Qualifications Reform Review

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

On these Benches, we very much welcome this Statement. We got a flavour of what was to come when the Minister, in a recent opinion piece in Further Education Week, struck a more conciliatory tone and indicated that the Labour Government now see a bigger role for applied general and other qualifications, alongside A-levels and T-levels.

We on these Benches have consistently opposed the scrapping of BTECs. While there is always some value in rationalising qualifications from time to time, forcing students into a choice between A-levels and T-levels will narrow the choices of the students at a time when we need a range of ways for them to gain the transferable skills needed in future careers. BTECs are popular with students, respected by employers and provide a well-established route to higher education or employment, so it is hard to understand why the Government wanted to scrap most of them and force young people to choose between studying A-levels or T-levels from the age of 16. We are concerned that removing the option of BTEC qualifications will adversely affect poorer students in particular.

I have two questions for the Minister. First, a particular difficulty for schools and colleges has been uncertainty. It is impossible to plan for a course, have the right staff on hand and have timetables planned if you are unsure whether a course will actually run. For many students, this is very unsettling. Will the Government undertake to provide certainty for colleges, schools and pupils? Secondly, we can all recognise the teething problems that T-levels have had, with low student satisfaction, complex assessments and major work experience requirements. What will the Government be doing to tackle these issues moving forward?

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

I thank noble Lords for their response to the Statement. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, says, we have been clear, in making this Statement, that we are providing certainty for colleges and sixth forms up to 2027, which was certainly one of the sector’s requests.

The noble Baroness asked about the future vision for technical education and the skills system, which I have been able to expound at some length in the consideration of the IfATE Bill. Fundamentally, our view is that skills are essential to this Government, particularly given their mission-led approach. The skills system has a crucial role to play in training the workforce needed to deliver our missions of greening the energy system, rebuilding the health service and delivering safer streets, and is a core component of growing the economy and ensuring that everybody has opportunities to succeed throughout their lives.

We are in the process of developing a comprehensive strategy for post-16 education and skills, to break down barriers to opportunities, support the development of a skilled workforce and drive economic growth through our industrial strategy. At the Association of Colleges conference at the beginning of November, I was able to outline some of the key principles that will apply to that strategy. I hope that we will be in a position to publish more information about the principles and vision of the strategy soon, and then work collaboratively with noble Lords, and, importantly, the sector, to bring forward the details of that.

One of the reasons for providing certainty on qualifications to 2027 is to enable the Government’s curriculum and assessment review to carry out its work, and to do so in a way that will inform further consideration of ensuring that the qualification options for level 3 students—those between 16 and 19—deliver on the fundamental need for appropriate choice and high-quality qualifications, with support from employers and others to ensure that the qualifications, particularly in the technical and vocational area, deliver the skills needed to grow the economy.

I am looking forward to Report stage of the IfATE Bill after our Christmas break, when we will all come back refreshed and ready to re-engage in this important legislation. I have been reflecting hard on the points made by noble Lords in Committee about clarity on the role of Skills England, and the ability for noble Lords to see more clearly how the functions transferred to the Secretary of State to be invested in Skills England will be implemented. I look forward to sharing those views and bringing forward what I hope will be helpful changes to provide assurance to noble Lords when that Bill comes back.

The noble Baroness asked in particular about engineering and manufacturing. It is probably worth while saying that one of the new ways that we have approached the qualifications review is to take a route-by-route look at the options available to students. The reason for the decision to keep the applied qualifications in engineering and manufacturing is precisely that the occupational standards in this area—where employers play a crucial role in identifying what those are—are in the process of being updated. We want to make further decisions and invite reform to qualifications in the light of those improved and updated occupational standards when they emerge.

On national insurance contributions, the Chancellor announced at the Budget that public bodies will receive support to help with the costs of the employer national insurance contribution increase, and we will set out in due course what support will be available to colleges.

In addition to asking about certainty, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about T-levels. As we made clear in the Statement, T-levels are high-quality qualifications, and we want to extend the opportunity they provide to as many young people as possible. We acknowledge that T-levels are large programmes of study and cannot always meet the needs of all learners who want to study in the occupations that they cover, which is the argument for leaving alternatives. However, where a student wants to study a large qualification equivalent to three A-levels’ worth of study in the routes that T-levels cover, T-levels should be the qualification that is offered to them.

We have already taken specific action on one key issue with respect to T-levels, the industrial placements, which are enormously popular with students. When I talk to T-level students, I find that they are enormously enthusiastic about the opportunity to carry out a 45-day placement, but to grow T-levels, we need to ensure that those placements are in place. That is why we have introduced flexibilities around the way in which the placements can be offered, to enable the continued growth of T-levels.

In certain T-levels, of which digital is a good example, the awarding bodies are now looking at the assessment within the T-level to ensure that, while it remains the rigorous qualification that it should be, it is more manageable for those providing it and for students, while enabling students to demonstrate what they have learnt.

I thank noble Lords opposite for their questions. I hope that we now have a period of certainty where students will be able to benefit from the choice of a range of qualifications, with an assurance that this Government will continue to ensure that they will be as high-quality as possible in order to support students’ opportunities throughout life and to meet the need for skills to help us grow the economy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for those comments. I suspect that she—like me—has taught these qualifications. I introduced a general vocational qualification into a high school where I taught, so I very much take her point about the different teaching and learning styles from which students can benefit. I know she agrees that we must ensure that we do not lower the quality of qualifications for students who perhaps need different teaching and learning styles. We continue to review to ensure that qualifications are of a high standard.

From my experience of visiting colleges offering T-levels, I have to say that there are some very innovative approaches to the ways in which they are delivered. That is why there has been a steady growth in the number of young people undertaking T-levels. Of course, we have introduced three new areas this year, and there will be another new one next year.

I also take my noble friend’s point about extensive engagement. The process of the review involved consulting more than 250 individuals, including principals of FE and sixth form colleges, senior and curriculum leaders, teachers and subject specialists in FE, employer representative bodies, industry leaders, awarding organisations, mayoral combined authorities and other government departments. That is one reason why it has received broad support: it was, in essence, co-designed with those who will be responsible for delivering the qualifications process.

On the point about work experience, my noble friend is of course right that while industry placements are a key element of T-levels, they also play an important role both post and pre-16. That is where we need to ensure that placements maintain rigour, are of quality and enable employers to step forward to do that. That is what we have sought to achieve with the flexibilities we have introduced into T-levels.

We need to continue working with employers by providing reassurance and the flexibility necessary to enable them to offer a range of placements. That is one of the things we do with our T-level and apprenticeship ambassadors, who work with employers to encourage them to offer the sorts of placements that will be beneficial for students in whatever course they are taking—whether it is one of those placements or work experience. We will continue to do that.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome this Statement. T-levels are a very useful part of the qualifications landscape, but it was never realistic to think that T-levels and A-levels between them could somehow dominate all the options available for 16 to 18 year-olds. Many former Ministers on both sides of this House took that view—I see my noble friend Lord Johnson sitting beside me. Although they are not present, I would like to say that it was good to work with the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett, Lord Baker and Lord Adonis, in arguing for a pause. It is welcome that we have now secured a rather better future, at least for some time, for BTECs.

I am sure the Minister will be aware of the recent report from the independent Education Policy Institute, which said that

“T levels are currently unsuitable for many Level 3 learners”.


That message from independent research is one that we all need to take to heart. I have two specific questions for the Minister. First, will she confirm that T-levels cannot do everything, alongside A-levels? They are a very useful qualification for a route to a post as a technician, but it is not clear that they can do everything, and so BTECs and NVQs have a lasting role in the vocational qualification landscape. On eliminating uncertainty, which my noble friend Lady Barran raised, a statement recognising that T-Levels cannot do it all would be very welcome.

My second question concerns the cost of T-levels. It has always been noticeable that in the DfE there is no money in some areas but in other areas money pours out to fund new initiatives. The Minister referred to the value of the 45-day placements. However, can she tell the House how much the funding of these 45-day placements is costing? Given that spreading access to work experience is so important, does she have any concerns that this very substantial funding for one specific way of accessing work experience is having the effect of diminishing opportunities for work experience for other students not on the T-level route?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that, when faced with a positive phalanx—I do not know what the collective noun is for former Education Ministers—it is probably wise to realise that there is some wisdom there. That has been demonstrated by the results of the review that we have undertaken.

I agree with the noble Lord that T-levels and A-levels would be an insufficient option on their own for all students. To reiterate, where T-levels exist in a route, they are the most appropriate large qualification. One of the other things that we have done is to remove the previously proposed rules of combination, which would have prevented colleges building appropriate courses for their students, in consultation with those students and others. That will provide more flexibility.

I will write to the noble Lord specifically about the cost of T-level placements, but it is right when introducing a new qualification that, as we have done, there is an uplift in revenue funding for T-level students, as well as some capital provision. Any new qualification will need a period of time to scale itself to a position where the normal level of revenue funding would be adequate to deliver it.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I too very much welcome the Government’s Statement. I say that on behalf of my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lady Blower and Lord Knight, who, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, have been campaigning for some time, as my noble friend the Minister knows, to halt the process instigated by the previous Government, who were ditching in a reckless manner far too many other qualifications in favour of T-levels. I am glad to see that it is a Labour Government who have supported BTEC and AGQ students in a way that will not constrain the rollout of T-Levels but will open up more pathways for learners.

I found it rather ironic to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, say that this Statement has been broadly welcomed by the sector. That is not something that could have been said about the proposals she made when she was in government. This goes right back to the time of the skills Bill, as noble Lords on the opposite Benches will recall. We did think that we had had some assurances from the Minister, which subsequently did not materialise, to our considerable annoyance. Many of the applied general qualifications in BTECs, the ending of which was proposed, will now be extended. Those of us who have campaigned to defend rather than defund those qualifications will take some solace from that and welcome the actions of the Government.

The Government’s curriculum and assessment review, led by Becky Francis, is under way and will report shortly. Can my noble friend the Minister say a bit about the way in which the level 3 qualifications set out in the Statement will dovetail with the curriculum and assessment review next year?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend. He is right that there is something very arresting for a new Member of the House of Lords and a returned Education Minister to attend a meeting with my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lady Morris, Lady Blower and Lord Knight, all of whom are very expert in this area. I am glad that he thinks I at least listened and understood what they said to me.

My noble friend is right that of the qualifications that we started looking at, of which about 460 were due for defunding by 2026, about 200 had very low enrolments: 100 or fewer students. We have largely managed to remove those from the qualifications landscape. It is probably still the case that that landscape is overly complex for students to be able to work their way through, but we kept 157 of the qualifications that were previously proposed to be defunded.

On the point about the curriculum and assessment review, as I touched on earlier, that review has within its remit the consideration of the assessment routes for 16 to 19 year-olds, and—responding to a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which perhaps I did not address previously—a particular emphasis on ensuring that our curriculum and assessment routes enable everybody to succeed, including those who are disadvantaged and those with special educational needs and disabilities. For that reason, it will focus carefully on bringing forward recommendations about what the assessment route should look like for students post 16, and we will reflect on those and use them as the basis for further decisions about how to ensure that our qualifications for 16 to 19 year-olds are suitably rigorous, suitably accessible and provide appropriate choice for students.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, like others on all sides of the House, I very much welcome the Government’s rapid work to lift much of the uncertainty over the defunding of applied general qualifications. It would be hugely beneficial if the Government went a little further and were absolutely explicit that this is not just a stay of execution until 2027 but that there is a long-term place for these qualifications in our education system. That is my first point. The second point is: can the Minister show similar rapid work in lifting the uncertainty over how the growth and skills levy will interact with the lifelong learning entitlement, and if not now, say when the Government will do so?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not think it is appropriate for anybody—I do not think the noble Lord would have done it—to say that there would never be any development or new qualifications introduced into the 16 to 19 landscape or that there should ever be any ending of any qualification. So the qualifications landscape should not be set in stone. However, I can repeat, as I said to his noble friend, that the Government do not envisage a qualifications landscape in which there is only a choice of T-levels or A-levels. That is one of the reasons why the work of the curriculum and assessment review in setting out its views on what should remain in order to provide appropriate routes for young people will be the basis for any future decisions made there. It is my view that there will always need to be qualifications that are neither A-levels or T-levels, but they need to be of sufficiently high quality to ensure that we are not selling short the young people who take that route.

No sooner have we solved one problem than the noble Lord quite rightly pushes us to get on to the next one. Skills England is currently consulting on some of the current flexibilities that we will be introducing to develop the growth and skills levy, and of course we are also working hard on the implementation of the lifelong learning entitlement. I hope it will not be too long before we will be able to say more about both of those and, as the noble Lord also suggested, how they will link together. But I will just have a little break over Christmas before we come back to do that, and I hope all noble Lords also have a very restful break when it comes.

State-funded Schools: Special Educational Needs

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I remind the House of my declared interests.

