Apprenticeships: Entry Requirements

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right about that. I will write to him with some of the details about the occupational standards that already exist to enable apprenticeships in the maritime industry. We have seen a development of these occupational standards, supported by employers and others. I agree with him that ensuring this apprenticeship route—whether into the maritime industry or more broadly, particularly across industrial areas that have been identified in the industrial strategy—is a crucial way to enable growth and opportunities for individual young people.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister says that the Government are committed to making sure that young people have a good grounding in English and maths. If that is the case, why have the Government cut the number of hours of maths teaching in colleges from four to three hours a week?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We provided a continuation of the expectation that young people who have not achieved level 2 in English and maths continue to have the ability to study those subjects. We continued the funding to enable that and provided some flexibility for colleges to deliver that in a way that is most appropriate for them.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak on this draft order, which, as the Minister set out, directly impacts the future development of the construction sector’s workforce. As we heard from the Minister, the CITB has been responsible, for the past 60 years or so, for ensuring that the sector has the skilled, diverse and competent workforce that it needs to meet both current and future challenges.

However, as we heard, following the 2023 review of the industrial training boards led by Mark Farmer and published in January 2025, it is clear that we need some radical changes to the way that we address the structural skills shortages in the construction sector. So we are left with a one-year SI, which of course is far from ideal from the perspective of the sector, but we accept that it gives time to work out an alternative approach. I hope the Minister will be relieved to hear that I think there is little to debate in relation to this SI, which I imagine will mark the end of an era, but it gives us an opportunity to hear from the Government about how they plan to deliver on the recommendations of the Farmer review.

I thank Mark Farmer, on behalf of these Benches, for his leadership of the review and his approach to analysing the challenges that the sector faces. His review does not mince its words, if that is the right phrase, by underlining the extent of the challenge facing the sector and the need for radical change in the way that skills are developed.

We welcome his focus on the need for a “competent, productive and resilient” industry, with the capacity to deliver on the nation’s critical infrastructure projects while ensuring high standards of quality and safety, and

“a ruthless focus on addressing the future workforce capacity, capability and resiliency challenges set out in this review”.

His recommendations are clear in terms of merging the ITBs into a single workforce planning and development body for construction and construction engineering, supported by a statutory levy. The shortages in the workforce that employers face are shown starkly by the combination of wages rising far faster than the national average while productivity has fallen. In the words of his review, these are

“crucial lead indicators of the industry’s future trajectory and represent a direct challenge to the effectiveness of the ITBs over the last 15-20 years”.

The review highlights the continued reliance on labour intensity but, sadly, appears to conclude—if I have understood correctly—that there are still too few incentives for individual businesses to markedly review that reliance through capital deployment or production model reforms. Of course, one unintended consequence of the increases in employers’ national insurance contributions might be more capital investment, but surely this is a clear call to the Government to create exactly the incentives that are currently lacking if the productivity of the sector is going to see the kind of step-change improvement that it needs. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on that.

The review also argues for

“a pivot in levy spend with a more forced redistribution for maximum industry impact”—

I love that; it is so direct. The review argues for

“more efficient industry drawdown and mobilisation of both ITB levy and apprenticeship levy”.

How can the Minister reassure the Committee that this will happen in practice and within the next year?

That leads me to the Government’s response to the review, which is where I began to worry. I reassure the Committee that, although my speech is longer than I had planned, it will not cover all 40 or so pages of the Government’s response. I absolutely know and believe that the Minister is very focused and cares a great deal about delivering on this area, but some of the responses left me very uneasy, and I would be grateful for her reassurance on this.

As the Minister said in her opening remarks, recommendation 1.1 is that the ITB model should be retained in terms of its “basic statutory mandate”, but it goes on to say that

“its strategic priorities, core capabilities and activity require wholesale transformation. This all needs to be ruthlessly focused on addressing the fundamental workforce resilience challenges facing the construction and engineering construction industries”.

