the evidence shows that our current system works well for some, but is leaving too many behind. The disadvantage gap remains stubbornly wide; the gap between regions is widening; the special educational needs and disabilities crisis is growing; 1.5 million children were persistently absent from school at the last general election; the number of young people educated at home has doubled since 2019; and now a million young people, all educated during the past 16 years, are not in education, employment or training. Anyone who cares about the futures of these young people can see the need for change. Alan Milburn has warned of a lost generation, labelling education ‘the faltering foundation’. The co-chairs of the white working class inquiry said:

‘Doing more of the same is unlikely to solve the problem’,

and even Andreas Schleicher, who oversees PISA, said when commenting on our results:

‘A big share of young people think school is a waste of time. That’s not really good news’.

That is the other side of the coin of a one-size-fits-all system.

Nothing symbolises how we have lost perspective more than the treadmill of failure young people are on with the endless cycle of maths and English resits. Of those retaking their maths GCSE this summer, under 14% got the standard pass they needed—that is nearly nine in 10 experiencing failure again and again. Maths and English are essential, but everything we know about how to build confidence in young people tells us that this approach does not work, yet we carry on. Researchers from University College London have called it a ‘well-being penalty’. I call it wrong, which is why I am changing it.

We are in the middle of a huge technological revolution, and the world is changing at a faster rate than anyone can keep up with. My children—all our children—will be doing jobs that my generation could not have conceived of. In this world of change, we have a duty to change too, but in a way that builds on, rather than abandons, what we know to be true about learning. Let us be clear: in the AI and social media age, the human ability to understand and interpret the world around us becomes more important, not less.

Literacy and numeracy become more important, not less. We must equip our young people to master technology, not be mastered by it, and there is value in human endeavour that AI can never replace. While pen-and-paper exams have their place, we need to rebalance towards the applied skills of the modern world and include practical learning in practical subjects such as computing, drama and physical education, as well as ensuring that human skills such as speaking and presenting are developed. We need both knowledge and skills, not one or the other.

We are talking about a broader, more inclusive education, built on strong foundations and with pathways for all. We are talking about education as a passport to work, to life and to success, regardless of people’s needs, ambitions or postcode. We are talking about supporting all children on every step of the way, from their first days of life to their first days of work and beyond. We are talking about early intervention, smoothing transitions, boosting enrichment, creating clear pathways, raising standards, keeping young people engaged, and closing the gap between classroom and workplace. We are talking about excellence for all, not just for some. This will be less an exam factory and more a talent factory.

I can also confirm that we will see through the vital SEND reforms, built in partnership with parents and professionals. We are investing now in a new system of early intervention and the right support close to home so that families can get the help that they need first. We will introduce legislation and set out our response to the consultation in due course.

Our commitment to opportunity does not stop there. We will make this country a technical education superpower, creating new pathways of equal esteem and equal ambition. We will connect our young people to the careers not of some dusty past, but of an exciting future. Over the summer, the Prime Minister and I announced our plans to transform technical education and work experience for young people from the age of 14, building on the revolution that is already happening post-16. Combining this with high-level academic subjects, we will develop top-quality technical qualifications that will lead to clearer pathways into T-levels, A-levels and the new V-levels, as well as apprenticeships, universities and beyond. We will provide a clear line of sight into work, tailored to local opportunities, by working with mayors and local leaders.

Some claim that improving technical education is somehow anti-academic, but such lazy falsehoods are stuck in the past. Technical education can also give new purpose to academic subjects, and countries that boast low levels of NEETs combine the two. Our curriculum and assessment reform will go hand in hand with that ambition, and we will soon publish proposals building on the Becky Francis review. We will have fewer barriers to progression and new emphasis on the skills that enable young people to succeed, including critical literacy, as well as more foundation and stepping-stone qualifications. More space will be available, including room for creative subjects, PE, and the development of deeper understanding. However, this will not be a system of separation. Instead, there will be choices, options, chances, and a curriculum that will be broad enough for long enough to capture the imagination of every child. That means changing the way in which schools are measured to incentivise a broader offer and reward inclusion—a system underpinned, now and always, by progress in English, maths and science. I will set out those proposals in due course.

