Creative Industries: Qualifications

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 23rd July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Keeley for introducing this debate, and noble Lords around the House for congratulating me on maintaining my role. I am absolutely delighted about it, not least because what would I do on a Thursday afternoon if I did not have the opportunity to engage in excellent debates such as the one today? This discussion has rightly focused on a matter of great significance: how we ensure that all young people, regardless of background, can access high-quality routes into the creative industries, while also building a qualification system that is stronger, clearer and fit for the future.

My noble friend Lady Kingsmill was right, as were others, to identify that the creative industries are one of the United Kingdom’s great success stories. They contribute approximately £145 billion to the economy and have grown four times faster than the rest of the economy since 2010. I think those figures are slightly higher than some others have suggested, but they demonstrate the success of our creative industries. That is why the Government’s industrial strategy recognises the creative industries as one of the growth-driving sectors that will help to power our economy in the years ahead. That success depends on a steady pipeline of talent and that is why the education and skills system must work for this sector.

Before we come on to some of the other creative areas, I point out—I think this was a point made by the noble Earl, Lord Effingham—that a significant proportion of the skills needed in the creative industries fall within that digital and technical area, as Skills England has demonstrated. That is one of the reasons why digital is a successful T-level already, why it will be one of the first V-levels to be introduced and why, in the growth and skills levy, digital areas and artificial intelligence are some of the very first apprenticeship units to be developed and offered.

However, a key part of the plan is a continued commitment to specialist education to develop the next generation of music performers, producers and industry professionals. I am sure that noble Lords will have noted the Government’s publication last week of the music plan and the commitment that it showed to a wide-ranging approach to supporting and developing music in this country, including through our education system.

I begin by being clear, as I was even before this debate, that the Government recognise the concerns that have been expressed about qualification reform and the future of creative education for 16 to 19 year-olds. We are listening carefully to creative industry employers, education providers, awarding organisations, higher education institutions and representative bodies. We understand that the creative industries have distinctive characteristics and that qualifications must reflect those realities.

In thinking about the wider reforms in which we are engaged, the objective is not, at its heart, simplification. That would never be enough. These are not the reforms of the former Government, which were too narrow and did not recognise vocational breadth, which was precisely the point recognised by my noble friend Lady Gill. The priority for level 3 reform is a system which provides high-quality options, whether you study better academically or want more applied learning and assessment. The latter, of course, has not been well enough served in our education system, with lower status for vocational qualifications, however high their quality, and confusing routes for young people to where they want to get in their lives.

This is why, in future, young people will have three distinct level 3 routes. A-levels will remain the academic route and V-levels will become the vocational route, supporting broad study and progression. My noble friend Lady Warwick was right about the breadth of study that we increasingly need to provide for our young people. That is the reason why we have designed vocational V-levels to be the same size as A-levels—so that a young person can develop a broad vocational set of qualifications, including linking and partnering them with academic A-levels as well. It is right that, if somebody is choosing to take a large qualification because it is the area they want to focus on, we make sure that that qualification is the most likely to be able to deliver that, with the sort of progression that noble Lords have talked about. That is why we believe that T-levels should be the large technical route for students who want to specialise in a particular occupational area. We are also reforming T-levels, as I will come on to later.

In this reform, we are taking a phased and careful approach to implementation. No qualifications will lose funding approval during the academic year 2026-27. We will introduce new qualifications in the creative and design route for first teach in September 2030, and there are no further plans for the removal of funding for qualifications in creative art and design until 2030. The noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, questioned whether creative areas were at the back of the queue, but he also provided the answer. They are not at the back of the queue. Although we recognise many of the points made today, we will take our time while maintaining the existing qualifications to get this right for young people and the creative sector. We will work closely with the sector to ensure that the change is manageable, supports stability and delivers what is needed. Along with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, we will work with the sector, taking into account its expert advice, and I have asked the department to convene a creatives advisory group for qualifications reform, led by those with knowledge of what has worked for the sector. We will bring it together in the autumn to address many of the points raised today.

T-levels are already delivering strong outcomes. Across the programme, 92% of students progressed into work or further study, and around two-thirds progressed into the same broad subject area as their course. More than a quarter of those entering employment do so with the organisation that hosted their industry placement. But we know that reform was needed. One of reasons relates to the point made by my noble friend Lord Watson and others about the levels of prior attainment that were needed in order to access T-levels. I am sure that noble Lords will therefore be reassured that young people with a range of prior attainment are accessing T-levels.

In fact, the GCSE grade split for students receiving T-level results is now very similar to those receiving results for applied general qualifications. The proportion of T-level students without 4s or above in both GCSE English and maths has also increased each year, showing that T-levels are becoming more accessible. Given the challenge, rightly, from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, we are also seeing an increasing proportion of students with special educational needs and disability taking T-levels.

We already have T-levels in media, broadcast and production, and in craft and design. While in relatively small numbers, because this is the very first cohort, we will see them completing their qualifications and getting their results this summer. The National Theatre supported the shaping and the rollout of the new creative T-levels. It reports that T-levels are helping to engage a younger generation and strengthen talent pipelines into the sector, with flexible industry placement models providing hands-on experience across departments and projects, and developing specialist skills within the theatre, such as lighting, AV and sound technology.

We are expanding T-levels so that more young people benefit from their progression opportunities and outcomes. That is why we are considering further creative and design T-levels in art, performing arts and visual effects subjects for introduction from 2029 or 2030. As I have said, we will work closely with employers, providers and the creative sector to ensure the content accurately reflects what employers want and delivers what the sector and young people need. That is why the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, was wrong to say that we are defunding prematurely. As I have pointed out, there will not be defunding up to the point at which those T-levels and V-levels are introduced.

I take the very important point made by my noble friend Lord Knight about the nature of the creative sector and the breadth necessary for those who are engaged with it. We recognise that many creative careers involve portfolio working, self-employment and movement across multiple occupations throughout a career, and we know that the future qualification landscape must reflect that reality. That is why we are in ongoing discussions with Skills England on occupational standard development, where there are gaps in future T-level areas, with a view to developing standards that are needed to support future skills pipelines.

My noble friends Lord Knight and Lady Kingsmill made points, as did others, about the nature of assessment, whether in V-levels or in T-levels. Of course, it cannot be right that there is only a traditional exam focus in courses that are precisely about more practical application and different styles of learning. That is why we are already working on how we can develop new forms of assessment, doing that carefully with Ofqual in order to ensure that those remain of a high quality.

There is also an important point about how we get the message out about new qualifications. Our network of more than 1,400 T-level ambassadors champion T-levels and industry placements across the business community—including the National Theatre, which acts as a T-level ambassador for the creative industries.

Quite rightly, several noble Lords, including my noble friends Lady Caine, Lady Warwick and Lady Gill, talked about both the benefits and the challenges of developing sufficient industry placements for T-levels. That is why we have already introduced significant reforms to industry placement delivery. They are providing fantastic opportunities for students. Around 25% of students who progress into work get jobs with their industry placement employer. I have already identified how the National Theatre, for example, speaks very positively about the benefits of hosting T-level students.

However, we recognise that a conventional placement could be challenging in the creative industries. The reforms to industry placements that have already been introduced will allow providers to better tailor provision to meet the needs of the sector, including more scope for remote placements, which help freelancers and SME employers. We will work with the creative sector advisory group that I am setting up to consider whether further adaptations for placements are needed for these subjects.

V-levels will be the new flagship vocational qualification that supports young people who want more applied learning and practical assessment. We are in the early stages of the development of V-levels, and we are determined to do that—as my noble friend Lady Gill noted—on the basis of thinking about different routes and ensuring that the system works together to provide pathways. I am pleased that we moved quickly to publish the national content for the first V-levels in accounting and finance, digital systems and data, and education on 9 July. These V-levels will be taught from September 2027. We are working with Ofqual, which has consulted on assessments and grading for V-levels.

As I have already suggested, the proposals aim to give students more opportunities to show what they know and can do through a mix of different types of assessment, taken over the course of their studies. We have already set out that we are exploring future V-levels in art, the performing arts, and creative media and design. I know that these will not necessarily be appropriate for those who want a large qualification, but, as I have said, given the breadth of the creative sector, they may well be appropriate for people who want to put together a set of qualifications to recognise that breadth. The first teaching for these is planned for 2030. The nationally set content there will also be developed in partnership with those with deep experience of the sector. Importantly, existing qualifications will continue to be funded until replacement qualifications are introduced.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, suggested that people do not know much about V-levels at the moment. That is a fair charge, given the earliness of their development. That is why, to ensure that providers are well supported through this transition, we have established a group of qualification pioneers. They will play a vital role in supporting our work to support provider transition plans, share effective practice and advise on the support required to help providers successfully navigate this change. It is why we have provided information, graphics and resources to schools, colleges and careers guidance, to help explain V-levels.

As noble Lords have pointed out, it also important to ensure that the pre-16 curriculum delivers, in the areas of arts and music, what is necessary to create that pipeline. That is why there is considerable work going on as a result of the curriculum and assessment review to ensure—for example, in music—that this is now, from key stage 1 to key stage 4, a rigorous, equitable and inclusive curriculum that will support more people to be able to take A-levels. I understand my noble friend’s concern about the fall-off in the numbers taking A-level music. It will also be supported by continued investment in music hubs and the new national centre for arts and music education, which will help schools deliver new curriculum content effectively.