The DfE response is:

“Meeting the skills needs of the next decade is central to delivering the government’s missions across all regions and nations. This government is committed to ensuring we have the highly trained and more productive workforce needed to deliver the national, regional and local skills needs of the next decade, aligned with the new Industrial Strategy and government infrastructure and built environment commitments. In this context, we agree that there is still a case to maintain the Industry Training Boards (ITB) in their basic form. The construction and engineering construction sectors recognise both ITBs service and that training levels would be negatively affected without the ITB model and are broadly convinced of each organisation’s value”.


I do not know what the Minister thinks, but that does not feel to me like the “ruthlessly focused” tone of the recommendation.

Recommendation 1.3 of the review is:

“Proposals to implement the recommendations set out below should be developed quickly with agreed milestones to be monitored by DfE. If DfE”—


I emphasise that—

“is unsatisfied with progress it should reconsider the viability of the ITB model”.

The department’s response says:

“Department for Education (DfE) officials will update ministers on progress as part of the implementation plan, with a view to commenting on the ongoing viability of the ITB model. This assessment of progress will be undertaken in conjunction with wider reform of the skills landscape, focussing on the introduction of Skills England and the Growth and Skills Levy (in England)”.


I had a couple of other examples, but I think my point rests.

I would be grateful if the Minister could address the question raised by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in its remarks on the SI in its report. It said that,

“for the future period, agreement with the industry will be sought when there is little clarity about how the CITB will operate and, therefore, what the levy will be funding”.

Finally, in its briefing for this debate, the CITB explains that £143 million—over 12%—of the funds raised from the levy over the life of the Parliament will be spent on

“running the business, including grant and levy administration”.

I work out that this is about £28 million a year. I wondered how that compared with the projected budget for Skills England and what the Minister thinks about this as a level of running costs. Can this money, together with that of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, be put to use in addressing the urgency and importance of the recommendations in the Farmer review?

As the noble Baroness rightly said, the construction industry is vital for the future of our nation, and it is essential that we take an effective approach to its workforce needs. As the Official Opposition, we support the Government to ensure that the levy works effectively for the next year and hope very much that our concerns about the DfE’s response to the Farmer review prove to be unfounded, and that a year from now we will have a clear and compelling plan for the future of the sector and its workforce.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords who have attended today for their contributions to this debate—we are of quality rather than quantity. I will endeavour to cover all of the questions raised; where I fail to, I will follow up in writing.

The theme of both noble Lords’ contributions relates to our shared understanding of the challenge for the construction sector to be able to meet current requirements for construction skills and the construction skills necessary to deliver the Government’s plan for change, particularly to build the 1.5 million new homes that we have committed to. I wholly understand noble Lords’ concerns that we need to do more to fill the considerable gaps that exist there. That is why a much wider range of activity will be necessary, such as the important work that the CITB is doing, including the £40 million contribution to housebuilding hubs that I identified in my opening speech, which will make a considerable contribution to construction skills. A much broader approach is going to be necessary from the Government as well.

Such an approach will encompass, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, how we support our further education colleges to deliver the specific skills necessary, how we develop a broader and more flexible offer in the growth and skills levy than has been available up to this point, and how we ensure that the construction industry is making the most of the diversity of those who might be available to contribute to construction skills. The CITB’s analysis shows that just 7.4% of UK construction workers are from an ethnic-minority background and that only 15% of the workforce are female. We can see that there is much more work that the CITB and the industry need to do to ensure that we are developing a construction workforce that reflects the whole of our society and not just part of it. That in itself will enable us to go further in ensuring that people are coming into the industry.

In particular, the CITB in its homebuilding hubs will support individuals to become employment-ready and site-ready. It will support all people wishing to enter the sector, including underrepresented groups, women, and those from black, Asian and other minority-ethnic backgrounds. The Into Work grant supports progression to employment from FE provision. The noble Lord, Lord Storey, identified what is sometimes a leaky pipeline from training into work. There, employers can receive £1,500 if they support work experience and then recruit someone from an FE construction course. That funding makes local employment opportunities in SMEs more viable for employers. In addition, the CITB is funding the training of industry construction ambassadors on fairness, inclusion and respect, to drive improvements in human resources practices and site experience.