I know that many worry about change, although they agree that change is needed. Let me reassure education leaders, teachers and the workforce that they will be part of this process on every step of the way. Perhaps even more important than these new reforms is a new way of working. We will design change in partnership with the people who deliver it—change based on the very best evidence and practice, not reform beamed into the classroom directly from Whitehall. Mayoral and strategic authorities, for example, will help to deliver real work experience opportunities. For the first time, mayors will have control of the 16-19 education budget, and I know that, in respect of early years and early intervention, we can transform outcomes through the power of place.

This is just the beginning. Big reform is on the way. We are moving quickly because this cannot wait. The eyes of those young people locked out of opportunity who do not see education working for them are on us, and it is our duty to show them that we get it. Some have called this ‘bringing back stupid’. Not a bit of it; as the Prime Minister said last week, we are bringing back hope.

I commend this Statement to the House”.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, as ever, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the House. Last week’s PISA results placed English pupils in the top 10 in the world for reading, maths and science. That is down to the dedication and hard work of our teachers in executing almost 30 years of reform begun under new Labour and continued by the Conservatives. I am delighted that this Statement acknowledges that success, but it makes the dismantling of the system which has given generations of children greater life chances much harder to justify. It is laudable that the Government wish to address what is not working and to do more for those not in education, employment or training. We on these Benches share that desire. But good intentions are not the same as good decisions. The parts of the system which are working so well should be left alone.

Since 2016, schools have been judged on the progress every pupil makes between the ages of 11 and 16. We know this measure as Progress 8. It is a reliable measure because it adjusts for intake, so it quickly weeds out the schools coasting on good results in affluent areas without significant improvement and reveals the schools with remarkable outcomes for children in our most deprived communities—top schools like Tauheedul girls’ school, Mercia in Sheffield and Michaela. It is such a good measure that the Government’s own independent reviewer, Professor Francis, recommended keeping Progress 8 completely unchanged. But the Government have overruled her, and we know from the February consultation what overruling her means. It means broadening the subjects for lower-attaining pupils to “reward inclusion”—if ever there were words to make the heart sink. Can the Minister assist us here? What evidence did the department possess to justify overruling its own expert reviewer?

There is a very bold claim about NEETs in this Statement that the overfocus on academic pathways is a major factor driving the growing NEETs crisis, which has produced the current 1 million NEETs. Now is not the time for an economics debate, so I am going to resist that temptation, but we have data on this. Wales has been rolling out precisely the kind of skills-based, less exam-focused curriculum now proposed by this Government for England. On the results published on 8 September, Wales scored well below England in maths, reading and science. The Institute for Fiscal Studies tells us that 11% of Welsh 16 to 18 year-olds are NEET against 5% to 9% across the rest of the United Kingdom, and that disadvantaged children in England score 30 points higher than disadvantaged children in Wales.

The Statement also cites 1.5 million persistently absent children as part of its reasoning against the current academic curriculum. I am delighted to talk about school absence; we do not talk about it enough and the toll it takes on children’s outcomes, and parents need to know more about that. The Education Policy Institute has found that the widening of the disadvantage gap since 2019 is entirely explained by higher absence rates among poorer pupils. Again, there is no causal link with the academic curriculum. We have the data. Persistent absence is 18% in England, 28% in Scotland, and 37% among Welsh secondary pupils—20% higher in Wales under the same skills-based, less academic curriculum the Government now propose for England. While absence rose across every UK nation after the pandemic, in England, with its boring old academic curriculum, the rate is the lowest and falling.

We have heard a lot this week since the Statement about the abolition of resits. None of us wishes children to resit exams for the sake of it, but, again, we have data on this. Solid LSE research cited by Alan Milburn comparing students of identical ability who fall just either side of the grade boundary finds that just failing as opposed to just scraping a pass in English GCSE makes a young person more likely to be out of education and work by 18. At 16, 35% lack the grades, but by 19 it is only 22%, so resits help almost a third of those to transform their life chances. Can the Minister tell us what happens to that group if resits are abolished, and what is going to replace resits?