We have also touched on A-levels today. There are A-levels in art and design, dance, drama and theatre, music, music technology, design and technology, and film studies. While uptake varies between those creative subjects, entries have grown steadily in areas such as art and design, and media and film, since 2019. Although the curriculum and assessment review concluded that A-levels were generally working well, we will certainly want to make updates, where necessary, to ensure that A-levels remain coherent, particularly with the revised GCSE qualifications. We will update AS-levels and A-levels, ready for first teaching in 2031 and 2032.

I will also say in relation to higher education that I share the view that it is important that new qualifications have good progression to higher education. That remains central to our thinking. Almost 200 higher education providers across Britain accept T-levels for at least some courses, including the majority of Russell group institutions, and 81% of T-level applicants secured a higher education place in the 2025 admissions cycle. We will continue to push HE to recognise T-levels and we will develop V-levels and their content with higher education to ensure progression and, to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Effingham, to ensure progression on to level 4 and 5 courses as well.

We cannot deliver this change—the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is right—without the workforce and capacity to deliver them. That is why this Government are significantly investing in relation to level 3 in further education. We have announced additional funding of £120 million for this academic year, rising to £365 million in the next academic year, to help support particularly the workforce that we need. Together with wider post-16 funding increases, that means that funding for 16 to 19 year-old students has increased by more than 12% over two years. At the same time, our increases in teacher pay are helping us to deliver that 6,500 target for additional teachers that we have set out. We will provide new technical and vocational subjects for the specific professional development programme to help support our teachers to deliver the new qualifications.

We all share the same goal: ensuring that young people can develop their talents, pursue their ambitions and contribute to the continued success of our creative industries. The Government are committed to a qualification system that is ambitious, coherent and responsive to the needs of learners, employers and the economy. We recognise the strength of feeling across the creative sector about maintaining high-quality progression routes. That is why we are proceeding carefully, engaging closely with stakeholders and investing in the workforce, the creative sector, the qualifications and institutions that will support the next generation of creative talent.

I again thank my noble friend Lady Keeley for bringing this debate before the House and all noble Lords for their valuable contributions, and I look forward to continuing this important dialogue as we build a qualification system that serves both learners and the creative sector as they deserve to be served.

Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the draft Regulations and Order laid before the House on 18 May and 1 June be approved.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 14 and 15 July.

Motions agreed.

Music Teachers: Recruitment

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 20th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Keeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps, if any, they are taking to recruit more music teachers to bridge the gap caused by missed recruitment targets in past years.

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

My Lords, alongside improved teacher retention, 369 music teacher trainees started training last year—a 55% increase compared to academic year 2023-24. Music teachers are a key part of our pledge for 6,500 additional teachers and we are making good progress, with over 70% of that target achieved. We recently announced a new pay award, including for music teachers, and accepted the recommendations of the independent body, meaning that schoolteachers will see a 17% increase in pay since this Government took office.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, under Conservative-led Governments, the EBacc and Progress 8 worked to squeeze music out of the curriculum. Recruitment targets for music teacher training were missed for 11 out of 12 years. In fact, the number of music teachers fell by 850 between 2011 and 2023. I am sure that the Labour Government’s reforms will strengthen provision, but the music curriculum is also constrained by music teacher workforce supply, which is fundamentally a question of unequal opportunity to choose music as a subject. Will my noble friend the Minister look again at teacher training incentives, such as the bursary, and at re-establishing ambitious recruitment targets?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We look at the subjects to be covered by the bursary on the basis of need and difficulty in recruitment. Given the encouraging improvements in music teacher recruitment over recent years, we have decided not to continue the bursary this year. My noble friend also made an important point about the curriculum, and we have already reformed the EBacc accountability measure and removed it, because it limited children’s choice of what they learned at school. Through the curriculum and assessment review, we will bring about further improvements in the music curriculum.

[Lord Gove (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, who is a brilliant Minister, for her reply. But she erred slightly in blaming the EBacc, which provides no constraint on choice. What supports choice, of course, is the provision of music hubs. Under the coalition Government, Darren Henley’s music review ensured that they are there to provide support for all schools, but sadly, under the latter years of the Conservative Government, and under this Government, there has been no real-terms increase in funding for music hubs. We know that the incoming Prime Minister is a great fan of music and a champion of the Hallé Orchestra. Will the Minister encourage him to show “true faith” in our music hubs, end the “definitely maybe” culture of funding and guarantee a “new order” with a “wonderwall” of funding for them?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Oh dear. We are definitely investing £76 million annually in music hubs, which of course means that the 43 music hubs can continue their important work to help children, regardless of background, to access musical education, by providing instruments and resources. In addition, we are investing up to £13 million in the national centre for arts and music education, which we intend to establish by September, to provide support for the revised national curriculum, improve the professional development of music teachers and make sure that extracurricular school enrichment and partnerships with music and arts organisations are strengthened.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, further to the supplementary question from the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, does the Minister agree that what is needed most urgently, given that the Government are not taking into account the long-term decline in arts education, is a review of the way in which recruitment targets and ITT bursaries are calculated? This affects not just music but art and design. If they were really interested in boosting arts education, they would not just be looking at the most recent baselines.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Every year, we review the recruitment trajectory for different subjects. Given the need to safeguard public money and ensure we are spending it efficiently, and given that we have had a 55% increase in recruitment to initial music teacher training and the lowest leaving rate—8.7%—for music teachers at any point, apart from during the pandemic, I do not think it unreasonable to conclude that, at this point in time, the bursary is not required to bring about recruitment. As I said, we will of course review that every year. We will keep in mind the number of teachers needed to maintain the proportion of hours taught by specialist music teachers in our schools at above 90%, and we will, as we have already proved, pay more if necessary to get the teachers our children need.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, if the Government are serious about expanding arts opportunities, along with other opportunities outside the core curriculum, do they accept that they not only have to be aggressive about recruiting teachers but must make sure that they reach those groups who cannot get there through the private sector? If you want equality, you have to have teachers in schools across the board who are reaching those communities that do not usually access private teaching. Is this a priority? Where does it fit in with the national centre for the arts?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. Schools provide children who cannot access it through private means the opportunity to benefit from music and instrumental education. Through the national enrichment framework that the Government recently published, we will make sure there are more opportunities in the school day for children to take part in music and learn instruments.

[Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government have introduced extremely welcome tax relief for orchestras, theatres, museums and galleries, but the outreach they undertake is not eligible for that tax relief, despite it being a potentially significant source of support for music education in schools. Given that the extension of tax reliefs is being discussed at the moment, will my noble friend the Minister consider discussing with colleagues extending the scope of that tax relief so that every child in every postcode has the opportunity to learn music?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Tax reliefs are of course the purview of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am sure the Chancellor—whoever they might be—will be listening very carefully to my noble friend’s argument about how we can encourage as much participation in music as possible.

[Lord Sterling of Plaistow (Con)]

I studied music at the Guildhall School of Music. I suggest there are many ladies here who studied the piano up to level 8, which is a very good level for people to teach in schools. Will the Government look into the possibility that older people could help in that way and bring back that music in state schools, not just private schools?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This lady only got as far as grade 7, I am afraid—I am grade 6 in cello. The noble Lord makes an important point about the use of volunteers, but the key issue is whether we have the quality of teachers to give our children a strong music education. The fact that we have seen 55% more applications for initial teacher training in music in the past two years is encouraging, but we will, in the spirit of the challenge that has been put through this question, keep that under review to make sure we continue to deliver on the increase in specialist teachers in our state schools that we have so far succeeded in delivering.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, I fear my noble friend underestimates the issue. Music teachers make a great difference to education generally. Music teaches collaboration, awareness of emotions, memory, social awareness, reading ability and a range of other things as well. That has to be done by music teachers, and they should be available in schools. That should be a priority for the Government.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sorry if my noble friend thinks that I have not looked enthusiastic about this. I was emphasising the progress that this Government are making in ensuring that qualified music teachers are in our schools, including through considerable investment. I agree with my noble friend that we need expert music teachers in our schools. At this point, more than 90% of the hours of music taught in our schools is provided by specialist music teachers. Of course that means there can be more improvement, and that is what the Government are committed to doing. But we have made considerable progress in the time we have been in government.

Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026.

Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for the scrutiny of this instrument they have provided. I believe that they were satisfied with it. The draft regulations were laid in Parliament on 18 May 2026. These regulations are the first of three pieces of secondary legislation needed to implement the lifelong learning entitlement—LLE. They establish a new system of tuition fee limits for higher education courses and modules that begin on or after 1 January 2027.

The LLE is one of the most significant reforms to student finance in a generation. For the first time, it creates a single flexible funding system for study at levels 4 to 6, spanning both further and higher education—one that supports people to learn, upskill and retrain across their working lives. The LLE was a central element within the Government’s Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, supporting the growth and skills missions as well as the industrial strategy.

The case for the LLE is clear. Over a third of job vacancies are unfilled because of skills shortages and at least 80% of the workforce of 2030 are already in work today, yet our current system was designed largely with younger, full-time learners in mind. It does not offer the flexibility for someone who is older, who wants to study part-time, take a short course or module, or retrain mid-career. The principle of a single lifelong learning entitlement was a central recommendation of Sir Philip Augar’s 2019 review. Parliament then established the framework for this through the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 and the Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Act 2023. These regulations now continue the serious work of implementation.