The CITB is already undertaking a range of activity. As part of the Government’s skills strategy, there is more that we will want to look at in relation to that pipeline, to support for employers and to the knowledge of employers, in order to take on those who have done training in the construction industry in our colleges so that they can take their place in the industry and maximise the contribution being made.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, it is a huge privilege to speak in this debate today, and to have listened to so many exceptional speeches that have highlighted the extraordinary achievements of women and, sadly, the oppression that too many still face. I start by congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on finding another way to fill what little she had left of her free time.

We have heard five excellent maiden speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Alexander of Clevedon, talked about her pioneering work in the Scottish Parliament, and in listening to her I felt that Malawi’s loss was Holyrood’s gain. The noble Baroness, Lady Hunter of Auchenreoch, talked about alliance building. I felt that the tone of her remarks was welcome and very much the way that we all aim to work across all sides of this House.

Of the five, the noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, is the only one who I had the pleasure of knowing in a previous life—my previous life, but hers too. I recognise the way that she talked about herself in terms of self-reliance and walking with more confidence. She is warmly welcome here. There is lots of work to be done in the areas that both she and I are interested in.

The noble Baroness, Lady Rafferty, talked about being inspired by her mother. For the first time in several years, I have managed to resist talking about my mother in this speech, but, in listening to the noble Baroness, I felt that she will inspire many here. I am not sure there is a pool table anywhere in the House, though others might know, but there is plenty of homework.

I want to note other women on my Benches who have been influential. Quite rightly, the noble Baronesses who I mentioned talked about their political careers, and on these Benches my noble friends Lady Jenkin of Kennington and Lady May were influential in their work on Women2Win, which has changed the shape of our party.

Last, but definitely not least, was the noble Lord, Lord Jones of Penybont. It was a privilege to listen to the humanity that he expressed in talking about the Act that he chose to highlight to the House today, which was literally, in his words, life-saving.

It is a double privilege to be standing here today, because I am taking the place of my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, who is unable to be here. Like many of us, she had a strong woman in her life—again, her mother—who paved the way for her to do a science degree. Her mother was a pioneer, going to University College Cork in the 1960s to study medicine alongside a small number of women, including several nuns. Apparently she was so talented that she was given full marks in an exam that she did not actually sit because she was busy having her son at the time.

As we have heard today in the speeches of many noble Lords and noble Baronesses, women have had to fight and campaign for the right to contribute economically in general, and in science and technology in particular, including for the stepping stones along the way of education, reproductive rights, childcare, health education and of course the right to vote. As we have heard, progress for women has not gone in a straight line, and in some cases it has gone backwards.

International Women’s Day itself, 8 March, has seen major demonstrations calling for change, such as in Tehran in 1979, where women protested in their thousands against the mandatory wearing of the hijab. International Women’s Day in 2012 saw the opening of the first women’s internet café in Kabul. I wonder if it is still there—sadly, I think we can guess the answer.

Thinking about those stepping stones, the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, talked rightly about the importance of online safety. There is so much more to be done in all areas of gender-based violence. She mentioned the plight of older women, and it was striking that in the humbling and troubling list read out by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, two of the ladies over 70 had no name. Such women are not traditionally recognised as victims.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bousted, talked about the sexual harassment of children in classrooms, which of course happens in this country and internationally. My noble friend Lady Owen of Alderley Edge talked powerfully about the changing shape of misogyny online and how that impacts behaviour offline. Rightly, the noble Baronesses, Lady Smith of Llanfaes and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lords, Lords McConnell and Lord Loomba, expressed their concerns about the impact of aid cuts, particularly on girls’ education. Of course, education has been a crucial way for women to gain their economic independence, exercise their rights and fulfil their potential. The noble Lord, Lord McConnell, painted a vivid picture of the 200 girls in Malawi and the change that education can make to their lives.

Turning to the technology sector itself, the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, rightly said that this is an issue of power, justice and fairness, sentiments that were echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield. My noble friend Lady Stowell gave us the strong sense of the community of women in the Beeston Plessey factory and how that became the heart of the local town.