Vocational pathways are the centrepiece of the new Prime Minister’s and Secretary of State’s education reforms, but, regrettably, from this Statement we are none the wiser as to what these will look like. We still do not know what qualifications we are expecting and when, which means real uncertainty for children and their families. It supposedly launches in two years, but the qualifications are just existing technical awards with any new ones yet to be explored. There is no plan for the specialist teachers, and colleges cannot fill technical posts today. There is no plan for work experience when T-levels already struggle to find placements. There is nothing on who decides which children will take this route, no guarantee of what it leads to and no budget. I ask the Minister: which qualifications will a child starting in September 2028 take? When will we know? Who will decide which children go down this route? Will completing it guarantee a place on a T-level or V-level course or an apprenticeship? And will the Minister guarantee that a child who starts it can return, complete academic GCSEs and go on to A-levels if needed?

I must press the Minister on a few other questions about the timetable. The review was published in November 2025. The Government promised the first teaching of the new curriculum would happen in September 2028, with the final documents by spring 2027 and four terms for schools to prepare. The draft curriculum and the Progress 8 consultation response were due this September. It is now 17 September, the Commons has risen, this House rises this afternoon, and nothing has been published. Can the Minister tell us on what date the draft curriculum will be published? Does the four-terms pledge still stand? And if so, what does that mean for the implementation date? Finally, will the Progress 8 consultation response come before or after schools must set their options for 2027? I thank the Minister in advance for her answers.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful for this debate on education and skills policy because ultimately it comes down to one question: are we giving every young person the opportunity to build a good-quality life regardless of where they come from?

There is much in our education system of which we should be proud. As we heard earlier, the latest PISA results show that the United Kingdom remains one of the highest-performing education systems in the world, particularly around science, mathematics and reading. Our performance in science has improved since 2022, and we need to acknowledge these achievements. However, we also have to recognise that academic success alone is not enough. The ONS has estimated that more than 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are currently not in education, employment or training—a figure that has increased over the past year. Alan Milburn’s review, which many of us have spoken about, warns that, without action, one in six young people could be NEET within the next five years. That should be a wake-up call to all of us.

We need an education and skills system that works for young people who want to go to university, but equally for young people who want to become engineers, electricians, nurses, technicians and skilled professionals. The Government’s reforms to post-16 pathways have the potential to provide greater choice, including V-levels and occupational certificates, but choice exists only if young people have access to a genuine range of choices. My concern is that technical education must not become a second-tier route, disproportionately taken by children from poorer backgrounds while affluent families continue to choose the traditional academic pathways. There must be parity of esteem between academic and technical education and, crucially, the ability to move between the two pathways.

A 16 year-old should not be expected to make a decision that permanently determines their future. That is why careers advice is so important. Every young person should have access to high-quality careers guidance and meaningful work experience—an issue that I have often mentioned in your Lordships’ Chamber—so that choices are informed by aspiration and opportunity rather than postcode or family income. We also need to ask whether the system has the capacity to deliver these ambitions. Technical education requires teachers, lecturers, specialist facilities and strong links with employers, yet colleges are already under pressure to recruit and retain staff with the specialist skills required. How will the Government ensure that colleges have the workforce and the funding necessary to deliver these reforms? Will the Minister commit to addressing the disparities in pay and conditions that are making recruitment and retention more difficult?

Apprenticeships must be central to this debate. They can provide a powerful bridge between education and employment, but employers, in particular small and medium-sized businesses, need a system that is simpler, more flexible and financially viable. I welcome the Government’s move towards greater flexibility in the apprenticeship levy, but we should go further: make apprenticeships more attractive, ensure that apprentices are properly paid and give smaller businesses practical support to take on more. We also need regional flexibility. A young person in a rural community should have access to the same breadth of opportunities as someone in a major city. That would require proper workforce planning and greater involvement from regions and employers.

We cannot discuss education and skills reform without mentioning SEND. Too many families are still fighting for support while councils struggle with the financial consequences of a broken system. Reform must put children and families at its centre. That means early identification, sufficient specialist and mainstream provision, a properly funded workforce and meaningful rights to appeal for parents.