The LLE will broaden access to high-quality, flexible education and training. It will support learner mobility and help our colleges, universities and other providers respond more effectively to the skills needs of learners, employers and the wider economy. In doing this, it will support the Prime Minister’s ambition for two-thirds of young people to access higher-level learning by the age of 25 and help to increase participation in high-quality technical education. This Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity and driving economic growth, and the LLE is a central part of that mission. These regulations set out the details of the LLE tuition fee limit system. A tuition fee limit is the maximum amount that a provider in England can charge per year if they are subject to a fee cap. Currently this limit is up to £9,790 for a standard full-time course in 2026-27.

At present, fee limits are set as a fixed cash amount for each academic year, regardless of how much learning that year contains. That works for a traditional three-year degree but it cannot price a single module or a short course effectively. These regulations replace this with a credit-based approach. Credits are units widely used to signify the amount of learning a student would ordinarily be expected to undertake to complete a particular course or part of a course. Across the further and higher education sectors, definitions are consistent. One credit equals about 10 hours of student learning, so to give a straightforward example for a typical higher education course, the standard higher fee limit amount for the academic year 2026-27 is £9,790 and a standard full-time year contains 120 credits. The LLE per-credit fee limit as described by these regulations represents that £9,790 divided by 120. The result is therefore a tuition fee limit of close to £82 per credit, or £81.58 to be precise. These regulations mean that tuition fee limits can be apportioned in line with the credit size of any given course.

The new system established by these regulations does not change the overall tuition fee limit, as debated by the House earlier this year. The vast majority of students will see no change in the fees they are charged. What changes is the application of the tuition fee limits that have been set. For the first time, fee limits will apply fairly to short periods of study, as well as to traditional longer courses; that is because they will be based on the amount of learning in a course or module. Students will therefore know that their tuition fees reflect the volume of learning they are undertaking. The regulations provide protection for students and taxpayers. There are limits on the credits for which a provider can charge: 360 credits for a typical three-year degree and 180 credits within any one year.

Subject to Parliament’s approval of these regulations, it is my intention to make and lay two further instruments, which are necessary to establish the LLE. The two instruments, on student support and on repayments, have already been published in draft so that the House has full sight of the suite of legislation proposed and the sector can make appropriate preparations for the introduction of the LLE system. These two instruments will both be subject to the negative procedure. Given their dependency on the regulations before us today, they will be made only if both Houses approve these regulations.

These regulations represent a significant step in fulfilling this Government’s commitment to deliver the lifelong learning entitlement. They establish the fee limit system needed to support a more flexible approach to student finance—one that works better for young people and adults alike. By doing so, they will help learners study in a way that fits their lives, help providers respond to changing skills needs and support people across the country to access the education and training they need to succeed. I beg to move.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome these regulations and, obviously, support the objective of the lifelong learning entitlement. As the Minister said, it originated in the Augar review a few years ago, in which the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, played an important part. I am glad that this Government are continuing the work initiated by previous Governments in this respect.

These regulations are really important because they put in place the funding architecture for the LLE, without which it cannot become a reality. However, the real test will be whether, in reality, the architecture translates into substantially greater participation in lifelong learning, which has always been one of the missing pieces of our educational landscape in England. That will become all the more important in the world we are moving into—that of artificial intelligence. As Ministers and others have noted, we will need to enable the retraining of people many times over the course of their working lives. So I would be interested to hear from the Minister how the LLE is intended to operate alongside employer-funded retraining through the growth and skills levy.

It is important that we have clarity on the boundaries between these two important funding schemes, and how they relate to one another, so that we eliminate any policy confusion that might inadvertently depress demand for lifelong learning, which, as I said, is already pretty low. If a worker needs to retrain because AI has transformed their role, how should they go about it? How will they know whether the expectation from government is that their employer will fund that training or whether they should fund it themselves through loans via the lifelong learning entitlement? I would really welcome some thoughts from the Minister on those questions.

I also have broader questions about the future of this policy. These regulations are a great start and it is better that we are starting down this journey towards more modular study where possible, but I think the Minister has admitted in the past that this is not the end point or final destination. I would like to probe a little further where she sees this policy area going. In particular, when will the LLE be extended to master’s level study—level 7—given the increasing demand for postgraduate-level reskilling in areas such as AI, digital technologies and advanced professional practice? Many adults who need to retrain in the coming decade will already hold a bachelor’s degree, given current levels of tertiary enrolment, and will need to acquire higher-level skills rather than simply further study at undergraduate level or sub-degree level, which is the current area of focus of the LLE.

Secondly, what is the Government’s thinking on eligibility for funding for courses not drawn from existing qualifications? The stipulations in the policy are very clear at the moment: funding will be made available only for modules that are drawn from existing qualifications. I have said on a few occasions that this risks us stifling innovation in what is on offer, meaning that we, in effect, provide access only to more of the same but in smaller pieces. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on how we can meet demand from employers for shorter, more agile programmes that respond to rapidly changing labour market needs but do not necessarily fit within traditional qualification structures. If lifelong learning is genuinely to become a normal feature of working life, it seems likely that the funding system will ultimately need to accommodate that greater flexibility.

In her remarks, the Minister referred to two further regulations that are going to be laid, one of which is on student support. As she thinks about the future direction of this policy area, could she say whether the Government might soften their stance on student support for online, distance-learning qualifications? It stands to reason—and this is the whole intent of the Government’s policy—that the smaller the unit of study, the more likely it is to be studied at distance and online, given that students will not want to incur the frictional costs of upping sticks and moving to study at another institution in person. None the less, they will still need to incur maintenance costs, which the current regulations do not provide for. As we move into a more modular landscape, it is likely that we will need to rethink that, so I would like to understand the Government’s intentions in that respect.

Finally, what does success look like in this policy area? How are we measuring it? What level of adult participation do the Government want this entitlement to achieve over the next three to five years in shifting the market share away from this category-killing three-year bachelor’s degree towards other more flexible forms of study? Where does the Minister want us to end up in changing the way higher education is consumed and delivered over a horizon of three to five years and by what measures will the Government judge whether further reform is needed? All those points are not to detract from the importance of these regulations: they are a really important beginning. I wish the Minister every success in getting them through Parliament.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, in summary, these regulations should be viewed as positive and we hope that they are effective.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I genuinely thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It is always refreshing to debate something with people who were there at the beginning and who were part of the very important Augar review that led to this work in the first place. I appreciate the points made in the debate and I will endeavour to respond to them as well as possible.

Before turning to the specific questions, I will restate why these regulations matter. They are a critical and indispensable step in delivering the lifelong learning entitlement. To respond to some of the points made, that reform is not just about how we deliver modular courses, important though those will be as an opportunity, but how we will, for example, bring further and higher education closer together, open up more flexible and modular study, and give people a real choice in how and when they learn and make it easy for them to return to learning throughout their lives.

As we have said, these regulations set the tuition fee limits that apply to higher education courses and modules that are funded by the lifelong learning entitlement and that begin on or after 1 January 2027. They are not designed to overhaul the entire student finance system, in terms of some of the controversies that we have seen recently. They address a central weakness in that the current system is too rigid and too focused on traditional full-time study and it does not work well enough for adults who want to retrain or upskill across their working lives.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, is right that the test for this policy is whether or not this translates into greater participation and whether or not the flexibility enables there to be more opportunities for a wider range of people to upskill and return to learning, at different stages in their working lives. The AI example that the noble Lord used is interesting, and he has previously, and quite rightly, challenged us about the relationship between the growth and skills levy reforms—the apprenticeship levy, in essence—their links to the lifelong learning entitlement and how we ensure that employers have a role in developing the flexible courses that the LLE enables. A key part of our reform and the direction of travel for higher education is to emphasise its role in growth and the relationships it needs to build with employers, which is why they are an integral part of the HE learning and skills partnerships now.

However, this does not necessarily mean that the only way to be upskilled in AI, for example, would be through the LLE. It depends on how you want to learn. As part of our reform of the growth and skills levy, we have introduced short courses that can be funded through the levy for those who are employed, and AI is one of the first areas in which we have developed those. So it may be appropriate for employers to enable those in employment to take one of those short courses using the growth and skills levy. If you want to do something more fundamental, which requires a course of at least 30 credits, the lifelong learning entitlement would be more appropriate to use, so that you can go back to a broader higher education course.

On the point about scale, we have been careful to introduce the LLE incrementally, in a way that recognises some of the risks that we have seen in the higher education system recently of uncontrolled expansion and a failure to focus on the quality of what is being offered. That is why we have taken a relatively tightly controlled approach to the first providers of modular courses from January 2027. They will not simply, as I think was suggested, be more of the same but chunked up a bit. For example, the opportunity for further education to provide these courses and for students to be funded through the LLE is quite a significant change and an important development. But we are being careful about the way that we introduce these courses. We will want to expand this in the future, although I am not in a position to say when, at this point. Nevertheless, this is the start of something that will be more radical.

The noble Lord also raised the levels at which the LLE will fund. It is right that the LLE is currently focused on modular and flexible learning at levels 4 to 6, where the greatest need for retraining and upskilling has been identified. The postgraduate master’s loan and postgraduate doctoral loan remain available to help with course fees and living costs, and they provide flexibility to the student.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

I thank the Minister very much for her comments in response to my remarks. I make just two observations. In relation to the Minister’s point on the master’s loan, it is, I think, still the case that the master’s loan is not available in a modular, flexible form; it is still for a year’s worth of funding. So the flexible goals of the regulations will not apply at level 7, even through the master’s loan.