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

My Lords, the majority of children and young people with special educational needs have their needs met in mainstream schools. We are committed to ensuring that schools have the resources and expertise to identify needs earlier and support all pupils to succeed. We are working with experts, parents and carers to strengthen accountability and ensure inclusivity, through reforms to Ofsted inspection frameworks, increasing workforce expertise, evidence-based training and encouraging schools to set up resourced provision, or SEN units, to increase capacity to better support children and young people in mainstream settings.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I remind her that it is estimated that 70% of dyslexics are not identified at school, and the figure is also very high for those with things such as high-functioning autism. Will the Government ensure that there is a coherent pattern of training so that ordinary teachers refer to those with expertise to identify? If you do not identify, you stand no chance of providing the different learning patterns that are required.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right about the need to identify early. We have measures in place to help teachers with early identification and support, particularly for the teaching of reading, including the phonics screening check and statutory assessments in key stages 1 and 2, the English hubs programme, the reading framework, an updated list of high-quality phonics programmes for schools, training for up to 7,000 early years special educational needs co-ordinators, and the Partnerships for Inclusion of Neurodiversity in Schools programme which upskills primary schools to support neurodiverse children.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

My Lords, I am the great-aunt of Ollie, who is my great-nephew. He went to Liberty, a brilliant state school in Merton that I cannot speak highly enough of. It had no trouble identifying that he had a problem; the problem was the length of time waiting for the assessment. In the end, I coughed up and paid for it, and he is now in a state school with a Treetops special unit and he is cooking—he is thriving. This year, I received the first birthday card from him that I could read every word of. How many children are waiting for assessments? What is the reason for the long waits, and what are we going to do about it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Ollie is very lucky to have the noble Baroness as his great-aunt. But she raises an important point about the speed with which it is possible to carry out assessments. It is for that reason that we are supporting local authority educational psychology services by investing over £20 million to train 400 more educational psychologists, because they play a particularly important role in supporting those services and contributing to statutory assessments. As the noble Baroness said, we must ensure that more children are able to succeed in our mainstream schools, as I am sure Ollie will.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, one in 20 people in the UK are estimated to have dyscalculia, yet it frequently goes undiagnosed and therefore without the support that would enable these young people to overcome the challenges in processing and dealing with numbers. Currently, there is no requirement for maths teachers to learn about dyscalculia, and even special needs teachers are not always trained to recognise and deal with it. Will the Government consider introducing a statutory requirement for maths teachers to learn about dyscalculia in initial teacher training? Can the Minister confirm that these specific challenges will be addressed through the curriculum and assessment review?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about the responsibility of all teachers to be able to identify special educational needs. All teachers are special educational needs teachers and that is why, although I cannot be completely clear on her point about dyscalculia, I can assure her that we are supporting improved teacher training throughout teachers’ careers, starting with changes to initial teacher training coming in from September 2025, and continuing through their careers from early career teachers into leadership roles. I will follow up the particular point the noble Baroness made in her question.

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

As my noble friend the Minister knows, there are hundreds of thousands of children who simply do not go to school. How do we measure the limitations they are facing in the educational sphere?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. It is important that we tackle absenteeism in the way that this Government have outlined and that I have talked about at this Dispatch Box on previous occasions, whether that is persistent absenteeism, where we see a higher proportion of students with special educational needs, or those who have been completely removed from schools and are no longer on school registers. It is also important that we introduce, as we intend to do through legislation, the registers for children who are not in school, so that we can ensure, first, that our schools are appropriately inclusive, so that parents do not feel the need to remove their children and children do not absent themselves from schools because of their inability to be able to learn, but also so that we can track children when they are not in school.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, despite significant progress in the identification of pupils with SEND in recent years, some groups remain significantly underrepresented in accessing a formal diagnosis and acquiring an EHCP. Looked-after children as well as those experiencing the most severe poverty and those who belong to Romany, Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities face particularly serious barriers. What steps will the Government take to ensure that the most vulnerable children with SEND are better served?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is exactly right that, where you see an assessment of special educational needs alongside other areas of disadvantage, there is, if you like, an additional concern and an additional difficulty for those children to succeed. That is why we need to make our schools more inclusive, we need to make sure that we have the specialist workforce in place—some of which I have talked about today—and we need to make sure that investment is available in local authorities for those higher needs, and we need to make sure that we are intervening earlier. For example, as more children are able to get early years education alongside the trained support that we are providing in early years education, I hope that we will be able to identify those children earlier and start them off, at least, on a better chance of succeeding in our schools.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, last week Ministers and the Department for Education rightly noted on social media the very poor results for children with special educational needs in the recent SATs tests at the end of primary school. However, in the same week, there was a spooky silence from the department and its Ministers when the analysis of the 2023 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study was published. Our year 9 students are now fifth in the world in maths and sixth in science and are beaten only by the East Asian countries. I could find no word of acknowledgement to celebrate the success of English students from a single Minister in the department on social media. Can I invite the Minister to take this opportunity to congratulate our students, thank our teachers and acknowledge that the Conservative educational reforms had a massive impact?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I was around in 1999 when the focus of the previous Labour Government was on literacy and numeracy in a way that has undoubtedly led to continued improvements in our children’s literacy and numeracy, and I am more than happy to thank and give credit to the teachers and the students who have performed so well in English and maths international assessments. However, there is a level of complacency—which I am sure I cannot accuse the noble Baroness of—and it is not right to feel that our job is done when we have a special educational needs and disability system that has been widely described, by the NAO and others including members of the noble Baroness’s party, as a lose-lose situation for our children and a failure to enable all children to benefit from the excellent teaching, which I am more than happy to praise.

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, as others have, I start by expressing my gratitude to the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, for opening this important debate. Notwithstanding that this is my third appearance at the Dispatch Box today, and not the first time I have addressed this issue from it, I think that identifies its importance for all Members of your Lordships’ House, and in particular for the noble Baroness. I know that she is a champion for those with cerebral palsy and that the organisation she supports plays a key role in helping children, young people and adults to build skills, knowledge, confidence and relationships.

We have heard a range of perspectives today from across the House, emphasising personal experiences and our understanding of how those shape our special educational needs and the SEND system, which so many rely on across the country. I was particularly interested in the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the impact on premature children. I will have to undertake to look further at the committee report that he identified. We are aware of the challenges in the SEND system, where outcomes for children are often poor and in a system that can be adversarial for parents and carers to navigate. We understand how urgently we need to address these issues. We have the ambition that the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, urged on us. However, these are complex issues. We will need a considered approach to deliver sustainable changes, because we know that the current system needs to do so much more to meet the needs of children with SEND. We face significant challenges in the sufficiency of provision and public confidence. The outcomes for children and young people with SEND are often disappointing. Here I wholeheartedly support, as all noble Lords have, the aspiration that we should expect the highest possible standards for children with special educational needs and disabilities. We should start with the question: “What do they want to be and how can we support them to achieve that?”

As recent reports from Isos and the National Audit Office have identified, there is a crisis in the system—a system that has been neglected and failed to meet the needs of children and families for too long. Improving the SEND system is a priority for this Government. We want all children, regardless of where they are in the country, to receive the right support to succeed in their education and lead happy, healthy and productive adult lives.

The noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Lexden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Monckton, raised the issue of VAT on private school fees, another issue that I have discussed on several occasions from this Dispatch Box. In sharing the view of noble Lords that we need the highest possible aspirations for our children, I re-emphasise that we need the highest possible aspirations for our children, whichever type of school they are in. Clearly, what is happening in our state sector is not good enough for the 93% of children educated there. Notwithstanding that, we are committed to ensuring that pupils whose needs necessitate a place at a private school are not impacted by the policy. Where children have their place identified as part of the education, health and care plan, they will of course not be impacted by the changes that are being made to VAT.

The reforms that families need and deserve will take time, but the Government have already taken action to support the system. First, all teachers are teachers of special educational needs and disabilities. To ensure that teachers have the skills to support all pupils to succeed, including those with SEND, we are implementing a range of teacher-training reforms which begins with initial teacher training and continues into early career teaching, through to middle and senior leadership.

The noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, quite rightly made the point that we need to start early to identify and support children. Early years will be part of the wider SEND reforms. We are committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in all mainstream settings as well as ensuring that special schools cater for those with the most complex needs. To support this, we have launched new training resources for early educators to help them to support children with developmental differences. We have also funded training for up to 7,000 early years special educational needs co-ordinators.

High-quality teaching is central to ensuring that all children are given the best possible opportunity to achieve in their education. That is why we are recruiting an additional 6,500 teachers and have implemented a range of teacher training reforms, as I have outlined. On 1 September 2024, the Government introduced a new mandatory leadership level national professional qualification for SENCOs. We have also launched an independent curriculum assessment review to look closely at the key challenges to attainment that children and young people face, particularly those with SEND.

In reference to the calls from several noble Lords for investment in the professionals, who are so important, I say that we are also investing over £21 million to train 400 new educational psychologists, but we need additional funding in our broader school funding system. To improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children and ensure that the system is financially sustainable, we are providing almost £1 billion more for high-needs budgets in 2025-26, bringing total high-needs funding to £11.9 billion. This more consistent and widespread approach will be more important than the safety valve system that the noble Baroness referenced, which, of course, by definition was able to cope only with those local authorities in extreme situations. All local authorities need support and that is our reason for the approach that we have taken. This funding will help local authorities and schools with the increasing costs of supporting children and young people with complex SEND.

Last week, we also announced an additional £740 million for high-needs capital in 2025-26. This new funding can be used to adapt classrooms to be more accessible for children with SEND, and to create specialist facilities within mainstream schools that can deliver more intensive support adapted to suit the pupils’ needs, alongside continuing to support pupils in special schools with the most complex needs.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Sheffield and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, also raised the important point about speech and language therapists. We know that continuing to build the pipeline of speech and language therapists is essential. That is why the speech and language degree apprenticeship was introduced, which is now in its third year of delivery and offers an alternative pathway into a successful career as a speech and language therapist. In addition, working with NHS England, the funding for the Early Language and Support for Every Child pathfinders will continue until at least 2025. It is trialling new ways of working to better identify and support children with speech and language issues in early years and primary school settings.

I am very attracted to the call of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, for more use of music not only with respect to students with special educational needs but broadly across our curriculum. As per our recent announcement, we expect all music hubs to have an inclusion strategy and lead to ensure that music education is fully inclusive in mainstream and special schools. We recently announced £5.8 million for the Music Opportunities pilot over four years to help support disadvantaged and SEND pupils.

Obviously, there is more to be done. The Government will bring a new focus on improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream education settings, where most children with special educational needs and disabilities are taught and where most children’s needs are identified. We are moving to an approach rooted in partnership, creating certainty for all children, parents and teachers, in a core offer of education. To transform the outcomes of all young people with SEND, children need to feel that they belong in school. We will support professionals who work with children and young people with SEND to increase their SEND expertise.

We will also encourage mainstream schools to set up resourced provision or special educational needs units to increase capacity so that more children and young people with SEND can benefit from mainstream education. We will strengthen accountability to ensure that mainstream schools are as inclusive as possible. As part of this, we are working closely with Ofsted to develop proposals for how inspections could operate in future and how outcomes could be reported within a new report card system. All our work will be guided by what families, experts, leaders and front-line professionals tell us. We can get this right only if we listen and work together on solutions.

This work has already begun with the appointment of Tom Rees, chief executive of Ormiston Academies Trust, to lead a group of experts to help us drive forward work on inclusion in mainstream education settings, and with the appointment of Dame Christine Lenehan as strategic adviser for SEND. She will play a key role in convening and engaging with the sector, including leaders, practitioners, children and families, and will support work to engage parliamentarians as we refine and deliver our SEND reform. To drive support for neurodivergent children and young people in mainstream education, we have appointed Professor Karen Guldberg as chair of a new group bringing together neurodiversity experts and those with lived experience.

Together, we can restore trust in the system and improve it so that more and more children and young people get the support they need to succeed in their education and later in life. As we heard today, many noble Lords have considerable experience and expertise in SEND. I look forward to working and collaborating with noble Lords to realise this vision, which I know Members of this House will share.

Vocational Training

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that their legislative agenda does not undermine vocational training.

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

My Lords, the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill is crucial for a skills system that is more responsive to employers’ skills needs. We will ensure continuity during the transition of functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State and thereby to Skills England, including guidance to learners and employers. Occupational standards, apprenticeship assessment plans and technical qualifications that are being prepared or considered for approval at the point that functions are transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State will continue.

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

My Lords, the IfATE transfer of functions Bill currently making its passage through your Lordships’ House takes those powers, particularly regarding standards and assessment, away from employer-led organisation and gives them to the Secretary of State. How can the Minister assure the House that this transfer of powers will not undermine confidence in vocational training?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As we have discussed at some length as the Bill has gone through this House, the intention in shifting the functions is to enable them to be used by Skills England, which will be very much driven by the needs of employers, working alongside trade unions and bringing in the necessary regional and local co-ordination. I hope I provided some reassurance in Committee. There is no intention that we should move away from a system where the occupational standards and assessment plans are determined by employer groups. It is fundamentally important, to build confidence in apprenticeships and other technical qualifications, that they fulfil the requirements of employers. That is the intention for when Skills England takes on that role.

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

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that the legacy of the last Government was nearly 7 million people of working age with little or no qualifications, one in five workers lacking even basic computer skills and the number of apprenticeships falling off a cliff? Does she agree that the remedy, to revitalise vocational training in this country, is in part to have an active industrial strategy involving both employers and unions, and investing in our FE colleges—in kit and equipment but also in staff?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right; we have a skills shortage, and it has worsened over recent years in the way she describes. That means we need the industrial strategy this Government are developing, but we need it linked closely to a much more coherent skills system, led by Skills England, which will identify, with the partnership I outlined previously, current and future skills gaps. Those gaps will then be met by improved opportunities for technical education and apprenticeships. She is also right that a key partner in delivering that will be our FE colleges, for which this Government were of course able to find an additional £300 million of revenue and £300 million of capital in the recent Budget Statement.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

How do the Government propose to fill the many skills gaps in our workforce without overhauling the school curriculum to prepare young people for life and work and vocational skills, in contrast to the overbearing, academic knowledge-rich curriculum of the previous Government?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. Whether young people—and older people—have success in their careers and can access the skills they need starts before the age of 16. It starts with the school curriculum. It is with that intention that we have set up the curriculum and assessment review, to look precisely at how we can maintain and improve our standards of numeracy and literacy, while also ensuring that we enable the curriculum and schools to have the space to develop precisely the sort of skills and aptitudes that the noble Baroness outlined.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, I turn the Minister’s attention to vocational training for exceptionally talented dancers and musicians, which starts at a much earlier age than we are discussing. She will know that the kind of training required is not available in the state system but is provided by schools on the Music and Dance Scheme, which are able to recruit on talent alone, regardless of financial circumstances. What are the Government doing to ensure that the legislative agenda will not impede the ability of those schools to be blind to finance and look only at talent; so that anybody with the drive and the capability can enjoy their full potential, and our creative industries will remain fully inclusive of the broad diversity of our society?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has contributed considerably to my education, while I have been in this place, on the crucial role played by those really excellent music and dance schools. That is why the Government’s Music and Dance Scheme enables enormously talented young people, regardless of their background, to access that education—to ensure that we can continue that pipeline of completely brilliant and elite musicians and dancers, who are so important to this country’s creative sector.