Skills are not simply about filling vacancies; they are about giving people the confidence, knowledge and opportunities to shape their own future. If these reforms are to succeed, we need an education system that does not divide young people into winners and losers, academic or vocational, advantaged or disadvantaged. We need a system that says to every young person: your background does not determine your future, and, whatever route you choose, we will give you the opportunity to succeed. That should be the ambitions of education and skills reforms.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their questions. I will turn to the specific points that have been raised in a moment, but, before I do, it is worth briefly reiterating the context of the Secretary of State’s Statement last week. At its heart was a simple proposition: every young person should be able to see a clear pathway from education into further learning, skilled work and adult life.

Our education system has many strengths. The latest PISA results confirmed England’s strong performance in reading, mathematics and science. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, that that should be reflected in our thanks to the hard-working staff in our schools who have helped to deliver that, but it also builds on the work of successive Governments. I am very proud of the role that I played in the previous Labour Government, alongside some of my noble friends here today, in the focus on numeracy and literacy, the introduction of phonics and the support to ensure school improvement across the system. I recognise that many of those elements were built on successfully by the previous Government.

However, there is a slight flavour in the Opposition’s response to this Statement, both in this House and in the other place, that somehow we should now place in aspic the education system and not recognise the areas where, notwithstanding the progress, there is more work to be done. I am afraid that a disadvantage gap still exists for our children, and it is stubbornly wide. A gap between regions is widening. We have a growing SEND crisis, 1.5 million children persistently absent from school at the last general election, a doubling of those educated at home since 2019 and now 1 million young people, all educated during the last 16 years, not in education, employment or training. Simply standing still and resting on our laurels will not be good enough for our children.

The purpose of these reforms is therefore to build a nationally coherent, locally responsive education and skills system that supports opportunity, responds to local labour market needs and creates stronger progression routes for young people. Central to that ambition is a new approach to technical and vocational education. Academic, technical and vocational routes should be complementary parts of a single high-quality offer with stronger connections to employment. New technical pathways from age 14 will combine technical qualifications alongside GCSEs, careers education and meaningful work experience, helping young people to progress into further study, apprenticeships and skilled careers. Alongside that, mayors, local leaders, schools, colleges and employers will work together to develop those high-quality technical and vocational routes for 16 to 19 year-olds, aligned to local economic opportunities and the Government’s industrial strategy.

These reforms are designed to widen opportunity, not to narrow it, ensuring that technical excellence is recognised and valued alongside academic achievement, and that every young person can see a clear route to success. That is why I have to rebut the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, that this Government are dismantling the system. Actually, we are aiming to ensure that the high standards we can achieve for a lot of children—although not all—in our academic education are matched by high standards for those who want to take a more technical or vocational route, and that the opportunity to do that at the age of 14 by combining GCSEs with technical qualifications is made much more widely available to young people than is the case at the moment. That is not a dismantling of our system; it is building on what is good but ensuring that technical and vocational education has the support and the priority that many people in this House think it should have.

Furthermore, we are not talking about abolishing resits. We are talking about abolishing the situation where young people, without the additional support that they need, resit in a way that simply promotes their feeling of failure. That is why we are investing in teaching in further education, and it is why we are introducing a new level 1 stepping-stone qualification in order to enable young people to get the foundation that will then enable them to go on to successfully resit their GCSEs.

On some of the detailed questions about the 14-16 technical route, first, as I think I have made clear, this is not about separating pupils into academic and vocational groups or narrowing choices. All pupils will continue to study a broad and balanced curriculum. We are drawing on evidence from the interim Milburn review, the Curriculum and Assessment Review and engagement with strategic authorities, employers, schools, colleges and other partners as we develop those pathways. They will be rolled out using the existing level 1 and 2 technical awards that are already available. We will also work with Ofqual and other key partners to develop top-quality vocational and technical qualifications, which support—to respond to the noble Baroness—progression to T-levels, A-levels, V-levels, apprenticeships, university and beyond. Those qualifications will continue to sit alongside GCSEs and provide a high-quality option at key stage 4.

As that work progresses, the DfE will consider how to use its existing budgets to best support delivery, including through reprioritising budgets to ensure investment in high-quality education and clearer routes into skilled work. We are already making a difference to the number of teachers we are recruiting but, of course, we recognise the challenge to ensure that the expertise is there to deliver on this.