On the Minister’s point about maintenance funding, I think that it is probably a mistake to think that, just because someone is studying online or at distance, they do not need support. Even if they are not incurring the same living costs as someone who has physically moved to study a higher education course, they are none the less incurring the opportunity cost of not earning. That is the principal loss of income to them, which the maintenance loan is traditionally supposed to meet.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is of course the case that, even for distance learning, if you had a disability, for example, you would have access to the disabled students’ allowance. However, with limited resource, we have to make decisions about where we want to focus maintenance support. I do not think that it is inappropriate to focus it on those who find it much more difficult to earn alongside their learning. I understand the point that the noble Lord is making—anybody who has done an OU course understands precisely how much time it takes to do that—but the Government have focused in the way that I have described.

The next set of issues, as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, relate to what we see as success, where we see the future of this measure and how radical we think it should be. It is important to say that this is not a short-term fix; it is a bold long-term investment to support the creation of a student finance system that is fit for the challenges of the future. We have made a deliberate decision to phase in the delivery of the LLE, placing quality and learner outcomes ahead of an immediate large-scale rollout, but we want to see education providers using the LLE to innovate, driving deeper collaboration between further and higher education institutions and supporting smoother learner transitions across levels.

The student finance system must also meet labour market needs, which is why we are calling on employers to be active partners. We want employers to see the LLE as an essential part of their workforce strategies, helping them to attract new talent, develop skills and retain employees. We expect more FE and HE providers to work with employers and representative bodies to co-design flexible provision, helping create coherent learner pathways into the workforce.

I reiterate, as others in this Committee have, my thanks to and respect for the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf. She has a long record in this area and is, in fact, one of only two people in this Room who turned up to my briefing session on the LLE.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

It seemed like the least I could do.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am clearly one of the guilty people who did not turn up to the briefing sessions, but I am sure my question will be answered. There is a view that success will look like more people moving in and out of higher education—doing a course for a time and, through the more modular structure, withdrawing and then doing some more. On the other hand, as she well knows, there are a lot of measures of quality by the OfS that focus on so-called drop-outs, non-completions and B3 requirements, which all assume that leaving a course is a bad thing. How will the modular agenda and this wider B3 agenda be reconciled?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, asked how we change regulation to support what we want to see here. It is a fair point that the regulation at the moment is designed around that traditional three-year course. Part of how we expand the opportunities through the LLE will include looking with the OfS at that regulation, to make sure that it does not act against the more flexible way of learning that the LLE can support. Linked to that, to return to another point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, I reiterate that we believe that the way we are approaching this builds in flexibility. It is not simply an add-on of modular courses. The shift from only—

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

Just to clarify, I know that that is the case, but there seem to be a lot of people out there who have not quite grasped that. That is the only point I was trying to make.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To be fair to them, that might be because I am frequently banging on about the opportunities of modularity and different ways of providers being able to offer courses. The noble Baroness also raised an important point about the proposed consultation on break points that we will bring forward. We have to develop a system where you can gain credit for learning short of having done a full three-year degree. The Prime Minister’s target for two-thirds of young people getting a level 4 or above qualification obviously puts an emphasis on qualifications at level 4 and level 5 in a way that the student finance system has perhaps not supported previously.

The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, made a point about maintenance support. I note that the LLE provisions will expand maintenance support for those in part-time learning. Maintenance loans will become available for all courses and modules that require in-person attendance, including part-time and technical study below degree level that does not qualify today, on top of other actions that the Government are taking to upgrade maintenance loans and to introduce maintenance grants. This demonstrates our commitment to broadening access to and participation in higher education.

On implementation, several noble Lords asked what support will be given to providers to develop modules. There will be some upfront costs in setting up modular study, but these costs are voluntary: there will be no regulatory requirement to offer a greater provision of shorter programmes. However, I think that providers—with their business hat on, if you like, thinking about the strategic opportunities for their institutions of what the LLE will enable their students to do—will see the real potential profitability of these sorts of courses. I hope that will be a reason why they might want to shift some resource into and help develop those courses. This is happening at a time when we have committed—although it is not part of these regulations—to an index-linked increase in the tuition fee limits that will be funding the provision that is being made in higher education.

The noble Earl, Lord Effingham, made an important point about quality. I reiterate the announcements that we made relatively recently about the additional work that we will do to focus on quality in higher education. Of course, we have already said that we will link any increase in tuition fees to the developments in the teaching evaluation framework that the Office for Students is working on. We will look at ways in which to limit the growth of poor-quality courses and are taking action on the source of a lot of the concerns around quality: that is the big expansion in franchise provision, with the introduction of regulation of such provision with more than 300 students in it.

I hope that I have been able to respond to the key points that noble Lords have made. I accept the point—this is part of the excitement of the LLE—that not all the answers are currently available because this is the start of something that has real potential to open up and change the way in which higher education is offered and funded for students throughout their lives. This is an important start and a foundation on which we can build that much more flexible higher education system with greater work with further education, greater opportunities to learn throughout your life and greater capacity to respond to some of the skills needs that we have in the economy. I commend the instrument to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Maximum Temperature for Indoor Workplaces

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 15th July 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to introduce legislation or issue guidance to specify a maximum temperature for all indoor workplaces.

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

My Lords, we recognised in our manifesto and our Make Work Pay plan concerns about high workplace temperatures in certain sectors causing serious health and safety concerns. We are committed to modernising health and safety guidance with reference to extreme temperatures. The HSE has committed to consult on the workplace health, safety and welfare approved code of practice later this year. Meanwhile, employers must protect the health and safety of their workforce and assess and manage workplace risks, including those from extreme temperatures.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but let me outline the urgency. There were 1,311 heat-related deaths in 2024, 1,504 in 2025 and 2,700 in the last two months alone. Research shows that high workplace temperature damages health and is a safety hazard. Countries such as Spain and Belgium protect workers through laws specifying the maximum temperature for indoor workplaces, so what we need are enforceable laws, which I hope the Minister can provide us with, and not voluntary codes, which do not give anyone enforceable rights.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, I would say that the figures that the noble Lord cites about excess deaths from heat are obviously very worrying. Not all of those, clearly, would be related to workplaces. It is not true to say that there is no law or no ability to take enforcement against employers who do not act appropriately on keeping their workers safe, including with respect to excessive heat. The fact that the HSE is developing new guidance does not mean that this is not something where employers nevertheless have a responsibility to act and would be held to account by the HSE for that action.

[Lord Redwood (Con)]

Why do the Government think that this country has such a low level of air conditioning systems installed, and will they look again at their rather negative guidance on their acquisition?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I suspect, without being an expert on this, that one reason is that for most of the year we do not need to use them. Therefore, I think it is not unreasonable of government, certainly with respect to public buildings, to take a proportionate approach to the changes that should be made in those buildings—the adaptations which certainly will be needed in homes, schools, hospitals and elsewhere—and to provide sensible and proportionate advice, alongside considerable capital investment in order to enable that to happen.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

My Lords, we are on our third heatwave this year, so I very much welcome this Question. I thank the noble Baroness for her Answer and I recognise that numerous consultations are under way. What consideration have the Government given to the deployment of wearable tech, particularly to protect workers who work outside, who are particularly vulnerable to heat exhaustion and heat stroke from our warming climate?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Obviously, the responsibility for ensuring the safety of their workforce rests directly with employers. The HSE provides important guidance about how to ensure that that happens. I do not believe it covers the point about wearable tech that the noble Earl made—I will take that back to the HSE—but it expects employers to think about a whole range of different ways in which workers can be protected, whether inside or, as he says, outside.

[Baroness O’Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)]

My Lords, currently it seems impossible to buy air cooling systems—there are a variety—for love nor money. Can my noble friend guarantee that any new rules on maximum temperatures will give plenty of time and notice for employers to introduce those adaptations to the workplace, and guarantee the workforce some relief from unbearable temperatures next summer?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know that this is something that my noble friend has raised on numerous occasions, quite rightly. That is the reason why the Health and Safety Executive is and will be engaged in a consultation on improving guidance. Guidance, of course, already exists for employers on how they should be taking action with respect to excessive heat. It is important, on the wide range of different things that employers could do to support their workforce, that the additional guidance that the Health and Safety Executive produces is done in consultation with the representatives of both workers and employers, so that these are practical and proportionate ways in which we can achieve the objective that I think we all share, which is that people are able to go to work, be productive and be safe even when temperatures are excessive.

[Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)]

My Lords, under the boiler upgrade scheme, air-to-water heat pumps are eligible for a £7,500 discount. Air-to-air heat pumps, which can be used for cooling as well as heating, are eligible for only £2,500. Why the difference?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Having learned more than I thought I was going to know about workplaces and excessive heat, I am afraid that that was not one of the bits of revision: so, if it is okay, I will write to the noble Lord on that question.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, there is a huge increase in people now working from home. Will the Minister also look at guidance for local councils, in particular with the review of the National Planning Policy Framework, to make it easier for people to cool their homes, particularly given that in some council buildings, councils are making it very difficult to install outside fans and to drill into external walls.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I know that my colleagues in the MHCLG are concerned about this issue. They understand that, as climate risks intensify, integrating adaptation into home upgrade policy is essential to mitigate overheating and other climate-related impacts. The Warm Homes Plan sets out our approach to retrofitting and climate adaptation. Over the course of this Parliament, we intend to introduce the most appropriate and cost-effective passive cooling measures into our capital-funded schemes, focused on improving the homes particularly of low-income consumers and those living in social housing, and we will prioritise higher-impact, lower-cost and lower-regret measures to ensure best value for money. The Government are also exploring how to set stronger objectives for climate adaptation to improve preparedness for the impacts of climate change.