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

My Lords, FE college enrolments of 14 to 16 year-olds have surged by nearly one-third in the past four years, according to a recent study by the Association of Colleges, with over half consistently from the two most deprived quintiles. These students, however, mostly on vocational courses, do not have the same access to transport funding and free meals as their counterparts in schools. Can the Minister outline what steps the Government will take to address this very basic inequality?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is right about some of the opportunities available to 14 to 16 year-olds in our excellent FE colleges. I was not clear about the particular inequality that he is talking about. It is of course the responsibility of local authorities to ensure that students have the school transport that they need to enable them to complete their education. I did not think there was a discrepancy between institutions in the way the right reverend Prelate outlines. I will take certainly that away and perhaps come back to him with some more information about it.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, further to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, how will the Government ensure that there are clearer pathways for young people who do not aspire to university, but seek to develop vocational or technical skills for careers, including in the construction sector? How will they address the critical shortages of skilled tradespeople such as bricklayers, without whom plans to build 1.5 million homes in the next five years are simply not achievable?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that we need to improve the careers advice available to young people in our schools. That is why this Government are investing in it and in the expert advisers who deliver it. He is right about construction skills; we need the excellent contribution of our FE colleges. For example, the £140 million that we announced two or three weeks ago will, through the Construction Industry Training Board and the National House Building Council, contribute to the development of skills hubs that link to large housing developments. This is precisely to ensure that we have the skilled tradespeople we need to deliver the Government’s important target to build 1.5 million new homes during this Parliament.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the combination of the Government’s IfATE Bill, which dilutes the role of employers in developing qualifications and standards, and the proposal for the growth and skills levy points to more change, and new delay and uncertainty, in a system that desperately needs stability if employers are really to have confidence in it. The noble Baroness talked about the powers that will be used by Skills England. She knows, from debates in Committee, that the whole House wants Skills England to succeed, even though it is not mentioned in the IfATE Bill. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would make my day by announcing what government amendments might come forward on Report to address the House’s concerns?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

At this time of year in particular, I am always keen to make the noble Baroness’s day. I assure her that I am reflecting hard on the good debates that we have had in Committee and thinking about how I can provide some assurance to noble Lords about the role of Skills England. As I described, it will be enormously important to ensure the development of our skills system, which noble Lords have identified that it needs. I assure the noble Baroness, as I did on several occasions during debates on the Bill, that there will be continuity of the occupational standards and assessment plans that have been or are currently being developed, during the transfer of those functions. I will come back to noble Lords on the other issues before Report, in a way that I hope reassures them about the significance that this Government place on Skills England and this House’s ability to monitor it and to hold us to account for its delivery.

Maintained Schools: Term Dates

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington]

To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they plan to allow maintained schools to set the number of days on which they are open during a school year, in the same way as for academy schools.

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

My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the current regulations. Academies generally tend to follow the same structure as local authority-maintained schools, and we encourage local areas to work collaboratively to minimise any disruption to parents. Schools and local authorities should design their term structure first and foremost to benefit pupils’ education. Variable term dates can cause difficulties for parents, and allowing greater divergence would exacerbate that.

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and declare my interest as a trustee of a community-maintained school in High Wycombe. My Question is to highlight the current difficulties experienced by maintained schools in the recruitment of teachers when the number of days they are required to open to students is fewer than that required of academies. There is a growing pattern of two-week half terms being offered by academies in the middle of the autumn term, but not by maintained schools. It is in the interests of childcare and parents, when they have children attending a range of schools, that holiday and term dates coincide. Do the Government intend to extend the flexibility to offering extended holidays to maintained schools, or at least to level up the required number of days that all schools should be open for children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Under regulations, schools are expected to be open for 190 days, or 380 sessions, each year. As I suggested in my initial Answer, it is also important that there is local co-ordination around holiday dates in order to support parents and to ensure consistency, in the way the noble Lord described.

I think the noble Lord started by saying that this makes it more difficult to recruit teachers. Of course, while it is important that children have a fixed week and a specified number of days, it is of course possible, as has been the case, to develop more flexible ways in which teachers can work. The department is keen to promote that by, for example, funding a programme focused on embedding flexible working in schools. I hope that will be one of the things that will enable us to improve teacher recruitment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thoroughly agree with everything the Minister has said. She is right that schools must be open for 190 days—195 days for teachers, so they can do the five days of in-service training. There has to be flexibility for such things as religious holidays in faith schools and wake walks in Lancashire; you have to be able to deal with those changes. The real problem occurs when academies with headquarters in, say, the London area but schools in the north-west try to standardise the holidays and do not take those regional variations into account. Of course, travel companies shoot up the prices during the main school holidays, and it becomes very difficult for families to afford those prices.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I simply reiterate what I said: it is important that there is co-operation at a local level to cover the types of schools where parents might have a child in each, to ensure consistency in school holidays. But I take the noble Lord’s point about that possibly differing from place to place. In the end, we need to focus on what is the best arrangement and the appropriate amount of time for children to be in school, so that they can get the best possible opportunity to learn.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, time at school is extremely important, but so is school readiness, and I warmly commend the Government on the targets announced last week. What are the Government doing, or can they do, to better support excellent charities such as Growing Minds in Oxfordshire? It does the most brilliant job but struggles all the time to keep going as it prepares children better for school.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right: how well you do throughout the whole of the rest of your education is often determined very early on in your school life. That is why, last week, the Prime Minister set out our target to ensure that 75% of children are school ready by the age of five. That is an increase on the current figure; noble Lords may be quite shocked to hear that fewer children than that are ready to start learning at the age of five. Whether through government-funded provision or government-supported voluntary sector provision such as that outlined by my noble friend, we must focus on making sure that children and their families are ready for them to start school and gain the absolute most that they can out of their time there.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, what is the Government’s opinion of Devon County Council’s proposal to charge schools £21,000 for each pupil whom they permanently exclude?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

That has not been drawn to my attention, but I am certainly willing to look into it and perhaps come back to the noble Lord.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, I know the Minister shares my view that it is one thing to have the schools open, but it is another to make sure that all the pupils are there. What are the Government doing to try to reduce the amount of absenteeism in schools, especially of vulnerable children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right: if children are not in school, they cannot learn. Although levels of absenteeism are marginally better this year than last, they are still considerably worse than before the pandemic, with around 1.6 million children—more than one in five—missing at least one day per fortnight. This is why we need a wide-ranging approach to tackling absenteeism. We need to build on the detailed data we now have available to us. We need to expect schools to focus, before a child becomes persistently absent, on the reasons why they are absent and what intervention may be necessary. We need schools to learn from those who are tacking this issue much more effectively. We are investing £15 million in expanding the specialist attendance mentoring programme for persistently absent pupils. We need to make sure that the new guidance issued in August is being followed appropriately, because this is a fundamental issue on which we need to make progress. Children need to be in school in order to learn, and in order to prevent the disruption to others in class that happens when children are absent.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, we on these Benches support the flexibility that academies enjoy, and we trust the discretion of trust and school leaders in how they make their decisions. With that in mind, we are extremely concerned that the Employment Rights Bill will cut across those freedoms and potentially create a ceiling, rather than a floor, in terms and conditions of employment for teaching assistants and support staff more widely. Can the Minister reassure the House that this will not happen?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Some enormously good work has been done by academies and maintained schools on using teaching and non-teaching staff to ensure that children are getting a good education. None of it, as far as I can see, depends on them having in place inadequate, discriminatory or undermining employment conditions for their support staff. I do not see why providing a suitable and appropriate basis for people’s employment should in any way undermine the excellent work being done by our schools.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

The Minister mentioned the importance of co-ordination between maintained schools and academies. How widespread is that desirable co-ordination, and what plans do the Government have for extending it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

In most local authority areas there is usually a general coherence between the holiday sessions offered by maintained schools and by academies. While academy trusts are free to set their own term and holiday dates, generally there is co-ordination across local authority areas. For the sake of parents, it is, as we have discussed, generally a good thing.

Higher Education Sector

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name and draw attention to my declaration of interests.

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

My Lords, this Government are committed to maintaining our world-leading higher education sector and promoting its attractiveness internationally. The Secretary of State for Education, in her first speech, set out the valuable contribution that international students make to our universities, communities and country. We are also working with FCDO and DBT colleagues on a new international education strategy, to ensure that we are maximising the impact of our education system globally.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My noble friend and I know, to our cost, how difficult it is to get the Home Office—or the ONS, for that matter—to change its mind about anything as the world changes around it. Given that international students pay very large sums of money to receive a service and bring enormous amounts of funding and cultural improvement to our country, is it not time to persuade the Home Office to take international students out of the migration statistics?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right in several of his comments, including that international students enrich our campuses and communities, form lifelong friendships, become global ambassadors and contribute to the economic benefits of this country—which is why they will always be welcome. The Office for National Statistics is of course independent in producing its statistics, but I encourage people to look at the detailed breakdown of migration statistics that it also provides, which identifies different elements of migration. As I have always done in my ministerial life, I will continue to listen to my noble friend and do what I can to work on the priorities that he puts to me.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, one of the problems with the Turing scheme not being reciprocal is that it is much harder for universities to form international partnerships. Have His Majesty’s Government assessed the impact of that on the sustainability and reputation of our higher education sector?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is right that the Turing scheme funds UK students to engage internationally in all stages of education, but it is not the case that there are not also other forms of support, including through our colleagues in DSIT, for international partnerships in the areas of both research and teaching and university co-operation. If we look, for example, at the value of transnational education, where UK universities have sites in or relationships with other countries, we see a growing sector, and these are all areas that we will want to look at in the international education strategy.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this week saw the most extraordinary announcement from the Office for Students that it was suspending its activity in relation to new registrations, new applications for degree-awarding powers and new applications for university title until at least August 2025 to allow it to focus on the financial sustainability of the sector. Does the Minister agree with me that this sends the most terrible message to students both in this country and overseas, and risks undermining the financial sustainability it seeks to achieve?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

No, I do not agree with the noble Baroness. In fact, the message that it sends is that this Government, unlike the last, are determined to ensure that we put universities on a firmer financial footing. We are not willing to sit by, as the last Government did, while universities face considerable financial pressure. That is why we asked the Office for Students to refocus on the issue of financial sustainability, to help to create a secure future for our world-leading universities, and it is also why we were willing to take the difficult decision to increase tuition fees this year, in order to provide some additional finance for universities in very straitened times.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Chief Whip. If we are going to make sure that the universities are accessible to our own students, can we have an indication of what level of support we are expecting to get from foreign students, and have that discussion out in the open quickly?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is already the case that the earnings that come from international students’ contribution to universities are helping to subsidise the cost of domestic students. There is not a lose/lose here. Having international students and welcoming them into this country has benefited our domestic students and benefited universities’ research capacity.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

Does the Minister not recognise that we are in the process of destroying our universities through swingeing cuts to their staff that have been occasioned by their financial distress? A denuded universities sector will not be attractive to foreign students. Moreover, the present conditions of service of university staff deter people from joining the academic profession.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, this Minister does recognise that, which is precisely why this Government, unlike the last Government, have taken action to put universities’ finances on a more sustainable basis. It is fundamentally important that we can protect our world-leading universities sector, ensure that the staff doing such an important job there are supported and attract students, both domestic and international, to the benefit of them and of our country.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, following on from the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which I support, we have something like 113,000 PhD students in the country, of which 43,000 are international students. They are highly talented. They would like to stay here when they complete their studies and, for this to happen, the Government need to introduce more stability in migration policy for both students and post-docs. If they stay here, because they are talented and have completed their PhDs, they will grow our economy and innovate, so I hope the Minister will have some comments to make about how this could happen.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that it is important that the graduate route visa has been protected. It allows international students, in the case of PhD graduates, to stay for an additional three years to contribute and look for work. I think that that is appropriate, given the contribution that they make, as the noble Lord says.

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests on the register. I share the shock of my noble friend Lady Barran at the OfS’s decision to suspend applications to the register. This sends a terrible message to investors around the world and will deter institutions that want to follow trailblazers such as Dyson, NMIT, LIS and TEDI in bringing innovation and choice to our higher education system. If the Office for Students cannot handle the duties that Parliament has given it, should it not delegate back to the Quality Assurance Agency the quality assurance function that it has taken from it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Well, I simply reiterate the point that it is important that this Government have gripped the issue of financial sustainability and have asked the OfS to focus on it. The OfS has made its decisions about where to focus its capacity to enable it to do that. I take seriously the point that the noble Lord made, but it is the role of the OfS as the regulator of the sector to regulate, to ensure that we have the sort of quality that—I disagree with the noble Lord—will continue to attract students, researchers and others into the UK.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, over the years, many international students, especially from less democratic countries, were attracted to UK universities because of their reputation as beacons of free speech. Tragically, more recently such students have complained that they find British campuses as censorious as at home. In this context, will the Government reinstate the shelved Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act? On a related point, will the Minister reassure us that this legislation was not withdrawn to appease repressive regimes that like the UK university brands but dislike legal commitment to academic freedom?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can absolutely assure the noble Baroness that that was not the case, as I have said repeatedly in this House. But it is the case that the last Government’s freedom of speech legislation would have been overly burdensome on universities and would potentially have had unintended consequences. As I have also said, we will come back soon, following our pause of the legislation and our wide engagement with stakeholders, to spell out the next steps for this Government in protecting academic freedom and freedom of speech in our universities.

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

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Grand Committee

To finish, the Minister will be well aware that skills provision is a vital enabler for delivering against our climate and nature targets, as well as for the first mission of the Government—economic growth—and there is a great opportunity for the Government here to get a joined-up system in place from the local LSIPs to our regional and national strategy related to our climate mitigation and adaptation targets.