The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, is right about careers guidance and work experience. He is right about apprenticeships, which is why we are already going further with support for employers. He is also right about reform of the special educational needs system, which is why we will bring forward the results of our consultation. We are already investing in the SEND system. We will have plenty of time in this House to discuss this Government’s reform programme.

[Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Hyde of Bemerton) (Lab)]

My Lords, before we move on, I remind the House that the next 20 minutes are reserved for questions from Back-Benchers only. I also remind noble Lords of the importance of brevity when asking questions. This will ensure that as many noble Lords as possible have the opportunity to ask their questions.

12:32

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, I know that the Minister has taken a very positive attitude towards strengthening the status of kinship carers. The Government have also introduced pilot programmes. Both have a capacity to help in bringing forward the work which is spoken of in the Statement. Could she give a rather fuller account of what the Government are doing on kinship carers? If that takes more time than we have available today, could she write to me? She and her colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Blake of Leeds, have played a very positive role in this important area.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. He is right that we are seeking ways to support kinship carers, to strengthen the opportunity for children to live with those who are close to them in those arrangements. We are also taking action to support the educational outcomes of children who are in kinship care. I think I am right in saying that we are expanding the role of virtual head teachers to those children. I will certainly write to the noble Lord with more detail about our plan.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the emphasis that the Government are placing on work experience. Might the Minister like to say a bit more about how the Government plan to deliver this? It is clear that work experience will be available both to students below and post-16. With the two funding streams that will now cover those areas and the extra responsibility that will be put on schools, can she give an absolute assurance that there be equality of opportunity for children from all backgrounds and that the extra work will not fall merely on schools? I think back to something which was called the business education partnership, which offered a brokerage service which meant that greater access for everyone was available and schools were not overburdened.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. The opportunity for high-quality work experience is a very important theme in these reforms. The Government are committed to offering two weeks of work experience for every child pre-16, starting from an early age, with different ways to engage with employers. It is an important part of that work. She is also right that, given the ambition we have post-16 for T-level placements and other work experience opportunities, we need to support, for example, our mayoral and strategic authorities to be able to broker those links locally. My noble friend’s ideas about support for brokerage are very important and something we are reflecting hard on.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Given the need for more work experience, more apprenticeships and other support from the private sector, will the Government look again at the very damaging tax rises and regulatory changes they have introduced, which have driven down vacancies in a big way and driven up unemployment? They impede success for this programme.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course, we will keep the business environment under review to ensure that it provides as many opportunities as possible. I note that, in his interim review, Alan Milburn argued that it was not, for example, changes to national insurance or to the national minimum wage that have caused the numbers of young people to be out of work. The biggest increase in those numbers, of course, happened in the two years in the run-up to the last general election.

[Lord Weir of Ballyholme (DUP)]

My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests as regards City of London College. Within the Statement, the Government commit to transferring responsibility and finance for 16 to 19 year-olds to mayors and, presumably, to strategic authorities, but, to date, local authorities have sometimes been quite inconsistent in their support and taken a very differential approach, for instance, to young people who are in danger of becoming NEETs but do not reach the level of an EHCP. How do the Government intend to move forward while ensuring that there is consistent and full access to pathways for all pupils and that equal opportunities are provided for every young person, irrespective of where they come from?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

If I am completely frank, this is one of the big challenges of the very welcome devolution that this Government under the new Prime Minister are engaged in. We are discussing with mayors and others the relationship between national entitlements and the flexibility, for example, to bring in work experience opportunities, to work with local employers and to tailor education so that it suits the types of work and opportunities that might be available to young people locally, while ensuring there is equality of access. A key objective of this Government is to close, not to worsen, the disadvantage gap. As we develop the devolution proposals, we will keep thinking hard about how we can ensure that that happens.

[Lord John of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, even in the world where we are ruled by robots, it is entirely likely that genuine human creativity and culture will have an important part to play in the future of our economy. In her Statement last week, the Secretary of State mentioned drama, but can my noble friend tell us about the wider cultural opportunities that these reforms might bring forth, perhaps in music, dance and film?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

An important part of our Curriculum and Assessment Review was finding time within a curriculum, that still focuses on the knowledge necessary for children to succeed, for broader opportunities to undertake music, drama and PE—some of those human skills and opportunities that are so important to our children, as my noble friend says. In this House, we have discussed a range of ways in which we are supporting the development of opportunities for music and dance.