Just to bring a little ray of hope, in the spirit of my noble friend Lady Moyo, there is, as many noble Lords have said, fantastic work in diversity going on around the country, including from the other Professor Sue Black—not the noble Baroness in your Lordships’ House—at Durham University. She is best known, perhaps, for her work on Bletchley Park but also with Tech Up Women, ensuring that we have more diversity in AI in particular.

We have heard about remarkable women from the global north. I would just like to mention a few who stand out from the global south, including Dr Asima Chatterjee from India, whose groundbreaking work in organic chemistry led to treatments for epilepsy and malaria, Dr Segenet Kelemu of Ethiopia, who transformed agricultural science, and, in Latin America, Dr Adriana Ocampo of Colombia, who has led NASA’s New Frontiers Program.

Looking forward, it feels like we are at a particularly perilous time in our history, as we look at some of the geopolitical shifts that are taking place. The conversation about the need for more defence expenditure and more investment in AI to drive the defence systems of the future has been dialled up, perhaps unimaginably, when compared to just a few weeks or months ago. As others have observed, much technological talent has been focused on consumer innovations in social media, food delivery apps and other services that can thrive only in a stable and peaceful world. It feels inevitable that more investment needs to, and will, go into critical areas of innovation, particularly in relation to defence and, within this, AI.

Defence in particular remains an area with low representation of women—where women’s voices, insights and skills are vitally needed, exactly as my noble friend Lady Morrissey and the noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, said, to create the strong ethical framework and organisational culture that this sector needs, perhaps almost more than any other. We need women to be part of the solution and not just the voices left behind as men suffer the ultimate price of warfare. We must not lose sight of the absolute imperative to protect our values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, without which opportunities for women will evaporate.

As we close this debate, we remember the brave women all around the world fighting for their freedom, their right to go to school and their right to develop their talents and potential. We celebrate the extraordinary achievements of women in science and technology, without whom so many advances would not have been made. Many in this House have been role models to and champions of younger women. So, on this International Women’s Day, I particularly wish that our daughters and granddaughters, in the widest sense, seize the opportunities that life presents them. In the words of the late, great Maya Angelou,

“Do the best you can until you know better. Then when you know better, do better”.

Schools: Mobile Phones

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point, but sometimes parents are right. Perhaps, for example, there are circumstances where there is a long journey to and from school and parents want to be able to be in touch with their children. I take the point that one of the things that we could do is support parents to understand how their children’s use of screen time might impact on them, both positively and negatively, and to encourage them—particularly those with younger children—to engage with that screen time, to understand what their children are watching and doing. That is certainly something we are looking at in some of the early years and family support work that the department is doing.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we are not in a good place in relation to children and phones and social media. We heard from my noble friend Lord Young the evidence of disruption in classes. Parentkind has just published evidence which confirms that and shows that only one in seven pupils have an effective ban in place. Yesterday, we saw the watering down of the honourable Member for Whitehaven’s Private Member’s Bill on the protection of under-16s from social media and smartphones. Surely, with our children, we should be pursuing the precautionary principle. There is so much evidence of a correlation between the rise in mental health problems among young people and the advent of smartphones and social media. Until we know that that is not causation, surely the Government should be acting and not delaying.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We are of course in a place that reflects the guidance issued by the last Government—probably by the noble Baroness, actually—less than a year ago. On other occasions, quite rightly in this House, the Government are challenged on the approach that they take to the autonomy and decision-making of head teachers. With respect to schools, it is clearly important that we continue to monitor this issue. I know it is of concern to parents, but we also need to be in a position where we trust head teachers to make appropriate decisions within the guidance about what happens in their schools. Some of the points that the noble Baroness rightly identifies come back to the point I made earlier about the impact of phones and social media way beyond what happens in our schools. There, our cross-government approach, which focuses on the implementation of the Online Safety Act, for example, and other issues, is really important in helping us to address this issue of great concern, which I accept is complex and does not exist only in schools.