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

My Lords, in speaking to amendments in this first group, I wholly recognise the point made by noble Lords that this is about the importance of accountability and reporting, and I begin by reassuring your Lordships that the department, in this legislation and all the work we have done so far, takes transparency, accountability and reporting very seriously, including to Parliament. As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, I was accounting to the Industry and Regulators Committee just this morning on the inquiry that my noble friend Lord Blunkett referenced. Alongside my honourable friend the Minister for Employment, hopefully we both demonstrated cross-government working and gave a considerable amount of detail on a range of issues that have been raised during the course of this debate and were raised last week as well. In addition, the Government have today published the Get Britain Working White Paper that noble Lords have referenced.

I will just say, in response to the points made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett about the name of the Bill, that I remember, back in 1997, sitting on the Bill Committee for that piece of legislation. I was not clear at the time that the name had been as significant as my noble friend suggests, but I know that what was included not only in that legislation but in the commitment of that Government to make progress was what made such a difference to the education system under the leadership of my noble friend and that Labour Government.

All noble Lords have complained about how difficult it was to talk about Skills England, while talking at length about Skills England. Nevertheless, I would argue that there is a lot of information already in the public domain. In less than three months, this Government announced Skills England and ensured its first public report was delivered, which talks a lot about many of the questions that noble Lords have rightly identified as important: where are the current skills gaps; what will be the role of Skills England; how will Skills England work across government and with other stakeholders, including employers, trade unions and others? That was in less than three months after the start of the Government.

But we take accountability and reporting seriously and, as noble Lords have said, Amendments 18, 23, 31 and 36A, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey, Lord Knight, Lord Blunkett and Lord Ravensdale, and Amendment 36 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, all touch on that issue.

Through this legislation specifically, as we discussed last week, functions currently held by IfATE will be transferred to the Secretary of State, who is already accountable to Parliament. This fundamental accountability to Parliament naturally includes the exercise of any functions that are transferred from IfATE through this legislation. However, I understand that we need to go further than that to reassure noble Lords about the public accountability of Skills England. These functions, having been transferred to the Secretary of State, will be exercised by Skills England where appropriate.

As already discussed, we intend for Skills England to operate as an executive agency of the Department for Education. I emphasise that we are establishing Skills England as a new arm’s-length body, not as a department within the DfE or, as one noble Lord suggested, in some corner of Sanctuary Buildings. In establishing it as a new arm’s-length body, the department will adhere to the requirements set out in guidance published by the Cabinet Office, which provide the highest standards of corporate governance. Once set up, Skills England will report on its functions and performance in publicly available documents. In response to several noble Lords who argued for Skills England producing an annual report, I absolutely commit to that. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, I assure her to the extent possible that equal care will be taken with that report to ensure that it is rigorous and accurate.

I can go even further than that. A sponsor Minister within the department will be accountable to Parliament on all matters concerning Skills England, including setting the policy framework in which it will operate. We will ensure that an annual letter from the Secretary of State sets the priorities on which Skills England will focus. That letter will also be publicly available.

As discussed at last week’s session, a framework document will be agreed between the Department for Education and Skills England in accordance with the Treasury’s handbook Managing Public Money. That publicly available document will set out matters including the governance and accountability framework within which Skills England will operate, Skills England’s core responsibilities and how the relationship between Skills England and the department will work in practice, including on financial matters. This will include setting out the responsibilities of the chief executive to the board and to the department. Once in place, the independent board will provide scrutiny of Skills England, ensure that it is operating effectively within this framework and provide assurance functions, as well as leadership and direction.

In response to the specific points made by noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Watson, about progress on the growth and skills levy, first, we have committed to developing the growth and skills levy out of the apprenticeship levy precisely because we have heard calls from business for greater flexibility in our apprenticeships system and on how employers spend levy funds. It is true that fewer young people are starting apprenticeships now; there has been a 40% drop since 2015-16. That is why a key first step we announced back on 24 September was shorter-duration apprenticeships and new foundation apprenticeships for young people in targeted, growing sectors. These will help more people learn high-quality skills at work and fuel innovation in businesses across the country. The reformed growth and skills levy will also enable employers to fund training that meets priority skills needs identified by Skills England.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, rightly made an important point about the fall-off that we have also seen in employers’ investment in skills—an issue that we discussed at some length in the committee that I attended this morning. However, it is certainly the case that one of the things that would be likely to encourage employer investment is the flexibility and the listening to businesses that we have already done in order to ensure that the products available respond to the concerns of employers, both for more flexibility and for those changes to apprenticeships that will enable them to use them more freely.

This new offer will also be aligned with our industrial strategy, which I will return to in a moment, thereby creating routes into good skilled jobs in growing industries such as construction, digital and green skills. Skills England is currently engaging on the details of the growth and skills levy, and we expect to be able to say more about that when Skills England has completed that engagement in the spring next year.

I move on to the reporting requirements that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, included in her Amendment 36, all of which I consider to be important to be in the public domain. Much of what the Secretary of State would be required to report on as a result of that amendment, however, is already publicly available, or will be available as a result of the establishment of Skills England. I hope that I can provide some reassurance to noble Lords about that. Skills England will consolidate different sources of data and insight to inform its assessments of national and regional skills needs, which it will publish regularly. As I have already alluded to, the shadow Skills England published the first such assessment in September this year.

Skills England will also publish further analysis, including the delivery of a standardised taxonomy for the UK and mapping of education pathways to understand the most common routes into priority professions. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right to say that it is important to bring greater clarity for learners about the appropriate pathways and routes. It will continue to provide published assessments of skills analysis as needed in support of the industrial strategy and the growth and opportunity missions.

Alongside Skills England, the Department for Education publishes a comprehensive catalogue of data. There are currently 11 statistical summaries available relating to further education and a further 119 datasets publicly available to explain the statistics. These include the Employer Skills Survey, which provides information on the skills challenges that employers face within their workforce and when recruiting, the nature of any training provided, and awareness and involvement in various initiatives and programmes. They include apprenticeship data that includes starts, achievements and participation, as well as breakdowns by age, sex, ethnicity, subject, provider and geography, and they include statistics on the employment, earnings and learning outcomes of further education learners in the year after completion of their qualification, including national and regional breakdowns available, and are split by the level and sector subject area of qualification.

Given the significant amount of data already published and Skills England’s role as the single authoritative voice of skills analysis and its publication of data and insights, placing an additional requirement in statute on the Secretary of State to report on a long list of different skills metrics is not necessary. We are taking action through Skills England to ensure skills, data and insight are better used to identify skills gaps and to help determine how they should be addressed. We have been clear from the outset that this is central to its role within an improved skills system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 27 and in support of Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I start by noting that I support very much the spirit of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the aspiration of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, although I have a certain sympathy with the Minister in trying to actually deliver on that.

My Amendment 27—I thank my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park for adding her name to it—aims to ensure that the Government’s strategy is up to date and relevant for local areas and that the Government do this by consulting the relevant bodies. I suggest local skills improvement partnerships and mayoral combined authorities although, in his Amendment 36B and his extremely helpful, clear and practical explanation of it, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, raises the relevance of other groups and the importance of making sure that we do not miss out significant parts of the population as we try to aggregate and understand these local views.

What we are trying to do is to balance technical education qualifications that can be tailored, to a degree, and that best support the needs of a local area, with the ability to aggregate and use the data and intelligence from them to inform national policy. That needs to then feed into an ability for the Government and those to whom they devolve their powers to understand where providers are delivering efficiently on these plans and where they are not, identifying gaps and seeking to address them.

I also want to speak to the importance of the Government setting out how they intend to delegate these powers that are being centralised. As my noble friend Lady Evans said, what the Government talk about and what is actually happening in terms of centralisation rather jars, so I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has brought this forward through his Amendment 28. I do not think anyone is suggesting to the Minister that this is an easy task—if it was easy, somebody would have cracked it already—but it is clearly a very important task and the more she can say about how these different groups will interact with Skills England and how there will be lines of communication from the local to the national and back again, the more confident the Committee will feel.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good discussion on this group of amendments about the importance of ensuring that there is both appropriate engagement across government and improved coherence of the qualifications system, alongside the challenges of ensuring that we get appropriate local and regional input into our skills system while maintaining some coherence across it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right that some of these issues around devolution are not neat government, as I think I said in a committee this morning, but they are nevertheless important in ensuring that local employers can contribute and there can be differentiation depending on different needs in different parts of the country. I will return to that as I address the amendments, but I wholeheartedly agree that it is very important that we are clear about the way in which a range of different stakeholders will be engaged. Some of this is already very clear; other aspects—I will be honest—will be part of the work of developing Skills England in the building of those relationships.

I turn to Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, regarding Skills England’s work with key bodies, in particular government departments. It is really important that we are able to work collaboratively with a whole range of different partners. Extensive work is already under way across departments to ensure that skills sit at the heart of joined-up decision-making across government.

As I probably said on the first day of Committee— I usually say it when talking about skills—Skills England and our improved skills infrastructure will play a key role in supporting the skilled workforce needed to deliver the Government’s five missions: driving economic growth, breaking down barriers to opportunity, supporting our NHS, delivering safer streets and the clean energy transition. Therefore, it is crucial that there is a cross-government approach and input into improving our skills provision.

Skills England will work closely with the industrial strategy advisory council. The chair of Skills England will sit on that council and, although I accept that that is not sufficient on its own to ensure join-up, it is an important signal. It will work closely with the Migration Advisory Committee, because it is important that we identify how to understand the analysis of where migration is needed as well as understand what more we need to do to boost the domestic pipeline of skills development. It will also work with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the Government have the analysis and advice needed to inform a coherent approach to the labour market. The publication of the Get Britain Working White Paper, which we touched on, is an important example of that joint working.

In order to ensure that Skills England’s first report was informed and took in this need to look at skills needs across government, the report was informed by a skills audit across government departments. The cross-government approach will also be driven forward through the regular mission boards, which bring together Ministers from across government, helping to break down departmental silos and ensure a strategic approach to our mission priorities. Together, these connections are creating a coherent approach to skills, migration and labour market policy.

Amendment 27 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 36B was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Regarding consultation with contributors to local skills improvement plans on the introduction and number of new technical education qualifications, it is my view that local skills improvement plans are playing an important role in giving employers a voice in this area. When I was on a visit last Friday and heard from FE principals, one in particular had feared that the development of LSIPs would be just another quango, but she was actually finding it useful to have that engagement with local employers.

Mayoral combined authorities also have an important role to play, using the elements of skills funding that are devolved to them and their convening power, to bring together a clearer view of regional growth needs, through the regional growth plan, and to work alongside local skills improvement partnerships—as well as the other initiatives announced today in the Get Britain Working White Paper—to build a coherent approach to the labour market and to skills development at a regional level.

The assessment of skills needs set out in the first report by Skills England—published in September, as I said—drew strongly on evidence from LSIPs. Skills England has already begun to engage and gather evidence from mayoral combined authorities, employer representative bodies and others on skills needs. This will inform decisions on where standards and, therefore, technical qualifications or apprenticeships are required.

Several noble Lords talked about the challenges of devolution, as I suggested at the beginning. Supporting a more joined-up approach to decision-making on skills at regional and national levels will be central to Skills England’s role, putting the bits back together, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett described it. I accept that there is a challenge, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, identified. While there is a very clear remit for those areas that are mayoral combined authorities, those that are not have less devolution of skills funding. However, the Government are preparing a devolution White Paper and we will want to encourage further devolution. We will also want to support local authorities in carrying out their role to input into skills discussions in those non-mayoral combined authority areas. I share the noble Lord’s interest in this, living as I do in the Midlands, in an area without a mayoral combined authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister has made many encouraging statements about how the system will work. I still do not entirely understand why none of this can be in the Bill and why we are totally reliant, it seems, on the Secretary of State for Education as the only point of accountability to Parliament or indeed anybody else. It seems that something is missing here in terms of how Parliament in particular can hold Skills England to account.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I went on at some length in my response to the previous set of amendments to spell out what the accountability mechanisms to both the public and Parliament will be for Skills England, both directly in its publication of an annual report and, via the sponsoring department, to Parliament. In respect of specific amendments, the concern is that what we are trying to do here is create a strategic body that brings together the data analysis and insights with the ability then to inform efficiently, effectively and agilely—if that is the proper word—the development of occupational standards, assessment plans and the technical qualifications that employers tell us they need. Creating legislative requirements in advance of it being able to do so will, the Government believe, limit that flexibility, when we really intend to improve it. That is one of the criticisms that employers have made of the current IfATE process.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I have two points. First, if I heard correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was asking why none of that could be in the Bill. Secondly, what the Minister just said might be a starter for 10, for the drafters, on what could go in the Bill. Of course, if you are incredibly precise about exactly what would be reported on, that limits you, but if something in the Bill says that this spirit will be aligned, it retains a degree of flexibility. With the level of flexibility that the Bill now affords the Government or any future Government, flexibility trumps accountability squarely, as the Minister has heard. I wonder whether she could reflect on that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand why the amendments are formulated as they are, but most of them would create not just the requirement to describe but a condition that would be inserted into the process and that would therefore limit the flexibility and speed with which qualifications and occupational standards could be developed. I contend the suggestion that there is no public or parliamentary accountability in the way we are setting up Skills England. I went through at some length the routes through which both of those forms of accountability will be delivered to Parliament and, more widely, the public—while conceding the point about the requirement for an annual report, for example, and outlining the accountability through the sponsor Minister to Parliament to account for the progress and success in a whole range of areas that noble Lords have talked about.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, as nobody else wants to come in, I will try to bring the discussion to a close. I think the Minister effectively just opened up what the consideration is. I remember saying, in the briefing that the Minister courteously arranged for us, that she would be testing our ability for probing amendments here. I think we have come up with a reasonable pass grade on that. We have found out that, yes, there will be some reporting, but it is complicated, we do not know exactly where to find it and somebody new coming to the field might miss it. That happens all the time. Do the right people know about it? Do you have to be an expert to find out about it? That is one of the problems we have in going through this.