[Lord Roe of West Wickham (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her answers. I declare an interest as chair of the Building Safety Regulator. I am fairly sure that the Minister is aware that, alongside active measures to cool homes, there is much that can be done in building design. We see that on the continent and in very hot environments. Is now the time to prioritise a long, hard look at Part O of the building regulations, so that we future-proof commercial and domestic premises to ensure some sort of longevity as we face what is by many objective measures a climate crisis?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

After this question, I will take a long, hard look at Part O of the building safety regulations. My noble friend, who is enormously knowledgeable in this area, makes an important point. Not only do we need to take the adaptation measures that I mentioned in the previous answer and put in place investment in our public buildings to enable suitable adaptation and to recognise the impacts of climate change, but I am sure he is right that we also need to look at how our building regulations take into consideration the impacts of the sorts of heatwaves that we have had this year as well.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

My Lords, as the Minister has said, the workplace regulations already require employers to make sure that workplace temperatures are reasonable, which is a pragmatic and flexible approach, given the different conditions and circumstances of different workplaces. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will not impose further prescriptive regulations and that, if they do act, they will do so by helping employers address serious concerns, for example by making it less difficult and less expensive to install and run modern technologies for heating and cooling, such as we enjoy in this Chamber?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is already the case that the Health and Safety Executive provides a wide range of options for how employers can fulfil their responsibility to ensure that the people whom they employ are able to work in reasonable conditions, even in heatwaves. I have already made it clear that the Government think that this approach, potentially looking at the thresholds of action that might be necessary as workplaces get to different levels of heat but nevertheless not mandating specific action related to a specific temperature, is the most appropriate way to go forward.

Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 14th July 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2026.

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

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to debate this instrument today. In my view, the provisions in the instrument are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The statutory purpose of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board—ECITB—is to make better provision for training across the engineering construction industry in England, Scotland and Wales.

The engineering construction industry is critical to the delivery of the Government’s wider ambitions for economic growth, clean energy and energy security. It provides the skilled workforce needed to build, maintain and operate major energy, manufacturing and industrial infrastructure across Great Britain. The ECITB’s and the Construction Industry Training Board’s continued value was confirmed by a 2023 independent review. It found that a statutory levy remains the most effective model for industry-wide investment in training and is needed to address persistent and structural workforce challenges within the ITBs’ industries.

This statutory instrument gives effect to the ECITB’s levy proposals for 2026, 2027 and 2028. The levy remains the ECITB’s primary source of funding, and this order is required for the board to raise mandatory assessments on in-scope employers. The ECITB continues to receive strong support from employers. Over 85% of levy-paying employers supported the levy proposals, representing almost 98% of total levy value, exceeding the “more than 50%” statutory threshold for support required from industry.

Before we consider the levy proposals in further detail, I want to point out that a 12-week government consultation has just closed on a proposal to bring together both ITBs—the ECITB and the Construction Industry Training Board—into a single unified body to support the combined skills needs of the engineering construction and construction sectors. The Government are now carefully considering the views raised before making any decisions on reforms that may be needed to ensure the system delivers the support employers need. We cannot prejudge the outcome, but it is vital to the continuity of the ECITB’s support for employers that the levy order we are debating today continues. If the Government choose to proceed with this proposed reform, the earliest that a single body would be in place is spring 2028. Should the direction of reform require a new ITB levy order, this would come to the House through the proper parliamentary process.

--- Later in debate ---

As I have explained, we support the levy order, but the levy cannot succeed in isolation. Its effectiveness will depend upon a stable infrastructure pipeline, a strong vocational education system and a wider economic environment in which businesses are encouraged to hire and retain rather than penalised for it. The Government must now ensure that their wider policies properly support employers to recruit, train and retain their workforces.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the Committee for its contributions to the debate, and I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, as this is the first time we have faced each other in her new role. I congratulate her on that.

The debate has underlined not only the importance of the ECITB’s work but the scale of the challenge facing one of our most economically vital industries, with a core workforce of 90,000 people and responsibility for £33 billion of output. As noble Lords have recognised, the industry plays a vital role in supporting our energy security, manufacturing capability and critical infrastructure.

As has come through clearly today, the engineering construction industry cannot meet the skills demands of the coming decade without a stable collective system of investment in training, alongside government support. I will return to this in a moment. The evidence is consistent that market forces alone will not deliver the pipeline of skilled workers that the industry urgently needs to meet the demand for new major infrastructure projects.

The ECITB’s levy is the mechanism that enables the collective benefits of a focused skills strategy for the engineering construction industry. It ensures that employers can access support for training and share the benefits of a skilled, competent and resilient workforce. It also opens opportunity, helping apprentices and other new entrants to complete high-quality training and helping existing workers to reskill or upskill to progress their careers.

I will respond to some of the specific points raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, rightly emphasised the need for success in the spending of the levy and the successful completion of training courses and apprenticeships. The ECITB has confirmed that it currently tracks apprentices and graduates while they are on programmes and receiving grant support. The data that the ECITB collects indicates a positive impact of its grant support on, for example, apprenticeship completion rates. Based on the ECITB’s latest available data for England, Scotland and Wales, of the apprentices who started an apprenticeship in 2020 and were supported by ECITB, 78% have successfully completed their apprenticeship as of December 2025. While we have seen improvements in the completion rates of apprenticeships over recent years, I think that is above the average rate.

The noble Baroness also raised the question of when the annual reports and accounts will be published for 2025. They will be laid in the autumn.

On the point about charitable status, it is not determined by the Government; it is determined by whether an organisation’s purposes are exclusively charitable and legally deemed to provide a clear public benefit. It was therefore a decision for the training bodies themselves—CITB, equally, is a charity—to take on that charitable status.

The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, raised the success of the levy consultation. It would be fair to say to the noble Lord that there are a lot of statistics around. Some of the statistics the noble Lord quoted related to the Construction Industry Training Board rather than the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board; perhaps it would be easier were the Government to decide to go ahead with the merger of the two. Nevertheless, they are different sizes and they do different jobs. The point he made is right: for the ECITB there is, if anything, an even greater level of approval as a result of the levy consultation than the figures he quoted.

Several noble Lords rightly cut to the chase of what the ECITB is responsible for. In other words: what does it actually do, and how, in the broader context, are the Government supporting the need for skills in the engineering and construction industry? On the former, the ECITB continues to invest in skills hubs, training standards and competence assurance across key sectors, including energy, nuclear and renewables. It has supported more than 6,900 new entrants since 2022 and invested £32.6 million in 2025 in training grants and new entrant programmes. During 2024, the ECITB funding supported over 2,000 new entrant starts, including over 1,000 apprentices and 500 graduates. Almost 64,000 learners were trained or assessed using ECITB-approved products, including more than 31,000 learners achieving industry-recognised safety passports and 2,763 learners supported through competence-related programmes. Of course, while the ECITB and the levy we are discussing are important for addressing some of the market failure in delivering skills in the engineering construction industry, it is just part of the broader work the Government are doing to support the engineering construction industry and wider skills. This relates to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman.

The Government are delivering significant investment to strengthen engineering construction skills, as part of wider reforms, helping employers to respond to current and future workforce needs. This includes an additional £1 billion of investment to help deliver around 50,000 more apprenticeship opportunities for young people over the coming years—that is particularly important given the 40% fall in young people’s apprenticeships over the last years of the last Government—alongside increased flexibility through the new growth and skills levy and specific sector skills packages in engineering and construction that are worth over £800 million.

Additionally, we are providing targeted incentives for employers, including payments of up to £2,000 for taking on foundation apprentices. We have developed a new foundation apprenticeship in engineering, helping more young people to enter skilled careers, as well as other incentives, particularly for taking young people who may have been out of work on to these apprenticeships. We have continued and in fact increased investment in skills bootcamps and increased devolved approaches through mayoral strategic authorities, enabling local areas to respond to local employer demand and skills shortages.

The noble Baroness specifically raised technical and vocational education. I reassure her that this Government’s action, even in the two years that we have been in government, goes far beyond the soundbites that she characterised. A major reform of post-16 education is in progress, and stronger vocational routes are being developed through the new V-levels, an expansion of the possibility for young people to gain an in-depth technical education through T-levels, improved level 2 qualifications to get young people on to those vocational routes, and the investment I have already outlined in turning around the fall in the numbers of young people who have been able to start apprenticeships, ensuring that those opportunities are available for young people in the future.

Together with the ECITB support, these measures will strengthen the pipeline of skills available to the engineering construction workforce and support the delivery of major infrastructure projects across Great Britain. I hope that, in responding, I have reassured noble Lords about the role of this levy order, its importance in supporting the needs of small and larger businesses, ensuring maximum impact and value for money from employers’ levy contributions, and the important role the ECITB plays in ensuring that this key industry for growth, the development of infrastructure, energy security and manufacturing capability is supported both by the ECITB and the wider policies of this Government.

[Baroness Spielman (Con)]

Can the noble Baroness address my question about the impact of government policies enacted over the last two years on the engineering construction sector, particularly increased national insurance and employment rights?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I spelled out some of the impacts of the Government’s policy on the numbers of apprenticeships, the shift to vocational and technical education, the support this Government are providing to turn around the decline we have seen, and the £800 million of sector skills support we are providing for the industry. Is the noble Baroness genuinely arguing that this Government should now reverse the national insurance increases, which is where the investment in the National Health Service, which is also of considerable importance to employers, will come from? If she got her way and we reversed that, I think engineering employers, along with others, would not want their employees to be sitting on the waiting lists we inherited from the last Government.

Motion agreed.