Erasmus Programme

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, at the risk of injuring my noble friend twice in a row, may I pick up on the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Patel? Can the Minister update the House on which countries are most popular among students undertaking the Turing scheme, and how does the percentage of disadvantaged students engaging with the scheme compare with that for its predecessor, the Erasmus scheme?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, the noble Baroness can encourage me to do that, and I hope I will be able to do so. I think I am right in saying that five out of 10 of the most popular Turing scheme countries are outside the EU. As we have previously discussed, that is important. In 2024-25, 53% of people who are expected to take part in the scheme are from disadvantaged backgrounds. I think that all who have contributed so far have recognised that, whatever scheme we have, the focus we put on that opportunity is really important.

Relationship, Sex and Health Education

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is fundamentally important that what our schools teach is based both on the best interests of children and on factually accurate information. Ensuring that that is the case is part of the reason for making sure that we take our time on this guidance, and for ensuring that schools are supported to find the right sources of that information.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister talks about the Government taking their time, but the review of the RSHE statutory guidance consultation closed in July last year, so we are nearly nine months on. Can she give a date for the publication of the results of that and the revised guidance? The Minister is right that these are very sensitive subjects, but that is why the previous Government had a very respected independent panel to advise them on this. Can she say whether its report will be published?

Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Storey (LD)]

It always seemed to me that were almost gloating about this, but what a fine way to show that in the financing of our university sector, or in how we look after our students in many cases.

As I think has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, last year the Minister very bravely said the Government were going to increase tuition fees to get over that difficulty. Then, of course, along came national insurance and all that wonderful extra financial resource is completely lost.

My knowledge of the university sector has increased over the years with my children going to university and I also served on the governing council of Liverpool Hope University, so my interest has grown. I always think that we do not really grapple with some of the issues that face us; we try to push them away. I thought that when loans were introduced, it would put students in the driving seat of a university education. I do not think that has happened. In some universities, the way students are regarded is not as good as it should be.

I also wonder whether Tony Blair saying he wanted 50% of young people to go to university was the right way of deciding how we grow the university sector. I look now, and I see some universities really struggling, offering very low grades to get into university. I see universities almost competing with each other on courses when they are in the same city, for goodness’ sake—I just do not understand that. I look at private universities, which, obviously, get finances from the system. I was heavily involved in the Greenwich School of Management, where the Government were able to say, “We’re taking all these young people from deprived backgrounds and giving them a university education”—but, at the end of the first year, they took the money and ran. What went on in that particular private institution, along with others, was completely wrong. When it was highlighted on “Panorama”, the college was closed down, along with others. In one case, police took action. So we have to look carefully at how we use the money as well. Some of the practices that we currently carry out are, in my mind, just not acceptable.

I want to see students really value their university education. I will give an example of something that is a great pity. When I was at university, I stayed on Merseyside, but I loved the fact that I met people from all over the country, who are some of my best friends—from the north-east and elsewhere. Nowadays, students cannot afford that and, increasingly, they go to the university in their home area or even their home city. The figures for Liverpool John Moores or the University of Liverpool, for example, increasingly show that the students come from that city, that conurbation or that region. We have lost something in losing that opportunity.

I am delighted that the Minister talked to us about how we need to look at this properly and come forward with some proposals in the summer. I am delighted and excited by that, to be quite honest, but I hope those proposals will give us the opportunity to give our ideas and thoughts on what that might be. But, in terms of this SI, I very much support what the Government are doing.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this statutory instrument increases by 3.1% the maximum tuition fees that higher education providers can charge for the majority of courses and, in turn, the amount of tuition fee loans that students can take out. It also reduces the maximum amount of tuition fees that can be charged for foundation year courses in certain classroom-based subjects, such as business studies, humanities and social sciences. These Benches very much welcome the Government’s decision on foundation year courses; we have seen potentially troubling increases in the number of students taking these courses, particularly where franchise providers are used to deliver them.

However, I have three main concerns about the approach that the Government are taking to the tuition fee increases. First, this increase, in line with inflation, sets a precedent for future fee increases. I absolutely hear the points made by the Minister and my noble friends about the importance of giving universities visibility and stability in their financial model. But if we assume, in line with the OBR, that inflation remains at around 3%, it will take only a further two years of this policy before students will have to pay more than £10,000 a year in fees. So, after a typical three-year degree, students will leave with debt of around £59,000, or up to £68,600 if they live in London. Echoing the requests of my noble friends, I ask the Minister to clarify whether the Government plan to increase fees again in this Parliament in line with inflation—taking my noble friend Lord Johnson’s advice and doing that quickly—or is this a one-off decision?