Before I withdraw my amendment, I will say that, if you do not allow us to get at this information easily, certain things will be missed. That is a guarantee. It tends to be that things are missed that it may even be helpful for the Government to address and correct. I hope that, by the time we get to the next stage, the Government will have had a little more time to think about how they can start to address this, because we all wish that Skills England—or what becomes Skills England, or the dark secret that is Skills England—becomes known to the public and functions properly. We just need to know, because that is what we are here for. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendments 25 and 26, tabled by my noble friend, because the policy impact assessment also notes that mature students, learners with disabilities, ethnic minority learners and disadvantaged learners are likely to be disproportionately impacted by the delays she is talking about, which is obviously of concern. I just wanted to add that, because clarity on the delays, as would be addressed by the amendments of my noble friend, would be extremely reassuring, particularly when one looks at the groups that the Government’s policy impact assessment says may be disproportionately disadvantaged.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, quite rightly, the noble Baronesses have raised the issue of how we can ensure continuity of provision while transferring functions under the auspices of this Bill.

I reflect that coming back 14 years—probably 16 years —after the last time when I was responsible for doing any government legislation directly, there are some important improvements in the way in which Governments are expected to lay out the impact of their legislation, with the development of impact assessments. Of course, such things also provide grist to the mill for those who look at them and say, “Well, you’ve identified that there is potential concern about delay, and that must mean that the delay is going to happen”. The point of an impact assessment is that it enables, quite rightly, the Government pre-emptively to identify potential risks that could result from the transfer of functions and property from IfATE to the Secretary of State and think about how those risks can be mitigated. We are confident that that they can be, so I hope I can provide noble Lords with some reassurance about that.

I should also like at the outset to repeat assurances that I provided to noble Lords at last week’s session. We will ensure that the practical transition of functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State will be designed so that standards or apprenticeship assessment plans that are in the process of preparation or approval at the point of transition will continue. Similarly, approval decisions for technical qualifications that are part way through the process will also continue. It is our intention that employers and other stakeholders and, as rightly identified by the noble Baronesses opposite, learners perceive no interruption. The transition scheme that is being developed will be designed to ensure the minimum possible disruption for stakeholders.

I note that Amendments 25 and 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to place on the Secretary of State a duty to lay before Parliament a report on the timetable for the creation of, respectively, endpoint assessment and new technical education qualifications. As the noble Baroness said, Amendment 24 seeks to place on the Secretary of State a duty to lay before Parliament, within six months of Royal Assent, a report on mechanisms for employers to apply for the approval of new technical education qualifications and to appeal the removal of approved status for existing technical qualifications.

Skills England will undertake ongoing engagement with employers and other key stakeholders to identify skills needs that are not being met through the existing suite of technical qualifications and apprenticeships. This engagement will help identify where new standards should be produced and where existing standards and/or apprenticeship assessment plans should be updated, ensuring that the system responds quickly. With that in mind, Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would, to some extent, frustrate the Bill in enabling more effective prioritisation of the preparation and updating of apprenticeship assessment plans. We intend for the functions transferred to the Secretary of State to focus on where there is greatest need for a new or updated plan, informed by feedback from employers and other key stakeholders.

We also anticipate that plans in development at the point at which the functions transfer will continue and be finalised by the Secretary of State. Standards approved by the Secretary of State will be published, as is the case in the current system, as the basis for new technical qualifications to be developed. Awarding bodies will then, as now, submit applications for new technical qualifications to be approved in line with standards and reflecting employer demand. IfATE is currently responsible for the approval of technical qualifications; its function is being transferred through this Bill. Responsibility for decisions on the withdrawal of approval from technical qualifications will also transfer through this Bill, which includes a duty to publish information about matters taken into account when deciding whether or not to withdraw approval.

We would argue that Amendment 26 is also unnecessary as it would duplicate existing transparency, which will occur as a matter of course through the Secretary of State’s routine engagement with Parliament and through the establishment of Skills England as an arm’s-length body. As I have outlined previously, Skills England will report on delivery in line with standard practice, including as set out in its framework document and in a manner consistent with other executive agencies.

I turn to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Placing on the Secretary of State a requirement to report on mechanisms for employers to apply for the approval of new technical education qualifications and to appeal the removal of approved status for existing technical qualifications is unnecessary. It would give employers an additional role in the approval of technical qualifications, which would risk undermining their central focus on highlighting skills needs and, as appropriate, preparing standards that reflect those needs. Where there was clear evidence of continued employer demand, it would be unlikely in practice that approval status would be removed—unless, for example, other significant issues had been identified in relation to the successful delivery of the qualification.

I hope I have provided some assurance that we do not expect a delay due to the transfer of functions in this Bill. We have already put mitigations in place and we will, in relation to the approval of—and the withdrawal of approval of—technical qualifications, continue to follow the current arrangements.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I ask for a bit of clarification here? The Minister has described Skills England as an arm’s-length body a couple of times today. I apologise if everybody else knows this, but can you have an arm’s-length body within a department? I thought that the definition of an arm’s-length body was that you cannot.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, you can. There is a whole range of different types of arm’s-length bodies. Executive agencies are one such type. They are governed by a governance document—the framework document that I have previously described—and by a set of requirements and relationships that I would be happy to spell out for noble Lords.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for highlighting the impact on the groups and communities that could be most affected by delays, as set out in the impact assessment.

I am honestly a bit puzzled by the Minister’s response. She said that my Amendment 24 is unnecessary, but employers are telling us that it is necessary. There is obviously a gap between what the Minister knows and what is being understood, so the more clarity the Government can bring to those specific points, the better.

Similarly, the Minister spoke very confidently about minimal delays—my words, not hers—in approving endpoint assessments and new qualifications. We do not want to frustrate the Government’s plans, but if it is so clear to the Minister that this is a very low-risk area then perhaps she can put that and the exact timescales she expects formally on the record on Report.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I commit to providing to the Committee more detail about the process for transition and some reassurance, which I suspect I have not sufficiently provided, on how that will mitigate some of the risks identified in the impact assessment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

When the Minister does that, which would be much appreciated, I request that, in addition to more detail about the process, she includes a sense of timescale, which would be most helpful. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, despite the Minister’s dismissal of my concerns about the Henry VIII powers at Second Reading, I have brought two amendments in this group to make sure that the scope of those powers is less broad.

Amendment 38 seeks to restrict the Secretary of State’s powers to amend only the Acts that are already listed in Schedule 3, so that both Houses can appropriately scrutinise the way in which these powers are being used. Surely it is the job of the Government and the department to identify all the Acts to which these powers apply. I cannot see the need for such a clause, unless the Bill has been rushed and the Government are worried that they have failed to capture all the legislation that requires amending with the abolition of IfATE. If this is indeed the case, perhaps there is more redrafting to do than we have already attempted.

My Amendment 39 is focused on the same issue but, rather than restricting the Secretary of State’s powers specifically, it simply removes the power to amend future legislation. Again, I note that all Bills which name IfATE as the body for apprenticeships and technical education have already been passed, so there should be no need to amend future legislation, unless the Government have plans to refer to IfATE in any future legislation that they intend to draft. Given that this seems unlikely, I am once again left with the question as to why this is necessary. I urge the Minister to reconsider this.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin on this group of amendments by reassuring the Committee that the department recognises and takes very seriously the important role that Parliament has in scrutinising consequential amendments. For this reason, we have made every effort to identify all the consequential amendments to primary legislation that are necessary, and to include them as Schedules 1 and 3 to the Bill.

Despite those extensive efforts, there is a risk that in the future we may uncover Acts which need amending because of provisions in this Bill. I reassure the Committee that this is a very limited and narrow power and that any use would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have carefully considered the power and believe that it is entirely justified in this case. In fact, the inclusion of similar powers as a safeguard is well precedented in legislation. Our delegated powers memorandum has been considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has confirmed that there is nothing in the Bill which it would wish to highlight to the House.

Therefore, the amendment, and Amendments 38 and 39 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Garden, would remove the delegated power to make consequential amendments to primary legislation. If this were accepted, it would be unnecessarily burdensome on Parliament and require greater amounts of parliamentary time should we uncover Acts that needed minor and genuinely consequential amendments to be made as a result of the Bill. It would, of course, require all those changes then to be made through primary legislation.

Depending on the nature of the issue, and to go back to the previous group of amendments, we might see an increased risk of disruption in the functioning of the skills system for learners and employers. I hope it might provide some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, although perhaps not to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, that previous legislation, including legislation passed by the previous Government, has included a power such as this because it provides that important safety net should future amendments be identified.

The power is limited to consequential amendments to previous Acts and Acts passed later in the same parliamentary Session. It does not encompass all future legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seemed to suggest. The amendments would limit consequential amendments to those Acts specified in Schedules 1 and 3 to the Bill, but our approach in relation to amending Acts passed later in the same Session is not unusual, notwithstanding the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. We have reviewed legislation and identified that including a power to amend primary legislation passed in the same parliamentary Session has been done in at least 20 other Acts since 2020. It may well be that the noble Baroness has now seen the light, but I suspect it is more likely that this is a sensible, narrow and reasonable provision to put into this legislation. That was why the previous Government decided to do it at least 20 times.

Amendments 40 and 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would require regulations making consequential provisions that are subject to the negative procedure by virtue of Clause 9(5) to instead be subject to the affirmative procedure for a period of six months. As is customary, any consequential amendments to legislation other than primary legislation, which would be subject to the affirmative procedure, will be subject to the negative procedure. The limited and uncontroversial nature of such changes means that this procedure provides sufficient parliamentary oversight while enabling changes to be made without unduly taking up parliamentary time.

Consequential amendments to secondary legislation are not included in the Bill as the power to make or amend such legislation is held by the Secretary of State by virtue of the passing of that legislation previously. We have already identified the amendments to secondary legislation that are needed; these are of a similar nature to those included in Schedules 1 and 3 to the Bill. There is a strong precedent for delegated legislation under the negative procedure to be used to make consequential amendments to delegated legislation. Therefore, the amendment seeking affirmative resolution is not necessary.

I have set out in a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, the chair of the Constitution Committee, how the clause is inherently narrow in scope as it is limited to making amendments that are genuinely consequential on the provisions in the Bill.

Therefore, for the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness is doing a mighty job in trying to convince us that this is a helpful Bill. Sadly, some of us still have concerns but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

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

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 21st November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I share many of the concerns expressed by noble Lords. The Bill should by no means leave the House in the state in which it entered it. It is important that whatever body Skills England occupies has a great deal more status than the Government have proposed. I just do not think that what they have proposed will ever work in Whitehall. We need to take more care with the preservation of the relationships that have been established by IfATE, which make it work so well. I do not see anything in the transition proposed here that does that and, as I said at Second Reading, I would like to know what is going to happen to the Careers & Enterprise Company.

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

I thank noble Lords for their broad enthusiasm for Skills England that we heard on this first set of amendments. I hope my response will reassure noble Lords not only that the intention behind the legislation is precisely to transfer functions from IfATE into Skills England—legislatively, that needs to be done via the Secretary of State—but that, furthermore, Skills England is already making an impact on the types of issues that have been identified in the debate. Legislation is important, but it does not always drive action. This Government’s absolute commitment to bringing the current fragmented landscape together has enabled us to make progress already, which I will outline for noble Lords.

The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has worked closely with employers to develop, approve, review and revise apprenticeships and technical qualifications. It is important to acknowledge IfATE’s achievements, most notably to develop and revise a suite of more than 700 high-quality occupational standards across sectors.

However, despite IfATE’s success in embedding employers into the processes for designing technical qualifications and apprenticeships, the wider skills system remains too fragmented and complex. It is insufficiently responsive to the present and future skills needs of the economy.

To address this fragmentation and unlock the potential for skills which drive growth and widen opportunity, we are creating a single organisation—Skills England. On the point sort of implied by some people that Skills England is, in some way, just a figment of Ministers’ imagination, I reassure noble Lords that it is not just the Department for Education; it is already operational in shadow form. Noble Lords may remember its announcement by the Prime Minister in July, which was one of the earliest actions of this Government. It is already driving change in the way that skills gaps are identified and how key organisations are working together to fill them.

On 24 September, Skills England published its first report, Driving Growth and Widening Opportunities, which provides an authoritative assessment of the key skills challenges that limit growth and opportunity, and an initial assessment of the skills needs in the economy. It also laid out its ambitions for the way in which it would operate, for noble Lords and others to read.

Over the coming months, Skills England will continue to work closely with government departments and relevant stakeholders to expand on the initial assessments of skills needs within 10 particular sectors, both identified in the industrial strategy and because they need quick action. Skills England will continue to develop a detailed, consistent approach to skills measurement and cement its position as the single authoritative voice on skills needs in the economy, which should be addressed to support growth and opportunity.

As I say, Skills England is already working across government. It is working with the industrial strategy advisory council to support the industrial strategy. Regarding when Skills England will broadly take on functions currently delivered by IfATE, it is our intention to lay commencement regulations promptly following Royal Assent to bring into force the provisions that transfer IfATE’s functions, along with its assets and liabilities. Skills England is already operational, and we are determined to ensure that there is no delay in enabling it to become even more effective.

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referenced the Government’s post-16 education and skills strategy, which we are currently working on. I talked about the broad principles of the strategy at the Association of Colleges conference last week. We will publish a broad framework for that relatively soon, with further detail at the beginning of next year.

Skills England will provide an authoritative assessment of skills needs in the economy. It will then use those data and insights to develop and maintain a comprehensive suite of technical qualifications and apprenticeships. As I said, it is already working with key stakeholders to ensure that the identified need and available training are reflected in local and regional skills systems. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who argued that it would be appropriate to run Skills England and IfATE concurrently, that would very much lose the benefit that comes from bringing those functions together so that the available training and qualifications that are developed exactly reflect the analysis that Skills England will be in a better place to do. Skills England will take on functions currently delivered by IfATE, delivering them alongside and in line with its broader strategic purpose. In doing so, it will ensure that the system becomes more responsive and better able to quickly and efficiently supply the skills most needed by the economy.

We intend to establish Skills England as an executive agency of the Department for Education. In our debates on the Bill so far, and in Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, it has been suggested that Skills England should instead be established as a statutory body. I reassure the Committee that we have considered carefully the risks, opportunities and benefits of different models, to understand from the beginning how the organisation will be successful.