I will also respond at this point to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, about accountability measures. In removing the requirement for children to study within the straitjacket of the former EBacc accountability measures, we have freed up schools to reintroduce some of those music, drama and other qualifications that had been squeezed out by it. Of course, at the moment, while we consult about the changes that we want to make to Progress 8, it remains in place.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, there clearly is a tide of opinion in favour of devolving funding. The Statement in the other place was absolutely clear. It said:

“For the first time, mayors will have control of the 16-19 education budget”.


This is causing some concern. Can the Minister tell the House whether that includes control of the expenditure of the apprenticeship levy for 16 to 18 year-olds, and does it extend to classroom-based provision for them?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Obviously, we are still working on the details of that but no, it does not extend to the growth and skills levy provision for apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year-olds. It will cover the 16 to 19 budget as it applies, for example, to post-16 qualifications, including classroom provision in colleges.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a working teacher and I beg the House to wish me luck in teaching jollof rice to year 8s tomorrow. I broadly welcome this Statement and its ambitions, but I am slightly confused. The Becky Francis review promised us “evolution not revolution”, while the new Secretary of State has said there will be “an education revolution”. Has the curriculum review been superseded and are we evolving or revolting?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have no doubt that, with the noble Lord’s skills, year 8 will thoroughly enjoy jollof rice and come out of his class with renewed enthusiasm for cooking and, I hope, a whole range of other things.

As I made clear in my first answer, we are building on the successes of the last 30 years in our education system but we are recognising, as Becky Francis did in the Curriculum and Assessment Review, where we have overly narrowed the curriculum. In some cases, we have forced out things that many people would consider to be important skills and opportunities for young people. We will reintroduce those, but we are also determined to do something that many previous Governments have expressed a commitment to, yet none has really delivered so far, including me in my former incarnation: genuinely good, high-quality, high-standard technical and vocational opportunities for young people. That is one of the opportunities that we have through these reforms and it is an important part of the focus of the work that we are doing.

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, while I welcome many of the aspects of this Statement and much of what my noble friend the Minister said, I still feel that it lacks an overall strategy in relation to future changes of demands on the employment and skills markets. In particular, will the Government produce a strategy which is central to their economic policy and deals with the impact that AI will have on the employment and skills requirements in the medium term? One does not have to be a total pessimist and say that AI is going to destroy millions of jobs, but it will change millions of them dramatically, not least entry-level jobs. Will there be a strategy from the department for dealing with AI and its impact on the needs of our education and skills system?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is precisely in order to equip children to respond to the changing needs in the labour market that we are making some of these changes, but those build, of course, on the introduction by this Government of Skills England. I hope that my noble friend will have seen some of the important work that Skills England has done on the way in which AI skills will be necessary for the future workforce, and how they are likely to change the nature of the skills that young people and, in fact, adults need. The Government have responded to that through additional skills training to support not just young people but people throughout their lives to develop those AI skills. I agree that this is a wide-ranging challenge to both the labour market and our education system and that more work needs to be done, but we have certainly made an important start.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interest with respect to Access Creative College. Only last month, the Government implemented substantial reforms to the apprenticeship levy by transforming it into the growth and skills levy, increasing the amount that employers must contribute to adult apprenticeships and reducing the amount of time they have to use their levy funds. We read in the FT recently, though, that the Government’s own reviewer is minded to recommend the abolition of the apprenticeship levy. Are the Government minded to go down such a path? If so, how do they plan to backfill the £4 billion or so that the apprenticeship levy, now the growth and skills levy, brings into our training and skills system?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord knows as well as any of us that you cannot necessarily believe everything that you read in the newspapers. As I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, there may well be further changes to the growth and skills levy, but we have been clear that we want to pivot it to young people to put right the 40% fall in them starting apprenticeships that we saw in the last 10 years. We also understand the role of apprenticeships, and of skills training more widely, in supporting people who are currently in work. I ask the noble Lord to wait, for example, until the final publication of Alan Milburn’s recommendations and the Government’s response to them.