Secondly, the Government have stated that they increased university fees for 2025-26 to

“help cement higher education providers’ roles as engines of growth in the heart of communities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/25; col. 19WS.]

The Secretary of State for Education deemed that this action was necessary to

“secure the future of higher education”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/24; col. 47.]

However, as we have heard from all speakers this afternoon, this increase will not result in a net improvement in university budgets; indeed, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee commented in its report on this SI that the increase will “not reduce those difficulties” that higher education providers are facing. Our understanding is that the Government’s choice to increase employers’ national insurance will cost the university sector around £372 million, which will more than offset the increase in fees. So we are left in a situation where the Government have increased costs for all parties—students and taxpayers—without fixing the root of the problem. Indeed, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that

“the ultimate costs of increases in tuition fee loans (and presumably also of maintenance loans, for the same reason) fall on the public purse to a significantly greater extent than the costs of those loans overall”.

So, although the focus is on students, the committee clearly believes that, ultimately, it will be the taxpayer who picks up the bill.

Thirdly, although, as I noted previously, we very much support the Government’s decision to reduce fees on foundation year courses, again, the SLSC notes that about 12 or so institutions will be most affected by the drop in income, which it estimates—or, perhaps, the Government estimate—as being between £154 million and £239 million annually. What assessment have the Government made of that impact? Can the Minister update the Committee on it?

More broadly, I hear and respect the comments of my noble friend Lord Johnson but I think it is fair to say that, as the number of degrees has expanded, some degrees have—my noble friend does not want to use the term “value for money”; I am fine with that—resulted in the taxpayer picking up a greater proportion of the costs than was the case in the past. The IFS noted in its 2020 report that total returns from a degree will be negative for about 30% of the men and women undertaking them. I totally understand that a degree is about much more than one’s earnings power, but one’s earnings power, particularly if you come from a disadvantaged community, is not insignificant either.

So I would be interested to know what the Government are doing to try to give students greater transparency about the degree choices that they are making in terms of future employability, career options and earnings power. The Minister will know that even a degree such as maths, depending on where you do it, will end up with very different outcomes in terms of earnings. It is important for students to understand the implications of their degree choices. The latest data showed that the median first-degree graduate earnings five years after graduation were £29,900 as compared to £33,800 for a level 4 apprentice. I appreciate that they are not interchangeable; I just use that as a demonstration of the point I am making.

It has taken a freedom of information request from my honourable friend Neil O’Brien to reveal the wide variations in the share of loans that are being repaid between different higher education institutions. In some cases, we see only very small fractions of what is being loaned out getting paid back, which means that these courses are definitely not great for the taxpayer but are arguably not great for the student either, who may feel that their degree has cost them a lot but not taken them to where they had hoped to get to.

Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement. The Government’s announcement in relation to breakfast clubs builds, obviously, on the approach of the previous Government, who ran a breakfast club programme from 2018. As we know, the vast majority of schools have a breakfast club; some are free and others charge a very low fee.

Although I understand and absolutely respect that the Government are following through on their manifesto commitment to deliver breakfast clubs in primary schools, can the Minister clarify for the House what will happen to breakfast clubs in secondary schools funded by the previous Administration when that funding ends? Similarly, the Statement talked about the growth in childcare provision and the very significant funding going into that, which also builds on previous Conservative government policy.

On the specifics of the scheme, the Minister will be aware that the Institute for Fiscal Studies report last year calculated that the £315 million announced by the Government for breakfast clubs would fund only the food element in all primary schools. As she knows, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill proposes half an hour of childcare as well as breakfast. Can the Minister clarify what percentage of funding for the new breakfast clubs the Government will provide? What discussions have the Government had with schools on how to cover any shortfall?