Thanks to the progress that IfATE itself has driven, the system for developing technical qualifications and apprenticeships has matured since IfATE was established in 2017. However, as I said, at the same time we have seen a growing severity in the skills challenges the economy faces. We need Skills England to be a different type of organisation, to support the Government’s growth and opportunity missions. Working as an executive agency, Skills England will balance on the one hand the need for rapid action and independent objective analysis of skills gaps and on the other—this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson—proximity and clear links into central government to inform decision-making. This is an appropriate balance of independence and the ability to drive at speed what all noble Lords have argued is the impact that we need Skills England to have.

Skills England will, as with any arm’s-length body, be subject to the highest standards of governance and transparency, including any relevant requirements for review. I will come to some of the questions raised on that in a moment.

Clause 1 introduces Schedule 1, which transfers functions to the Secretary of State and will therefore enable Skills England to take on and deliver functions currently delivered by IfATE, alongside other functions as appropriate, in line with its strategic purpose. This will help address the fragmentation that is holding the system back and restricting improved workforce development and productivity gains.

Clause 2 introduces Schedule 2, which makes provision for a transfer scheme to transfer IfATE’s property, rights and liabilities smoothly to the Secretary of State. It will ensure functional continuity of property, rights and liabilities, including the many contracts that are critical to the operation of the skills system, and it will set a firm basis for the operation of Skills England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend’s flow, but is it likely that this framework document will address that issue of the Secretary of State becoming, in effect, the awarding body for T-levels? Does she have any reflection on how precarious that makes the Minister if things go wrong with being an awarding body, which they do? Sometimes that becomes a resignation matter.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Perhaps I could write to my noble friend with more details on that point. Currently, IfATE controls the licensing of T-levels, which is awarded to awarding organisations for them to develop and deliver. IfATE is not an awarding organisation but the contractor; that responsibility will transfer to the Secretary of State. It is the certification of T-levels that is delivered by the department. As I say, I will respond to my noble friend with a bit more detail on T-levels.

I was attempting to provide noble Lords with some assurance about the governance of Skills England through its framework agreement. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about internal governance, Skills England will be run by a permanent CEO within a clear governance and accountability framework, and with a robust management structure at all levels. The CEO will be supported and challenged by an independent chair and a strong board with the experience and knowledge to support Skills England’s delivery. Once appointed, the chair and the board will help set the direction of the organisation, establish key relationships and provide important expertise on matters related to Skills England’s strategic aims and core functions. We are currently recruiting for these positions; we have received a large volume of very high-quality applications. In the meantime, I put on record my gratitude for the work of Richard Pennycook, who has been working as the interim chair of Skills England to support the creation of the new body.

I understand the noble Baroness’s specific point in relation to the governance and the reporting arrangements of the CEO, and I accept her point about the reporting arrangements and the role of the board. Perhaps I could come back to her with more clarity on her point about the advert for the CEO and where we see that accountability going.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

I apologise to the Minister but can she explain something? We are all talking about Skills England but there is no mention of it in this Bill. Can she explain why that is?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is because, as with all executive agencies, the process for setting up Skills England as an executive agency does not require legislation, but for it to hold the functions that enable it to operate in the coherent manner I described, the functions currently held by IfATE need to be transferred to and delivered by Skills England as an executive agency of the DfE. It is the route through the Secretary of State that enables that to happen. I reiterate my earlier point: Skills England might not appear in the legislation in this place, but it very much appears on the country’s skills landscape. Notwithstanding the significance of the scrutiny that this place is able to give, as well as the concerns about Skills England’s longevity, that is probably more important than whether it is in a Bill.

The passage of the Bill provides an opportunity for both Houses—as we are doing today, in fact—to consider the approach we are proposing, which is to move away from the current, narrow IfATE model. Creating any further requirement for parliamentary approval before Skills England operates fully would frustrate the intentions of the Bill to enable a smooth transfer and the delegation of functions to Skills England; the efficient and orderly closure of IfATE; and the ongoing work in the service of employers and learners. I assure noble Lords that the practical transition of functions will be designed to ensure that, where standards or apprenticeship assessment plans are in the process of preparation or approval at the point of transition, these will continue. Similarly, approval decisions for technical qualifications that are part-way through the process will also continue. It is our intention that employers and other stakeholders perceive no interruption in that work.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, asked about the progress on the review of level 3 qualifications. Briefly, let me say that we will, as I have said all along, make public our decisions on the review of those qualifications; they are due to be defunded in 2025, before Christmas.

I have talked in the House about this Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement. We will now be introducing it for courses starting from January 2027, precisely to ensure that it has the impact that the noble Lord rightly identified that it can have for lifelong learning.

I hope I have set out the intentions behind Clauses 1 to 3. For these reasons and those that I outlined on the remaining amendments, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will not press her stand part notices and amendments.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and the Minister for her remarks. I hope she heard loud and clear that no one in this Committee is arguing about the Government’s ambition for skills reform; rather, we are all rooting for success in this area. This is not about what the Government are trying to do but more about how they are trying to do it.

I was struck by the almost unanimity of view about the importance of greater independence from the department for Skills England. It was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight of Weymouth. He triggered what I think is the ex-ministerial version of PTSD—I call it PLSD, or post-legislative stress disorder—by talking about the Schools Bill, but I will forgive him this once. Importantly, it was also raised by my noble friend Lord Johnson, who talked about the importance of credibility with employers, which need stability in our system, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, who rightly mentioned the importance of bringing students, families and others on this journey.

I was also struck by the constructive tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the aspiration to make this the best it can be to deliver for our country. However, as the noble Baroness went on to say, there is a lack of confidence that this approach will deliver without that independence. Ironically, it is almost the fact that, as the Minister says, Skills England is already operating when the Bill has not even passed. It is just kind of happening within the department. There will be a framework published, but without any potential to input to it. It feels like DfE marking its own homework, which is not a healthy place to be.

I did not feel a lot of movement in the Minister’s remarks. I am sure that, when she looks at Hansard, she will note the strength of feeling across the Committee but, for the moment, I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, it is great to see the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, with us, because his voice has enormous stature in these discussions. These amendments are all to do with the creation of standards. My noble friend Lord Storey added his name to Amendments 2 and 6, but we are broadly supportive of all the amendments in this group. It is vital that in any work-based qualification the voice of employers is heard loud and clear. I should perhaps have declared that I worked for 20 years for City & Guilds on what we always called “vocational qualifications”, because while some were technical, some were craft qualifications. I always regretted the fact that we had taken over the word “technical” to cover all those myriad work areas.

Of course, employers may not be expert in teaching or assessment, as we discovered in spades when we were developing national vocational qualifications. Employers had wonderful, grandiose ideas about all the things that they wanted to assess, but when we got the colleges and City & Guilds with them, they realised that if they wanted staff to know about fire, they could not actually create a fire for every member of staff to have a real experience of dealing with fire. Assessment bodies had their place, as well as the colleges.

I was working for City & Guilds when the first national vocational qualifications were established. NVQs were going to revolutionise the “skills” word with a very easy to understand grading, which would have enabled parents, teachers and everybody to understand exactly where the vocational system was in relation to the academic one. Alas, where are they now? Why do we have local skills improvement plans and partnerships if they are not to be used for all the skills they have in this brave new world? I think it is important that the Secretary of State must set the priorities for LSIPs and review them regularly to ensure that their priorities are reflected in national strategies for the creation of standards, so I think this set of amendments has a great deal to commend it.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, like others, I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Blunkett has both attended and made his usual well-informed and passionate contribution in this debate. It appears that very little in the way of ill health or accident will prevent him from making his contribution. We all hope that he recovers as soon as possible. He rightly made an argument about the centrality of skills for everything that the Government are trying to achieve. He is exactly right about the role of skills in delivering all the missions that this Government have set out: growth, opportunity for individuals, rebuilding the NHS, delivering a green superpower, providing opportunities for young people as part of the contribution to keeping our streets safer, and building new homes. I completely agree with him about that and I hope that his words will help our efforts with the Treasury in the way he identified to ensure that that is recognised there as well.

The debate on this set of amendments has been interesting. I will talk about the relatively narrow nature of Clause 4 in a moment, but noble Lords have understandably also taken the opportunity to argue for the significance of a broad range of inputs into the activity of Skills England. I agree with the overarching argument about the importance of the involvement of a wide-ranging set of stakeholders. That is how Skills England has already set off in its work. It has already begun to engage with a wide range of employer representative bodies, individual employers and education and training providers. As I said, it will work closely across government and, in working on the industrial strategy, it will work in partnership with business, devolved Governments, regions and other stakeholders in developing the industrial strategy sector plans.

As my noble friend Lord Blunkett emphasised, there needs to be a sectoral approach to the way we develop skills across the economy. That has been an early focus for Skills England. It will work with employer representative bodies and directly with employers. It will work with education and training providers and with mayoral combined authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I had a good meeting just last week with mayoral combined authorities on skills, and Skills England has been meeting regularly with them. On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Blower, one of the important elements of Skills England has been the engagement of unions, in a way that was not the case previously in the development of the skills landscape. I hope that I can give noble Lords some assurance that that is already the approach that Skills England is taking.

Narrowing the discussion down more specifically to the nature of the intention behind Clause 4, I make it clear that this is to provide the Secretary of State with greater flexibility in the minority of circumstances where preparing occupational standards using a group would be disproportionate or unnecessary for the limited scale or nature of the change or where the system needs to move particularly quickly to respond to employer demand. With over 700 standards currently in place, this clause ensures that the system for preparing and reviewing standards is fit for the future.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

Can the Minister give an example of what might spark that off? I am finding it hard to imagine a situation in which it might occur.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will be delighted to, and I was coming to that.

Before I do that, I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, and repeat from Second Reading my gratitude for her contribution to the development of IfATE. I recognise her point about what is necessary to get employer engagement in some of the detailed work that IfATE has been engaged in and that will be transferred under this legislation to Skills England. She is absolutely right about that; it needs consistent work. But it also needs, as employers have told us, appropriate flexibility and agility to enable those standards to be developed in a way that reflects changing developments and does not put too onerous a responsibility on employers in terms of their engagement.

Let us be clear that the default position will remain that a self-forming group of persons will prepare a standard. It is probably worth noting that this definition of “a group of persons” also legislatively guided IfATE in its engagement on occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment schemes. Our proposals do not weaken legislatively the engagement of employers. When a group does not convene itself to prepare a standard for an occupation which the Secretary of State is satisfied requires a standard, the Secretary of State may convene a group to prepare one. In both circumstances, we would expect that such a group would normally, but not exclusively, include employers that are representative of that occupation. Only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is more appropriate for them to prepare a standard than for a group of persons will the Secretary of State then do so.

To come to the noble Baroness’s point, scenarios in which it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to use this power to prepare a standard are those where using a group would be disproportionately onerous for employers or other stakeholders; unnecessary because only minor adjustments or revisions were required; or where it could create undue delays. This might include—I say for illustrative purposes—updating standards to align with changes to mandatory qualifications within the standard; creating or updating standards to align with industry-recognised qualifications or statutory requirements; or creating or updating standards more efficiently where employers do not have the capacity. We envisage that the Secretary of State may also use the power to create and update standards for emerging or rapidly developing occupations, such as those in the digital sector. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to ensure that standards are developed or updated quickly to respond to acute skills needs or urgent regulatory changes required in an emergency, such as the updates to the level 3 community fire safety adviser following the Grenfell disaster.

Finally, employers themselves tell us that current processes for preparing standards can feel slow, bureaucratic and time-consuming. This is not a criticism of IfATE; it is a criticism of a requirement currently in legislation that we want to use this opportunity to make more flexible. It is a barrier to their engagement. We want to focus their input where it has the most impact.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

Those are all reasonable grounds for using the power, but there is nothing in the Bill that says that the default is a group of persons or that those are the kinds of circumstances in which the Secretary of State might take the power. There is nothing in the Bill that reassures employers that the powers would not be used unreasonably. There is nothing to stop them being used in any circumstances; nothing says that using a group would have to be disproportionately onerous, or indeed what the definition of “disproportionate” or “undue delays” is. In one sense, I am reassured, but in another, I do not see why there cannot be something in the Bill that lays it out a bit more clearly.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

Before the Minister continues, I have been listening as attentively as I can manage. That exact thought occurred to me. Could we get something, such as some guidelines—or, at least, some idea of the current government thinking—on when you would not consult and the criteria around pressure and speed? This would put my mind slightly more at rest.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope to provide noble Lords some reassurance by way of guidelines, which I will come to in a moment, but I also hope to convince noble Lords—I shall try—that there is, in fact, a conflict between the idea of doing something as flexibly as possible in order to engage employers and spelling it in the Bill. I will make that argument as I continue.

I turn first to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Amendments 2 and 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. They all relate to the membership of the group of persons. At present, as I have suggested, there are no statutory criteria that prescribe the make-up of a group that forms or is formed to prepare an occupational standard. Employers play a prominent role and are well placed to define or describe what occupational competence looks like in most cases, but different expert voices might have a role to play in different circumstances. This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden —although probably more with respect to assessment, which we will come on to in Clause 5.

We do not see any benefit in seeking to shape or fetter the structure of these groups with criteria that would prevent the membership of a group reflecting the specific factors relating to the need for its preparation. IfATE is under an existing duty to publish information about matters that it will take into account when deciding whether or not to approve groups of persons; I assure noble Lords that this duty is being transferred to the Secretary of State unamended, so it will remain in existence. Novel and additional criteria in primary legislation to specify the make-up of a group, for which noble Lords are arguing, might provide some assurance here. However, it would be a new constraint in the system.

Slowing down groups coming together, and slowing down the development and maintenance of occupational standards, could lead to a focus on ticking boxes instead of flexibly, broadly and inclusively finding the best people to define the knowledge, skills and behaviours required to be competent in the occupation. The optimal composition of a group will vary from occupation to occupation; for example, to represent the breadth of an occupation and the employers in it that will employ apprentices, it may be necessary in new, emerging or highly specialised occupations to look openly at who can bring to bear the relative expertise in the preparation of a standard. Retaining the existing flexibility around the make-up of a group of persons is critical to achieving high-quality occupational standards.

Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to prepare a standard if they are satisfied that it would be more appropriate for the standard to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons. I hope I have assured the noble Baroness of the need for this greater flexibility. I reiterate that it is needed for a minority of cases to ensure that standards are kept up to date without a disproportionate burden, given the volume of standards that now exists.

Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would create a duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the relevant industry skills and standards-setting body when preparing a standard. Such bodies are important to the preparation of occupational standards, and in most cases high-quality occupational standards are developed by an inclusive and independent group. In fact, current guidance states that groups must seek advice and guidance from organisations with responsibility in their industry for defining skills standards in England and the wider UK. We expect this requirement to remain.

I emphasise that in only the minority of circumstances, where the Secretary of State considers it more appropriate, will standards be prepared by them rather than by a group, so there is a role for industry bodies in this process and we expect that they will continue to be engaged. However, this amendment would undo the flexibility and efficiency sought through Clause 4, by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult specific bodies when they consider it more appropriate for the Secretary of State to prepare a standard than by using a group. That would be exacerbated in circumstances where the relevant industry skills or standards-setting body is unable to participate when required. It therefore risks giving them precedence over others, including employers.

Amendment 6, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would impose a duty to publish criteria for the preparation of occupational standards by the Secretary of State. To be clear again, employers remain best placed to define and describe what occupational competence looks like in most cases. As I have indicated, the Secretary of State would not convene a group in only a minority of circumstances. Setting criteria for that minority of circumstances would frustrate the necessary agility that this clause aims to bring to the process. It would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to be responsive and to ensure that the suite of high-quality standards is kept up to date and relevant.

I hope that I have set out the intentions behind Clause 4 and provided some assurance and reassurance for noble Lords. For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her kind words, which I hope do not turn out to be a hostage to fortune. I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to a thoughtful debate.

As my noble friend the Minister described, we are debating areas that are obviously very much in flux. I was interested in the earlier debate about consistency and continuity on the one hand and collective memory on the other. It is important to carry this forward in a way that picks up the best of what is already in place and iterates that very speedily and easily, with the support and confidence of employers. The noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, was quite right to draw attention to the importance of that.

The amendments in this group were trying to explore the way in which the operation proceeds. There may be things that we come back to, as I know that amendments in later groups will return to this issue. On that basis, it is appropriate to withdraw my amendment now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their concise contributions on these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, made clear, that does not undermine how important the nature of assessment is. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the best chance of getting assessment right is by engaging appropriately at the right time.

On Clause 5, we are talking specifically about proposals regarding apprenticeship assessment plans and the transfer of the function from IfATE. Clause 5 amends the requirement for assessment plans to be prepared by a group of persons by making it subject to a power for the Secretary of State to prepare apprenticeship assessment plans if that is more appropriate. This will simplify the process for updating and creating assessment plans.

Noble Lords will recognise that our previous discussion also related to the use of groups of persons. We might find that some of the considerations are similar, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that I will have a few different arguments in response to this, not least because the arguments for apprenticeship assessment are different to the arguments for standards. But the principle about agility and flexibility remains at the heart of this.

Where the intention behind Clause 4, which we have just discussed, is to provide the Secretary of State with greater flexibility in a minority of circumstances in respect of preparing occupational standards, here we are concerned with flexibility in respect of apprenticeship assessment plans. In both cases, our intention is for employers to have a continuing and vital role in the composition of groups of persons. In both cases, it is important, as I am setting out, for the Secretary of State to have some limited flexibility not to define the membership of the group in advance and not to have a group if it is not needed in a small number of cases.

The default position will be that an assessment plan will be prepared by a group of persons that has been approved for this purpose. Only when Skills England or the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is more appropriate for them to prepare an assessment plan, rather than a group of persons, will the Secretary of State do so. Scenarios in which it could be appropriate to consider the use of this power are where using a group would be disproportionate or create undue delay—I hear the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, about the need for speed.

Scenarios could be, first, updating assessment plans to make adjustments that do not materially change the assessment or occupation competence of learners—for example, where they are aligned to deliver the competence required by a regulator, such as in regulated professions in the health sector. In such circumstances, using a group is unnecessary and burdensome because it is a reflection of updating that has happened in a regulated profession. The second scenario is creating assessment plans for emerging occupations, such as certain digital occupations. The third is creating or updating assessment plans where there are acute skills needs requiring an urgent response, and where there is a lack of capacity in the system to respond. Relying on a group in instances such as these can create undue delays and hinder responsiveness. Without this clause, changes to assessment plans to reflect straightforward adjustments would incur delays and require unnecessary time and resource.

I note Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to remove the power held by the Secretary of State to prepare an assessment plan if they are satisfied that it would be more appropriate for the plan to be prepared by them than by a group of persons. However, for the reasons I have outlined already, it is crucial that we respond to feedback from users of the system to make the process for developing apprenticeship assessment plans more agile.

Amendments 9 and 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to set criteria for membership of a group of persons and to name in legislation a particular type of person that must be included as part of a group of persons. In the discussions on Clause 4, we went through some of the arguments about the impact this would have in reducing flexibility. There are no existing statutory criteria for how a group is formed to prepare an apprenticeship assessment plan but, as I said previously, IfATE is under a duty to publish information about matters it will consider when deciding whether to approve groups of persons. That existing duty is being transferred to the Secretary of State unchanged.

When a group is convened, it is critical to consider who the experts are in the field in question. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, correctly identified that the experts in assessment will not always be the same as the experts in developing an occupational standard—and, of course, this will vary from occupation to occupation. Employers play a prominent role and are well placed to define and describe occupational competence, but they do not always exclusively hold expertise about how apprenticeships are assessed, and other contributions may be valuable. It is important that there is the opportunity for groups of persons responsible for preparing apprenticeship assessment plans to reflect and draw on a broader range of expertise, such as in assessment methodologies, practical training delivery and costs.

Professional bodies, awarding organisations, providers, regulators and others with a background in assessment can be well placed to be involved in the development of an assessment plan. In new and emerging occupations or highly specialised occupations, such as digital, artificial intelligence and nuclear, it may be necessary to take a broad and creative look at who is best placed to be part of a group preparing an assessment plan. There are scenarios where it is unnecessary or disproportionate to rely on a group to create or update assessment plans. For example, attempts have been made to convene a suitable group to update the interior systems installer assessment plan for nearly a year. This has significantly delayed the commencement of necessary, time-sensitive revisions in the important construction and built environment industry—a sector that is critical to this economy.

Setting criteria would therefore create additional hurdles for, and potentially even prevent, groups being convened. This would further slow the development of assessment plans and risk employers and others losing confidence in the system and in our ability to meet acute skills needs. It is not in anyone’s interest, not least learners or employers, to incur such delays. That is why we are removing unnecessary barriers to simplify and speed up processes.

Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would undo the intended flexibility and efficiency by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult specific bodies when they have considered it more appropriate for them to prepare an assessment plan than to use a group. That also risks slowing progress when that body is unable to participate, and it risks giving unintended precedence to those bodies over others who may be well placed to determine how competence should be tested.

I should also note that we see no reason why Skills England would not continue the approach currently taken by IfATE whereby all new assessment plans and those that have undergone material revisions—whether prepared by a group of persons or the Secretary of State—are published online for comment by any interested parties before approval.

Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would establish a duty to set and publish criteria in relation to the preparation of an apprenticeship assessment plan by the Secretary of State. As I emphasised, we are improving the system in response to feedback from key partners. Employers, trade bodies and providers tell us that the processes for developing and reviewing assessment plans need more pace and agility to respond quickly to changing and future skills needs. They report that current processes can feel bureaucratic, drawn out and time consuming—all barriers to the expert engagement that we need from them and to the smooth operation of assessment for employers and learners.

Setting criteria that the Secretary of State would need to meet in order to prepare assessment plans—in the minority of circumstances when it is more appropriate to do so than using a group of persons—would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to be responsive. It would be overly prescriptive and fly in the face of stakeholders telling us that processes need to be simpler. I hope I have set out the intentions behind Clause 5 and, for the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part on this group, particularly my noble friend Lady Wolf and the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, who added some valuable points. I thank the Minister, who mostly but not entirely managed not to give me the impression that I had wandered into a Groundhog Day scenario—there were some additional points there, I was glad to see.

The Minister emphasised agility and flexibility as the advantages of the proposed system. This is probably something wrong with me, but I have an inherent unease about flexibility in the hands of Secretaries of State when compared with flexibility in the hands of an organisation with an independent statutory role. The noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, mentioned that agility might not be quite such a feature once it gets into the hands of the department. Also, there is a slight conflict with the point that my noble friend Lord Hampton made earlier: employers are looking for clarity, and there is a slight danger of clarity being obscured by too much flexibility. Of course, all these concerns reflect points raised with me and, no doubt, with others by employers about the way the new system might work in comparison with the existing one.

Having said all that, I will study all the contributions, including the detailed differences from the previous set of amendments. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I was delighted to add my name to the Clause 6 stand part notice in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Like him and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I am baffled about why the Government do not want to review the approvals of technical education qualifications, published standards and assessment plans at regular intervals. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, intimated, it seems that the closer one is to the department and any Secretary of State, the more one will need independent scrutiny to retain the confidence of employers, learners and providers. Obviously, there is a risk that, without that independent oversight, standards of technical qualifications could be eroded or become less relevant than they should be.

Does the Minister agree that Clause 6 potentially introduces conflicts of interest? By removing the requirement for independent oversight, are the Government not placing an undue burden on those directly involved in the design and delivery of standards to act as their own assessors, where they end up marking their own homework? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee why the Government do not believe that this level of scrutiny is needed. I absolutely appreciate that, in some areas, the review might be very light-touch—for example, because of the suitability of a set of qualifications—but we have seen how qualifications rise and fall in popularity and relevance over time. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords this afternoon, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, there are clear calls from the sector for greater simplification of qualifications.

At Second Reading, the Minister committed to publishing information about the intervals for reviews of different qualifications. I wonder whether she could update the Committee on when that will happen.

Similarly, my Amendment 16 to Clause 7 seeks just to restore the status quo; namely, that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, make arrangements for an independent third party to carry out an examination of a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan. As the Committee knows, independent reviews are there to provide feedback to policymakers and training providers by, for example, identifying areas for improvement and best practice. I very much hope that the Minister will consider this amendment and stand part notice positively.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this group. I feel confident in thanking noble Lords, because I am confident that I am on strong ground on this one. I hope nobody proves me wrong.

In preparing to transfer functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State, an assessment of the current operation of the system was undertaken to identify any functions that should be amended rather than simply being transferred in their current form. In that consideration, the proposal for a relatively small change to Clause 6 came forward. Clause 6 amends the requirement to review technical education qualifications and standards, and apprenticeship assessment plans, at regular and published intervals, by removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted.

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, argued, rightly, that there is a need for review. The point about this clause is that there is no change to the broader review requirement. The Secretary of State and Skills England will still be required to maintain arrangements to review approved technical education qualifications and standards, and apprenticeship assessment plans, with a view to determining whether they should be revised, be withdrawn or continue to be approved. I wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords who have said that that is an important function, and it is absolutely right that that duty should remain.

Removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted will allow Skills England to determine when reviews of technical education qualifications and more than 700 high-quality occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans should be carried out, based on need rather than a fixed review point, as is currently the case. Originally, IfATE expected to carry out reviews every three years but, with the proliferation of standards, assessment plans and technical education qualifications to review, it has been unable to do so; nor was it able to do this by undertaking reviews on a route-by-route basis. It has since adopted a more risk-based approach. The current approach, which fixes review points, has been too rigid and fails to recognise the differences in starts and achievement rates and rapid changes in skills needs; for example, where occupations evolve quickly.

Clause 6 will ensure that standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept up to date, coherent and relevant, and are reviewed appropriately. The amendment would remove a statutory obligation and provide the Secretary of State flexibility that is in line with the current risk-based approach taken by IfATE to determine whether a review should be prioritised; in other words, we believe that IfATE has arrived at the right, flexible position, but that would not be reflected without this legislative change. It recognises that flexibility is needed to take a targeted approach to administering the significant volume of reviews based on whether there are specific issues with the performance of the standard and how widely used it is, rather than on meeting an arbitrary timetable.

Without this clause, standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans would need to be reviewed at published intervals, rather than based on need, preventing resources being deployed effectively to ensure that standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept relevant and up to date as required.

Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the flexibility that we intend to create, and it would mean that the Secretary of State would be required to arrange for an independent third-party assessment for every new standard and assessment plan. Clause 7 amends the 2009 Act to substitute a requirement for independent third-party examination of all new standards and assessment plans with a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make arrangements to do so. The default position will remain that the Secretary of State will make arrangements for independent third-party examination of new standards and assessment plans prior to their approval.

The clause will provide an alternative approach in certain circumstances where obtaining third-party examination is duplicative or not necessary. For example, the option not to arrange an independent third-party review might be deployed where employers place unequivocal high value in a professional body’s mandated qualification or key skills and behaviour learning outcomes, and where the occupational standard adopts that very closely, such as the CIPD and HR standards. In these cases, an external review would be nugatory.

In highly regulated occupations, such as the health sector, the regulatory requirements for occupational competence must be reflected in the occupational standard and assessment plan, and deviation from this is simply not possible. Again, the need for third-party review would be redundant.

Without Clause 7, examinations that do not improve standards and assessment plans but take time and resource to deliver would continue to be required. That would continue to place unnecessary burdens on those involved, slow down the process and make it excessively onerous.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw his opposition to Clause 6 standing part of the Bill.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who took part in this short debate. It is always quite exciting to see the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, describe herself as baffled—in my short career here, I have not seen that yet. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and I talked about how there is no third-party examination and there is a conflict of interest. It looks like Skills England is not only marking its own homework but writing its own exams.

I did not join the Minister in her strength of feeling that she had got it absolutely right, because it is all based on need, but, again, who defines need? It is the Secretary of State. We are losing this clarity—this is a trust issue again. But I am sure that some conversations can be had between now and Report, so I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness McGregor-Smith (Non-Afl)]

Once more, I will say a few words about process and reiterate to the Minister my words on speed. Any changes to any process will slow things down; it will not improve in the short term. Creating constant momentum and change is really important, as is simplification. The more I think about having four regulators, the more worried—traumatised, almost—I begin to feel.