Higher Education: Affordability and Quality

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising this subject. In my two years in this place and in this job, it has become very obvious to me that there is nothing that the House of Lords likes more than a debate about higher education, perhaps because people are able to bring such expertise and experience, as we have seen today.

I begin, as many noble Lords have, with a recognition of the value of higher education, and of our higher education sector. It is, as many have said, world leading. It includes four of the world’s top 10 universities and has educated 59 current or recent world leaders. It generates significant economic value, contributing over £265 billion to the UK economy and supporting around 750,000 jobs. The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman—who I congratulate on her relatively recent appointment as principal of my former college, Hertford—was absolutely right in identifying that the sector enables the development of critical, independent and creative thinking. I recognise the point by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, that this is also something that we need to safeguard within our universities.

Beyond its economic impact, higher education is, as others have argued, associated with substantial social benefits, including better health outcomes, longer life expectancy and higher well-being among graduates. Higher education providers also play a vital civic role, strengthening local communities and contributing to public services, place-making and regional development. That is why this Government are committed to maintaining a world-class higher education sector that delivers for students, our society and the economy. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Liddle: however powerful the overarching speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, we disagree that we should be aiming to reduce the opportunities to benefit from higher education in this country and the number of universities.

An analysis of our skills need shows us that we need more higher-level skills, not fewer. That is why the Prime Minister has set a target to increase the proportion of young people with level 4 and above skills to two-thirds by the age of 25. I hope that also reassures the noble Lord, Lord Trees, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester and my noble friend Lord Liddle. Having a variety of opportunities to gain higher-level skills—through higher education but also through apprenticeships and other technical education—is very much part of this Government’s approach to seeing the tertiary sector as one and interrelated. That is particularly in terms of co-operation on modular courses and new pathways into higher education. The relationship between higher education and further education is at the heart of our plans, as is the development of the lifelong learning entitlement, which will enable people to come back to learning in both HE and FE for higher-level courses throughout their lives.

We of course recognise that the sector’s financial environment is challenging, but the sector is rightly independent from government. That means that it is providers’ responsibility to manage their finances and ensure that their business models provide long-term sustainability. Nevertheless, we remain committed to securing the sector’s future. That is why, after them having been frozen for eight years, we increased tuition fee caps in line with inflation in 2025-26. We will increase them once again in line with forecast inflation in 2026-27 and 2027-28, and then legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to increase tuition fee caps automatically for future academic years. That is, over the coming years, £6 billion-worth of safeguarded index increase in income, underpinned by the Government. That is a quite different position to be in than for many public sector organisations at the moment.

We have been clear, however, that future uplifts will be conditional on higher education providers achieving a higher quality threshold through the Office for Students’ quality regime. More broadly, the Post-16 Skills and Education White Paper sets out our commitment to placing the sector on a more sustainable footing, supporting providers to drive efficiency, strengthen financial resilience and adopt more effective operating models.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Warwick on the importance of UUK’s future university work. This is an important piece of work. I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, on the diversity of the higher education sector being one of its strengths. We spelled that out in the White Paper that we produced last year.

The noble Lord, Lord Stevens, invites me to comment on stories in the Daily Telegraph. He knows not to believe everything that he reads in the Daily Telegraph. He also knows that I will not be giving, to use a cliché, a running commentary on what is happening within discussions about the EU reset. He is right, however, that we should not penalise UK students or university finances through any agreements that we might make as part of that reset.

Several noble Lords rightly identified research as a very important element of the work of our universities and talked about the funding that is available for it. This Government are investing a record £86 billion in R&D from 2026-27 to 2029-30. As part of this, UKRI will deliver an expected £38.6 billion of research investment, rising to nearly £10 billion per year by the end of that period. In the Department for Education, we are working closely with DSIT to deliver the White Paper’s commitments, which include research funding reform and improvements to research grant cost recovery. Early action includes reforms to the Research Excellence Framework 2029 to reduce the burden and place stronger emphasis on institutional strategy and areas of strength, supporting more sustainable research planning. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bew, about the significance of the REF and the contribution it makes. That was an important point.

The noble Baroness, Lady Freeman, raised the issue of support for postgraduate and doctoral students. The Government are working with UKRI through the new deal for postgraduate research to strengthen financial support and the overall student experience. We have increased the minimum stipend by 40% in cash terms between 2021 and 2026 and have provided better support to students through revisions to their standard terms and conditions of training grant, with changes implemented from October 2025. I also recognise that for our higher education sector to remain world-leading, it must continually uphold the highest standards of quality, integrity and student outcomes. It must also remain accessible and affordable, ensuring that students from all backgrounds are able to benefit from the opportunities that higher education provides and from the undoubted outcomes and lifelong benefits that higher education brings.

The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and others, referenced the work of the IFS, commissioned by the Department for Education and published last week alongside the LEO statistics. The noble Lord worked hard to make it as detailed and wide-ranging as possible. There is a clear message there. It is still very worth while to go to university. In terms of the lifelong returns, that varies by subject, but the vast majority of people who go to university will gain, as well as all the social benefits that noble Lords have identified, a considerable return over their lifetime from having done that.

Having said that, and given the work that we are doing and the differential between subjects that the research identifies, it is the case that, for some subjects, the financial return is not as great, and for some it is actually negative. Of course, that does not mean that people should not continue, for example, to train to be teachers—as I did—or social workers. Of course it does not mean that people should not study performing arts of creative subjects—for all the sorts of reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, spelled out. What it does mean is that everybody should make those choices, particularly given the investment they are making, on the basis of the best possible information. We are determined, working with UCAS and Discover Uni, to provide much clearer information to people making those decisions about what they can expect from a higher education course and where they can expect that to enable them to go.

We have committed to increasing the number of starters on courses that lead to priority occupations related to our industrial strategy. That is the reason for producing, as we have, what we have called our Pathways to Priority Occupations document. We will use that and a whole range of other information and data to make decisions on support for higher education. We want to make that available for people making decisions about which courses they will do.

In relation to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, about the returns to apprenticeships, there is already a variety of evidence on the economic returns to apprenticeships that has been published by the department, the Centre for Vocational Education Research and others. We will be considering how to apply a methodology similar to that used by the IFS to apprenticeships as we go forward.

We are committed to raising teaching standards in higher education, so that every student receives the high-quality education and strong outcomes that they deserve. We continue to support the Office for Students as it implements a stronger and more integrated approach to assessing the quality of teaching. Where lower-quality provision is identified, it should be improved for existing students before it expands further. We are working to ensure that the Office for Students can impose recruitment limits on those providers. As I have already said, the White Paper sets out plans to reward and incentivise excellence through measures such as linking tuition fee uplifts to the Office for Students’ high-quality ratings.

Several noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, raised questions about how we protect academic standards. It is right of course that confidence in degree outcomes is key to maintaining the reputation of English higher education. That is why we have committed to a range of actions to explore risks to standards, including whether recent patterns of improving grades can be explained by an erosion of standards rather than improved teaching or assessment practices. I am sure that there is continuing improvement in both teaching and assessment. We are also looking closely at assessment integrity and the external examining system, including the threats and opportunities that artificial intelligence presents. Alongside this, we are working with the Office for Students to understand the risks presented by generative AI to academic standards.

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, and I recognise the point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Cash, that there are important opportunities in the use of AI within higher education. I do not believe that the primary opportunity is to reduce the number of staff, but there is a range of ways. I know, from having spoken to vice-chancellors, that there is a lot of work going on in higher education on how the benefits and opportunities from AI can be recognised.

I want to say something about how, in considering how we protect academic standards, we address the risks posed by certain delivery models that have developed in the sector. In particular, we have seen an enormous growth over recent years in franchised provision. This is why we are taking forward proposals to strengthen oversight of franchising in higher education by requiring large franchise providers to register with the Office for Students. The response to the consultation on that, published last December, sets out the details which will ensure that student loan funding is better protected from misuse and that students studying at franchise providers can have confidence that their courses are subject to rigorous quality requirements.

The changes we are making through regulations will ensure that large, unregistered provision is brought within the OfS’s strengthened regulatory regime while not increasing the burden on smaller providers. These regulations are the next step in the Government’s programme of work to strengthen the integrity of the student finance system and ensure that franchise provision operates in students’ interests, with clear accountability and robust safeguards for public money. The lead providers must also take responsibility for ensuring the quality and governance of their partnerships and act swiftly where standards fall short, as will the Government and the Office for Students.

These risks to quality and oversight also underline the importance of safeguarding the proper use of public money. This Government take very seriously the need to ensure that we protect the student finance system from exploitation. That is why we are bearing down on any misuse or risk of misuse of that system. Where that occurs, and I am afraid we have seen some evidence of that through the Office for Students, it undermines student outcomes, damages public trust and diverts funding away from legitimate higher education.

Further, we intend to consult on a new minimum English language requirement that will ensure those receiving student finance are able to engage fully with their course. We want to ensure that public funding supports students who are able to benefit from the investment the Government make in higher education. I know that mature students, in particular, may come to higher education through different pathways and different academic routes. We are really keen to ensure that access to higher education remains open, but the aim also has to be to ensure value for money and protection for those students. Frankly, students should not be mis-sold courses that they are not equipped to undertake. We will not set up arbitrary barriers to participation but will, in consultation and in the light of evidence, think carefully about the potential impacts on students and providers as we take forward this approach to safeguard students, safeguard our student finance system and balance access with successful participation in higher education.