The Minister will have seen the report from the BBC yesterday of a small primary school in Lancashire that was part of the 750-school pilot phase and felt that it was not able to continue because, in its case, the funding did not cover its costs. Obviously, there has been wider commentary on this issue. Can she shed light on whether there is truth in the rumours that some schools were invited to take part in the pilot but were unable to and, if so, what the main reasons for that were?

Can the Minister also confirm what percentage of schools in the new scheme had no breakfast club provision before this?

I have tried to work out the Secretary of State’s assertion that the scheme will save families £450 a year. Maths is not my strongest suit but perhaps the Minister can help me. The Government, as I understand it, are funding 60p per child and 78p for those children in receipt of pupil premium. On my maths, £450 a year is about £2.30 per school day per child. Equally, if you put it the other way round, the government funding of £315 million spread across 4.5 million primary school children is about £70 a year. So can she set out what assumptions the Government are making that are behind the statement of the £450 saving to families?

Finally, I wonder what assumptions the Government are making about the uptake of the scheme. A range of breakfast clubs already exist, of course, with and without additional childcare, and the Government have said they aim to learn from the pilot. Given that the vast majority of schools already have breakfast club provision, I am unclear what the Government need to learn from this pilot as opposed to what has gone before. All this matters, of course, because the Government’s choice—and it is a choice—is to fund breakfast for all children in primary school, including those whose parents were happy to pay for that breakfast and could do so without financial difficulty. It would be helpful for the House if the Minister could explain why.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this Statement to the Floor of the House even if it is a few days behind the Commons. The main thrust from my party is that we would rather have had the emphasis of this put into lunchtime meals, because, from the information I have received, about 40% of children who are eligible for this take it up, and anybody who has dealt with any child, or indeed rush-hour traffic, knows that you have more trouble getting children to school early in the day to get breakfast than you would do at lunchtime, when everybody is there.

That is a fundamental flaw in the system of getting the nutrition in. The second flaw is what is in one of these breakfasts. If it is a sugar-laden breakfast cereal, you have the equivalent of a turkey twizzler in the morning. If it is just preserve on a bit of white bread, you will fill somebody up, but what is the nutritional guarantee?

We have more experience in lunchtime meals—it is easier to get a balance in the meal. You will get a bigger bang for your buck. We also have the idea that people are used to eating that meal at lunchtime, so it will probably be slightly easier to get acceptance. If you are going to do this, what are the steps you will take to make sure it reaches more people? If you are going to put this money in, what is the benefit?

I had prepared a slightly less extensive list of other questions, which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has got to before me. I will not weary the House by repeating them. The basic thing is the strategy to make sure that you get the best nutritional outcomes for those pupils and get to a higher percentage of the school population. I think we are entitled to know about that from the Government.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Baroness Barran Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, it is appropriate that during National Apprenticeship Week we are coming to the end of the first part of this Bill. It was one of those few Bills where it was a pleasure and a joy to be involved. Everybody wants the same thing—we have a few little differences but we all work together. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, who gave of her time enormously, which is much appreciated. Colleagues right across the House have all worked together in the interests of young people and the skills agenda.

On this side, I particularly thank my small but perfectly well-formed education team of my noble friends Lord Addington and Lady Garden, and Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office, who did incredible work. I do not particularly know the Bill team, but I am sure it did fantastic work. I thank everybody. We will come back to this, but I think the work that has been agreed will do a considerable amount to develop the whole skills agenda and the growth agenda in our country.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her engagement throughout the passage of the Bill and her willingness to meet and discuss different aspects of the legislation. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who brought their expertise to our detailed deliberations and to those across the House who supported each other’s amendments in a truly collaborative way. My special thanks go to my noble friend Lord Effingham, who has given me great support throughout the passage of the Bill, and to Beatrice Hughes in our research team.

During the Bill’s passage we secured several important concessions from the Government, including a commitment to include wording that focuses on quality, value for money, efficiency and effectiveness in the framework document, mirroring the original IfATE legislation. We very much welcomed the amendments the Government brought forward on transparency and reporting.

Our concerns remain about the practical implementation of Skills England. We very much welcome the appointment of Phil Smith as chair of the agency and wish him every success. He clearly brings enormous experience and expertise to the board, but across the House we have flagged concerns about ensuring that the voice of employers remains central to the work of Skills England. I know the Minister has sought to reassure us on that point. We have also had very constructive conversations about the regional coherence of the proposed plans and, of course, the scale of the task that faces Skills England in co-ordinating work across Whitehall.

We very much hope that the Government will think hard about our amendment to delay the abolition of IfATE to give Skills England the time to set itself up for success. We also hope that the Bill will be accepted in its current form in the other place so that, in the nicest possible way, we do not see it again in your Lordships’ House.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for their responses. I certainly undertake to engage with the noble Baroness and others on concerns around delay. I am pleased that the Bill has the support of so many noble Lords.

As I said in my opening remarks, the Bill has hugely benefited from robust review and revision in this House, as have I. If there were an apprenticeship for being a Lords Minister, this would definitely have been a key element. I hope I have learned things that will help me as we come to the next Bill we will have the pleasure of taking through this House, which I suspect might take us slightly longer.

I hope that this Bill will have a swift passage through the House of Commons, and I thank noble Lords for their engagement.

Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

Education (Assemblies) Bill [HL]

Baroness Barran Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 7th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, on securing a Second Reading for her Bill, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate. As we have heard this morning, when the Bill was considered in 2021, it did not pass through the Commons due to lack of time. But, at that time, the Conservative Government were unable to support it, and I am afraid—I guess this will not surprise the noble Baroness—our position has not changed. I will briefly outline my concerns, some of which were much more eloquently represented by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and the noble Lord, Lord Weir of Ballyholme.

The first point, which other noble Lords have made, is that collective worship is important and gives children in school a time to learn and to reflect but to do that with a sense of community, and religion allows children to learn some of the essential values of life. Many of the topics that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, cited as possible topics for secular collective worship are part of Christianity and often already form part of the collective worship that happens in our schools every day. As the House is aware, there are already curriculum requirements for the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of pupils through the PSHE curriculum. As we know, the Government have asked Professor Becky Francis to lead a review of the curriculum and make an assessment, and I am sure that if any changes are required she will bring them to the Government’s attention.

As the right reverend Prelate and the noble Lord, Lord Weir, both pointed out, the existing legislation is flexible, and I feel that it is unjust to describe it as an imposition or a coercion of children or their parents. As noble Lords know, it is already possible for children or indeed whole schools to be exempted from this practice. Therefore, we believe that this legislation is unnecessary. That of course includes schools where the principal religion is not Christianity.

I was interested to hear the thoughts of the noble Lord, Lord Weir, about removing parents’ right to remove their children if they were unhappy with a new collective worship or reflection—I am not sure what we would call it, but collective assembly—and the risk that it would exclude important commemorations. Obviously, we accept that social attitudes are changing, but one can also then make the argument that it is more important than ever that we have some common core that children understand and learn from, because they are unlikely to learn it elsewhere in modern society, other than possibly at home. The Judeo-Christian principles, which I am sure we could have many good debates about, underpin our culture and have withstood the test of time. We unravel at our peril that understanding and shared sense of who we are as a community, and the commonality across religions of some of those principles.

I was struck by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, very cunningly—in a good way—finding a Question from 25 years ago. I wonder whether he agrees with me that the question might be the same, but I do not think what we would see in the classroom or school hall would be the same. That is an important point in all this. Our teachers are absolutely aware of how our society is changing; they are aware of the diversity in their communities, and they have the skill and sensitivity to make sure that it is translated every morning to the collective worship—

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

Just in response to the noble Baroness, I understand what she is saying about teachers reflecting the current situation in classroom. That is why I support the Bill—because things have moved on from the time of that 1999 Question to which I referred. To some extent, that is the whole point of the Bill; that was then and this is now.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think that equally plays into the argument that the Bill is not needed. If our system is naturally evolving with a strong core, the argument is made for the Bill being unnecessary. As I listened to some of the moral questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, and the right reverend Prelate posed, I thought that in some way many of those moral questions are exactly the same. We are achieving that in a gradual and evolutionary way in responding to those issues in our schools. Therefore, while I thank the noble Baroness for bringing the Bill to the House, I am afraid I cannot support it.