Several noble Lords raised student finance, including the noble Lord, Lord Isaac, and my noble friend Lord Liddle. Our student finance reforms are already regearing that system to better support disadvantaged students, make things fairer for graduates and create a more flexible, responsive post-18 education system, as I have said, through the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement. We are also future-proofing maintenance loans by committing to increase them in line with forecast inflation every year. We are making care leavers automatically eligible for the maximum rate of maintenance loan from the next academic year, providing vital support for one of the most vulnerable groups in society. We are reintroducing targeted means-tested maintenance grants from the academic year 2028-29 to provide disadvantaged students with up to £1,000 per year on top of existing maintenance loans, funded by a levy on providers for international students.

We know, as we have heard today, that some graduates are concerned about the cost of loan repayments, and that is exactly why we are making the system we inherited fairer. Maximum interest rates on plan 2 and plan 3 student loans will be capped at 6% for the academic year 2026-27, delivering stability and protection for graduates from escalating student loan interest. We increased the repayment threshold for plan 2 loans in April 2025 and have increased it twice again. This is higher than the average graduate salary of £28,100 three years after graduation. I have already this week argued why I do not believe a graduate tax is the answer to the problems of student finance.

As I am coming to the end of my time, let me close this debate by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for bringing this important and timely issue before the House. This Government remain firmly committed to a higher education system that is both world-leading in quality and fair in its access, and one that delivers value for students, graduates and taxpayers, including those who do not go to university, and that equips learners with the skills they need to succeed throughout their lives. I look forward to continuing to work with noble Lords across the House to ensure that our world-leading higher education sector continues to thrive.

University Student Finance

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hain]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have, if any, to reform university student finance.

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

My Lords, this Government are taking decisive action to improve the student finance system that we inherited. We are capping interest rates to protect plan 2 and plan 3 borrowers from inflation shocks. We increased the plan 2 repayment threshold twice—its first increases since 2021. We have future-proofed maintenance loans, and we will be reintroducing maintenance grants in 2028. We will continue to look for ways to make the system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers.

[Lord Hain (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer, but surely the student finance system inherited from the Conservatives is an utter shambles: there is mountainous student debt, averaging £70,000, compounding at extortionate interest rates; the Treasury is left with ginormous liabilities, because half is never repaid and is written off; and nearly half of UK universities have rising deficits, with closures and mergers forecast, thousands of lecturers sacked and diminished teaching standards. For every £3.50 paid by taxpayers on debt cancellation, just £1 is spent on teaching students. This is madness. Will the Government implement a graduate tax, estimated at 2%, much lower than the 9% now compulsorily deducted from graduate workers above the repayment threshold? This would be much fairer for students, good for universities and good for taxpayers.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I acknowledge my noble friend’s criticisms of plan 2 loans, which were designed by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition. Having said that, in principle, a combination of income-contingent student loans and grants is a fair way to ensure that those who benefit from higher education contribute, while lower earners are protected. On the point about the financial sustainability of higher education, our increase of the tuition fee cap is now providing more certainty to higher education about its income from tuition fees, which should enable it to take a longer-term view of its workforce planning and to protect the talent that exists within our higher education institutions. A graduate tax would dramatically increase upfront costs for taxpayers and incentivise graduates to move overseas after completing study. I suspect that these are just a couple of the reasons why no country has ever financed higher education in this way.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, bearing student finance in mind, what criteria are the Government using to define what they call “poor-quality” university courses?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, the Office for Students is undertaking a new approach to measuring the quality of what is being provided in our universities. Secondly, we have seen through some of the research published last week the ability to determine what the returns are from individual courses. It is for that reason that we will take action to prevent the expansion of those courses that are not providing the returns or experience that students have the right to expect. If necessary, we will legislate to do that.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister is entirely right to be sceptical about a graduate tax. I am glad to hear her repeat the commitment to automatic indexation of tuition fees. However, that requires legislation—of which there was no mention in the King’s Speech. What are the Government’s plans for giving effect to that commitment?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The first thing that indexation of tuition fee caps needs is political will from a Government. It was a lack of that political will that meant that they were frozen for seven years under the previous Government. We have already taken action, two years in a row, to increase the tuition fee cap. We will continue to do this up to the point at which we can legislate to index that.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I recently attended a meeting in my home city of Sheffield, where students and staff from the University of Sheffield and Sheffield Hallam University came together to highlight the chronic financial pressures that are leading to staff lay-offs and the closure of some of the courses. The key message from that meeting was: “When will this Government bring forward a long-term financial strategy that puts university education on a more secure and sound financial footing?”

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We acknowledge the challenges that are facing higher education providers. While the providers are independent of government and responsible for managing their finances, it is this Government who have acted to secure a financial future for our world-leading higher education sector. We have increased tuition fee caps in line with forecast inflation for 2026-27 and 2027-28. We appointed Professor Edward Peck as chair of the Office for Students. He is working to strengthen its commitment to financial sustainability. The tuition fee increase brings into the sector an additional £6 billion over the next few years. Given that greater financial stability for the sector, we expect providers to work with their staff to develop sustainable models that retain talent and expertise and provide stability for the workforce and the institution.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister’s indications in response to questions so far. However, three months on from her first announcement about poor-value courses, we are still waiting for the information that is needed for students to assess which courses they should avoid before they are saddled with lifetime debt. The best advice seems to be to choose carefully, but some applicants are choosing now. Can the Minister give us some idea of when there will be better data available?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure that the noble Baroness will have seen the data last week from the IFS using LEO data. It identifies those courses which are most likely to bring a positive return for students. It is worth remembering that, after the repayment of student debt, the majority of students will receive throughout their lifetime a positive return from going to university. The information published last week was clear about which courses would be less likely to provide that positive return. That does not mean that there may be no reasons for taking those courses, but it is information that students can use. Also, through Discover Uni and working with UCAS, we will ensure that this information is more easily available to students when they are making decisions, as the noble Baroness says.

[Lord Grabiner (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us what the current state of the student debt is?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The current student loan book stands at £296 billion.

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

As the Minister just said, the student debt in England is £296 billion and is expected to hit £500 billion by the late 2040s. Interest is added until debt is repaid or written off. What assessment have the Government made of the impact of student loan repayments on the ability of the affected people to buy a home or to start a business or a family?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Of course, the income-contingent nature of student loan repayments means that those on lower incomes are protected. They have been further protected by this Government’s raising of the threshold two years in a row. The fact that 30% of student loans will never be repaid and will be subsidised by the Government is a legitimate subsidy for students undertaking higher education and an investment in our higher education system and in the future of those who go to university.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister rightly referred to the recent IFS report showing that on average graduates will earn £100,000 more than if they had not gone to university. That is why a graduate repayment scheme is fair. Can I invite her to place in the Library of the House of Lords an updated version of the note produced by the Blair Government explaining why a graduate tax was unworkable and unfair?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not sure that I am going to turn the attention of the department to doing that, but I have outlined some of the reasons why I do not think that a graduate tax is the magic bullet that some people believe it might be. Notwithstanding that, I understand the concerns of graduates, in particular those who are repaying plan 2 loans, which is why this Government have already taken action to make them fairer, and we will continue to look at ways to ensure that higher education institutions, students and graduates get a fair deal out of higher education.

Construction Sector: Skills Shortage

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 29th June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Allen of Kensington]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the skills shortage in the construction sector and to ensure a steady future supply of skilled workers.

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

My Lords, in 2025, the Government announced a £625 million investment to train up to 60,000 more skilled workers in construction. This includes £100 million for skills bootcamps, £98 million for industry placements, £100 million to establish 10 construction technical excellence colleges, a £90 million uplift for 16-19 courses and £75 million for adult retraining. Construction will also benefit from new foundation apprenticeships, with employers receiving up to £2,000 for each apprentice they take on and retain in the industry.

[Lord Allen of Kensington (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of Balfour Beatty Plc. I welcome the steps that my noble friend the Minister outlined. Attitudes to the sector are outdated and sometimes ill informed. Attitudes toward careers in construction and infrastructure are contributing to the reduced pipeline of people coming into the sector. Almost half—47%—of young people report that construction and infrastructure careers are not even mentioned in their school’s career advice. I started life in the steel industry in Scotland as an apprentice, and I am proud to say that. What steps are being taken to ensure that career guidance in schools accurately and positively represents the significant opportunities in this important sector for Britain?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. There are well-paid, secure jobs in the construction industry. One of the benefits of my role is that I quite often get the chance to meet young people who have made that decision. We need to make sure that that message gets through in the improved careers education that we are providing in schools. Also, as part of the construction support package, we are delivering targeted communications to raise awareness of those construction careers and promote the sector as a pathway to good jobs and progression. That will increasingly focus on young people, alongside tailored promotion for women and for those returning to work, in order to spread more widely the message that my noble friend has ably communicated.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s announcements about apprenticeships, particularly in the construction industry. Given that small and medium-sized businesses deliver the bulk of the construction infrastructure, particularly housebuilding, in the country, what support are the Government going to give to those smaller-sized construction firms that we dearly need across the country? These small business are often the ones that find government red tape the most difficult when it comes to apprenticeships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. What is more, of course, small businesses are often the businesses that offer apprenticeships to young people and to people from disadvantaged backgrounds. That is why Skills England is focused on engaging with small businesses to help them understand the range of opportunities there. It is why we are introducing a new apprenticeship hiring payment of £2,000 for small businesses that take on 16 to 24 year-old apprentices. It is why, from August this year, we will also fully fund apprenticeship training for small businesses for eligible people aged 16 to 24. It is why no employer is required to pay employer national insurance contributions for employees under 21 or apprentices under 25, and it is why the Construction Industry Training Board’s new entrant support team is working to provide practical support to employers, particularly SMEs, who are recruiting apprentices.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, what role will the Government take in directing the infrastructure projects that they are responsible for to ensure that the companies participating in those projects take enough apprenticeships and give the proper training via the longer opportunities which those companies can naturally provide?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a really important point about the power of government procurement. Many of those contracts already require support for training, and particularly apprenticeships. For example, in the estates strategy in the Department for Education, we expect, if I remember rightly, 8,000 additional training places to be provided as a result of the investment that we are putting into maintaining and rebuilding schools.

[Baroness Winterton of Doncaster (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, as well as looking at national infrastructure, it is important to get companies involved locally through organisations such as UTCs, as in Doncaster, where they have been very effective by not only having career guidance but putting on courses that are relevant to the local area? Combined with that, could more be done through local procurement, with local authorities, for example, requiring more apprentices to be employed?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a really important point. It is why local skills improvement plans, of which the second round are due to be published quite soon, identify where there are local skills needs that need to be met locally, and why UTCs, as she identified, and the strong partnerships that construction and technical excellence colleges are developing between colleges and employers locally are really important ways of reflecting the local need for construction skills into the provision of training opportunities for young people.

[Lord Londesborough (CB)]

My Lords, the construction sector is suffering from an acutely ageing workforce, with 35% over the age of 50. This means that 750,000 workers will retire over the next 10 years. At the other end of the spectrum, numbers of apprenticeships are falling, with more than half of those taking them dropping out before they complete their training. What can be done to attract more young people and, in particular, improve apprenticeship outcomes?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have a target to increase by 50,000 the number of young people starting apprenticeships, after 10 years in which that number fell by 40%. That is the reason behind some of the support that I have identified, including full funding for small businesses, the hiring incentive for businesses taking young people into apprenticeships, the support being provided through colleges and the increased recruitment of people who have had experience within the industry into our colleges, to ensure that young people get the best and most up-to-date information about those training opportunities. All those things are part of the construction skills package that we have focused considerable investment on, as I have demonstrated.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is taking part remotely. I invite the noble Lord to speak.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, with the increased use of solar technology in construction and with the drop-out among construction and engineering students due to the emphasis on academic skills, could we promote two separate initiatives? The first, as a priority, is viring students into solar-related trades. The second is promoting the use of specialised solar engineers from abroad to train others and clear any backlog that develops in solar fitting programmes. We need to unleash the non-academic but inventive skill set that often lies behind Britain’s successes.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right about some of the new areas within construction where we need to support training. I am sure he will be pleased to know that one of the new apprenticeship units that we launched in April, where employers can use their growth and skills levy to fund something other than a full apprenticeship, includes one in solar PV installation. That is an example of how the Government are recognising the changing challenges in construction and supporting it through the growth and skills levy.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, given the Government’s ambition to build 1.5 million homes and our reliance on a strong construction sector for economic growth, what specific steps are being taken to ensure that a larger proportion of pupils take design and technology GCSE and similar qualifications with strong, relevant, practical content to help increase their interest in following construction pathways in post-16 education?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about how the curriculum overly narrowed during recent years. That was the reason for the Government’s Curriculum and Assessment Review and the widening accountability measures of those qualifications that will be recognised. This will lead to more young people being able to take those types of qualifications, as will the investment that is going into colleges—particularly in high-cost courses such as construction—and the efforts that we are making and funding to get more teachers into colleges to provide the highest quality construction qualifications.

Master’s Level History Scholarships

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Lords Chamber

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the decline in the number of scholarships available for the study of history at master’s level.

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

My Lords, the study of history is of immense value, as it helps students to understand Britain’s past and that of the wider world. It also equips students to think critically, weigh evidence, sift arguments and develop perspective and judgment—all vital skills. Decisions on scholarships, bursaries or other financial awards are matters for individual providers and relevant funding bodies, but the Government provide support for postgraduate master’s study across all subjects, including history, through the postgraduate master’s loan.

[Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for her constructive reply. I should declare an interest as the founder of the accomplishment scholarship in history at Queen’s College, Oxford. This year is the 250th anniversary of one of the huge achievements of the Enlightenment. This anniversary does not require a party in Washington or a new ballroom at the White House, and it is British. I am talking about the publication of the first volume of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon’s masterpiece. Since then, Britain has produced a succession of brilliant, world-leading historians: Macaulay, Carlyle, Trevelyan, AJP Taylor, CV Wedgwood, Eric Hobsbawm, Simon Schama, Bettany Hughes, Antony Beevor, Peter Frankopan and our esteemed colleague on the Benches opposite, the noble Lord, Lord Roberts, to name but a few. The educational pipeline to this greatness has come under severe pressure for funding reasons in the last few years, and it is essential that we steward history as a discipline through these challenging times. Does the Minister agree that history is a foundational subject? I think she does. Does she agree that it is the cornerstone of a civilised and democratic society, and will she ensure that government actively promotes the study of history in UK universities so that it can and will stand on the sunlit uplands—I am thinking of the Malverns on a summer’s day—as a beacon to the world for decades to come?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I agree with my noble friend, and I congratulate him on the personal commitment that he has made to supporting studentships in history at his former college. I feel confident that noble Lords across the House will be rushing to their copies of Gibbon to brush up on that bit of history. He is right. As I said in my opening response, history has a fundamental place at all levels of education, because it provides us with the ability to understand the history of our nation and of the world and the context in which we are operating now, and it develops critical skills, all of which are fundamentally important in our complex and contested modern world. I look forward to working alongside my noble friend to ensure that Britain’s leading position in the study and development of history scholarship is maintained.

[Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister share my concern that the decline in scholarships will disproportionately affect people from lower-income backgrounds? If she does, what steps will His Majesty’s Government take to make sure that people get to study based on talent and not their ability to pay?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

If the noble Lord is making the case that it is not just at undergraduate level in universities that we need to promote wider access but at postgraduate level, I strongly agree with him. We made that point in the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, and we have already begun work to support, for example, the promulgation of successful best practice in opening up access to postgraduate study. We want to do more on that issue.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, the wider, hugely worrying trend is the loss of humanities and arts courses more generally at the higher education level, one effect of which, as has been said, has been to widen the class divide in the study of those subjects. Do the Government have a strategy to reverse those long-term trends?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is important, first, to ensure the financial sustainability of our higher education sector, which this Government have taken action to do by increasing the maximum tuition fee cap. It is also important, as we set out in our White Paper, that universities are able to think carefully about what they want to specialise in and the way in which they collaborate—something that has not happened enough in our higher education sector—to maintain access to important subjects such as history and humanities. In doing that, we will make it more likely that access to these important subjects can be maintained for students at all levels.

[Baroness Cash (Con)]

My Lords, I join from these Benches in congratulating noble Lord, Lord Barber of Chittlehampton, on all his work to support the study of history. Higher education resources, however, are under strain, and the IFS has reported independently that some courses have persistently poor outcomes and very high student loan write-off, of up to 70%—not history, but some other creative courses. What steps will the Minister take to ensure any future cuts are made first to those courses, rather than to the core disciplines and humanities, such as history?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Baroness will be very pleased to know that we made an announcement this morning—which, for some unknown reason, did not get quite the attention I would have hoped—precisely about her point. For a vast majority of students, going to university is worth while for their learning and lifetime earnings, but there are some courses which are not providing that opportunity. We have already enabled the Office for Students to investigate and challenge where provision is not of a high enough quality; we will link any future increase in tuition fees to quality and we will take further action to enable the Office for Students to limit the availability of courses which are not providing students with what they deserve in the future. We will have more to say about that when, perhaps, more people are listening.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, under the last Government, social mobility went backwards. Does the Minister agree that we have to reverse that policy if we are not to see the tragedy of lost talent?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I agree with my noble friend, and that is why, throughout our education system, we have to tackle the elements that prevent children and young people fmaximising their potential in life from the very early stages. This is why we are investing in early years; it is why we have set a target to ensure more children are ready to benefit from school when they get there; and it is why we have focused on getting children back into school. It is why we are taking action to improve access to all routes of learning for young people post-16, and why we are widening access and participation in higher education for all students who can benefit from it.

[Lord Hannan of Kingsclere (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I was very encouraged by the Minister’s excellent Answer to the excellent Question from the noble Lord, Lord Barber. We do indeed need to remember where we are from, and history is a manual of what works and what does not. Can the Minister think of a single example—anywhere in human history—of where a wealth tax has raised more revenue than it has driven away, or where rent controls have ever failed to reduce the amount of rental properties, or where tariffs have ever made an economy more competitive?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My study was rather more in the area of economics than in history There are some interesting examples of where some of those have worked, but I am not going to rise to the noble Lord’s challenge. On the whole, I agree with his analysis about most of those proposals.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, we have rightly been very proud of our universities, but we have to secure their future, as the noble Baroness said. How are we supporting universities in this new era? What are we doing to ensure that we encourage those from overseas to come to study and research here, that they are not put off by an unwelcoming environment, as is so often the case, and that they are not counted in the immigration figures? We do not want the United Kingdom to decline and fall.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

On the subject of history, it is well worth noting that today is the Windrush anniversary, and we should recognise the significance of that element of our history. We remain in this country and in our higher education system welcoming to international students. That is why we have many universities in the top flight of international universities. We are continuing to see and welcome students who want to come to this country to study and, in doing that, to make a contribution to our universities and those they study alongside.