Whether or not we like what the current system has done and whether or not things need changing, it is important for us all to appreciate that the speed point is critical. I have yet to see things speeding up as systems move within government; they tend to slow down. So let us be very careful and cautious. I am nervous about the unintended consequences of change. Through all of this, there should be a delivery plan that talks purely about building momentum for the skills system. At the moment, we do not have that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, in responding to this part of the debate, I am confident that I will be able to explain to noble Lords the intention of Clause 8; however, given the broader questions about the roles of a range of regulators in this field, I may well write to noble Lords to set that out, because it goes broader than Clause 8.

The amendments in this group relate to proposals regarding quality assurance and the accreditation of apprenticeships and technical qualifications. Section 138 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 allows Ofqual to set an accreditation requirement for individual qualifications or descriptions of qualifications. If it does that, any such qualification must be accredited before it is awarded.

Ofqual accredits a qualification submitted by an awarding organisation, first, if the awarding organisation has been recognised in respect of that qualification or type of qualification; and, secondly, if the qualification submitted meets the relevant criteria. This is a rigorous process that gives confidence in qualifications—our A-levels and GCSEs. However, since 2022, Ofqual has been prevented from making determinations on accreditation for technical qualifications. This means that, in respect of accreditation, technical qualifications are treated differently from academic qualifications and are prevented in all instances from benefiting from an important tool for ensuring quality.

Clause 8 will change that by enabling the Secretary of State to forge a route to technical qualifications being accredited. The clause provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to determine, should it be deemed appropriate, that an exception could be granted to the general prohibition on Ofqual being able to accredit both approved technical education qualifications and technical education qualifications that the Secretary of State is considering approving. This will mean that, where it is directed to do so by the Secretary of State, Ofqual could exercise its power to determine whether an accreditation requirement should apply to certain technical education qualifications, subject to appropriate consultation.

In some instances, the Secretary of State may deem it appropriate to ask Ofqual to consider whether imposing an accreditation requirement on the qualifications in question could help maintain their quality and signal to the wider system that they are broadly commensurate with other accredited qualifications in terms of rigour. For example, the Secretary of State could use this power in instances where it is important to ensure that students who opt into and successfully complete high-quality technical education qualifications are in no way disadvantaged as compared to their peers who pursue academic qualifications. They may consider, for example, whether a category of technical qualification provides a particularly important springboard for onward progression but where those who successfully complete the qualification may be competing with those who have studied other qualifications that have been accredited, such as GCSEs or A-levels.

It may also be the case that the Secretary of State therefore considers using this power where they are persuaded that a particular category of technical qualification is not subject to any broader review or has reached a certain level of maturity in delivery, and/or is being taken by a sizeable number of students. It is important that the potential for the accreditation of technical qualifications is reintroduced in the managed and considered way the clause allows. Here I come to the questions about why Ofqual does not have a complete permission and ability to consider technical qualifications.

The clause provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to determine, should it be deemed appropriate, that an exception could be granted to the general prohibition on Ofqual being able to accredit. This is because of the relative newness of many technical qualifications and is in order to consider carefully the interactions with the ongoing and vital reviews both of post-16 qualifications and of curriculum and assessment. These considerations are more significant for technical than non-technical qualifications. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we are doing this not because we necessarily have specific examples in mind but to enable them to be considered in response to some of the reviews, where it would seem appropriate.

Amendment 34, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to lay before Parliament a report on the effect of this Act on the powers exercised by regulators, including the Office for Students and Ofqual. We are committed to ensuring transparency in the way that the Bill’s powers are discharged and the effects that their transfer and execution will have on regulators, other public bodies and parts of government. We intend to follow the usual methods for agreeing and making this information available publicly and to Parliament, and therefore consider the amendment to be unnecessary, notwithstanding my commitment to write to noble Lords with some more detail about the way that different regulators work.

Specifically, Skills England’s published framework document will govern the relationship between the body, the department and the rest of government. There is a further and pre-existing published framework document already governing the relationship between the Department for Education and the Office for Students, and an equivalent document is being developed between the department and Ofqual to support effective working arrangements.

IfATE currently has memorandums of understanding with Ofqual and the Office for Students, and we anticipate that equivalent documents will be developed and published in respect of Skills England in due course. These documents will set out the nature of the relationship between Skills England and the regulators it will work with, in line with their respective framework documents.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, feels able not to press her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank noble Lords—or noble Baronesses—for their contributions to this short debate, and the Minister for her response and explanation of what Clause 8 intends to do, which, at least for the moment, I think I understand. What I heard her say is that the intent is to improve the rigour in the system and send a message to the system about rigour in relation to technical education qualifications, but that there are no current plans to use that power. That raised the question: if some qualifications are then accredited by Ofqual that have a particular status, what impact will that have on all the others? That is a little policy joy for her to consider. I very much look forward to her letter explaining the network of regulators and how this legislation will impact them, as I am sure other noble Lords do.

I very much support the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on the importance of moving on as quickly as possible with the lifelong learning entitlement. I hear loud and clear my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith’s comments about the need for speed. The slight concern many of us might feel is that agility and speed are not always the first words that come to mind when thinking about central government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for setting out so clearly the case for the appointment of a chief skills adviser and a network across government departments. However, I also have a lot of sympathy with the remarks from my noble friend Lord Johnson about the risk of duplication. In a way, this debate has made me feel like we are coming back to Clause 1 of the Bill, which I promised not to do, and to the appetite for understanding the Government’s thinking about how Skills England will work in practice. Clearly, this is a kind of alternative model.

I will make just a couple of brief points. In the previous Government, we benefited from the advice of Sir Michael Barber in his role as an adviser on skills policy delivery. My first point on that concerns the importance of the word “delivery”. His focus was on the delivery of skills policy. We all know that writing a great policy document is about 10% of the task while about 90% is effective delivery of that policy at scale, in real life. On behalf of my former colleagues in the department, I thank Sir Michael for his excellent advice in this regard; I had only one conversation with him but I have thought about it and used his advice many times since.

My second point is that Sir Michael reported not only to the Secretary of State for Education but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wonder whether that is something that the Minister might consider.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 17, which makes up this sixth group, was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As he outlined, it points us towards considering the case for a new and separate chief skills adviser—or, as I think the noble Lord described it, a network of chief skills advisers across government. I certainly agree that we need champions of skills in this country in a broad sense. Earlier, my noble friend Lord Blunkett made the case for having to make that argument across government and the challenges in doing so over the years. I do not dispute that need. Harnessing the skills of all our people is crucial to unlocking growth and spreading opportunity.

As it stands, our skills system is fragmented and not meeting the skills needs of either the economy or our people, so I have some sympathy with the idea that we need a unifying force that can also have an impact across government. However, that unifying force, as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said, is Skills England. As this legislation paves the way for us to establish Skills England, it is not necessary, I would argue, to include consideration of a chief skills adviser in parallel; doing so would only add a further layer of complexity and, arguably, make it less clear where the accountability for delivering a step change in skills provision sits.

Children’s Social Care

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Government’s Statement on the reform of children’s social care. Such reform is long overdue. For far too long, children’s social care has been the Cinderella of the Cinderella that is social care, so let us hope that this bodes well for a long overdue reform of adult social care.

With almost half of children in care now living out of area, and children still being placed in unregistered accommodation—even caravans and tents sometimes, I am told—coupled with the egregious levels of profiteering by some children’s residential home providers, this clearly demonstrates a system in crisis, if not broken. I am glad the Government are taking steps to address this, particularly requiring placement providers to share their finances transparently with the Government. The whole system needs fundamental overhaul.

First, could the Minister tell me what level of profit the department will deem appropriate? If profit levels do not reduce, how quickly would the Secretary of State introduce a profit cap? For Ofsted to effectively exercise its new powers, the regulator must have the necessary capacity and expertise. Addressing profiteering and ensuring financial transparency requires a sophisticated understanding of the sometimes opaque ownership structures used by the big corporate groups behind care provision. What assurances can the Minister give me that Ofsted will have both the staff numbers, and critically, the expertise to do this work effectively?

On the sufficiency of placements, national data published last week shows that 45% of all children in care in England are now living out of area, and 22% are living far from home. What steps is the department taking to ensure accurate data about the sufficiency of places, at both a national and a local level, and what assessment has it made of the impact of its proposed measures in preventing children in care being moved out of area?

I strongly welcome the renewed focus on early intervention and family care, keeping children out of care in the first place, and I look forward to hearing more about this in the coming period.

As we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, kinship carers are unsung heroes who often step up at a moment’s notice to look after family members. So, can the Minister say whether the Government will now commit to moving beyond the limited pilots that have been proposed to a universal allowance for kinship carers, on a par with those received by foster carers?

No young person should leave care having had support just stripped away when they turn 18, so I welcome the steps announced to end that care cliff edge so that young people are better supported into adulthood. The Government’s plans to legislate for Staying Close to support all care leavers up to 25 is a good first step. However, do the Government plan to extend the Staying Put scheme to the age of 25, as well as Staying Close, to provide more continuity of care for children whose final placement is in foster care?

Care-experienced children and young people have a much harder start in life and experience much worse outcomes. Liberal Democrats have called for care experience to be made a protected characteristic under the Equality Act to strengthen the rights of people who have been or are in care. Can the Minister say whether the Government are considering this proposal?

I welcome the commitment in the paper to a single unique identifier, which I have long advocated for, along with others in this Chamber. I look forward to seeing the details, and I very much hope that the NHS number will be used, as suggested in the policy paper.

Finally, it is crucial that the detail behind these reforms and the funding underpinning them backs up the ambition that has been set out. Can the Minister say when the overall package of funding will be announced, and can she clarify how the £400 million funding for local government referred to in the Statement relates to the £600 million for social care that was announced in the Budget, which was not broken down between adult and social care?

I finish with a couple of wider questions. Can the Minister say when the Government plan to publish the children’s well-being Bill? What is the overall timescale for introducing the measures that have just been announced? Given the scale of recruitment and retention problems in social care, with many jobs vacant, what will the Minister do to tackle the workforce crisis in the sector to reduce the dependency on agency staff?

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

My Lords, I thank both noble Baronesses for their positive response to yesterday’s Statement and their positive response to dealing with an area that I think all those who have chosen to attend for this Statement today understand is absolutely crucial for the most vulnerable children and families in our country. I will do my very best to respond to all the questions, and where I fail, I will certainly follow that up in writing.

As the noble Baronesses recognised, this Statement sets out how to rebalance the children’s social care system to improve outcomes for children in care, care leavers and families. It is guided by four key principles: that children should remain with their families and be safely diverted from entering the care system; that where children cannot remain at home and it is in their best interests, we should support most children to live with kinship carers or in fostering families rather than in residential care; that we take action to fix the broken care market and tackle profiteering in the placement market; and that we invest in the key enablers which underpin the children’s social care system, including the workforce, better data and information sharing, and to scale and spread evidence-based and proven approaches.

I will address some of the specific points that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised. On this point about keeping people as close as possible to their families, she asked about family hubs. I can say that family hubs were not specifically mentioned in the Statement because it covered the legislative proposals that the Government are bringing forward. However, we are absolutely clear that they do very good work in helping families to access vital services to improve the health, education and well-being of children, young people and their families. The 75 most deprived local authorities will in fact receive around £300 million from both the DfE and the Department of Health and Social Care up to 2025, to set up family hubs with integrated Start for Life services. Knowing that they improve families’ lives and children’s outcomes, and reduce costly crisis intervention later, we will continue to support that type of initiative. This exactly plays to the point about supporting children and their families at the earliest possible stage before those relationships break down.

On the point about payment by results for the Supporting Families funding, Supporting Families has achieved some very important results for children and their families. However, as is often the case with funding streams such as this, it has also become very bureaucratic. In keeping with the Government’s commitment to resetting its relationship with local government and working in partnership with them to deliver reform for vulnerable children and families, we will be simplifying the funding mechanisms for local authorities as much as possible, reducing the requirement for the payment by results recording and returns. That does not mean, however, that we will not be maintaining the focus on the outcomes for families, as the noble Baroness rightly said. We will continue to expect quarterly returns on the number of successful family outcomes that areas are achieving, so that we can continue to assess the overall impact of the programme. Because we have simplified the processes, we can also say that all local authorities will receive all their remaining available funding for 2024-25 as a one-off payment on 12 December, to enable them to continue making progress.

Both noble Baronesses asked about the £400 million funding. This is £400 million that will go into the overall local government grant, in keeping with the arguments that I made about reducing ring-fencing where possible. The £600 million is additional from this Budget for social care. It will be allocated, and more detail will be provided, at the time of the local government settlement for that.

On the point about agency staff, the noble Baroness is right. We do not believe that it would be possible to have a system with no agency social workers. Lots of agency social workers do very important work. However, when 17.8 % of all local authority child and family social workers are agency workers, that feels like too few permanent staff and too many agency workers. Yes, that does mean that we must work harder to train and retain our children’s social care workforce. That is why we will also be working to ensure that the workforce has the right environment to thrive in, personally and professionally. Legislative measures alone are not the answer, although we will introduce in the Bill a regulation-making power to govern the use of agency workers in local authorities’ child social care. In October, we published a set of online resources, developed by Research in Practice, to support local authorities to improve working conditions, workload, health and well-being and organisational culture. We are also working, through the national workload action group, to identify the unnecessary drivers of workload and to help to provide solutions, so that social workers can spend more time working with children and families rather than carrying out paperwork.

I am glad to hear the welcome of both noble Baronesses for the progress that we are making on kinship care. The £40 million that was announced just in advance of the Budget, and which it was part of, is to enable us to trial the use of the allowance for kinship carers in 10 areas. It would be appropriate to learn from that as quickly as possible, yes, but to learn from that trialling in order to work out how effectively to develop that and other forms of support for kinship care.

On the issue of the placement market, both noble Baronesses argued that a range of methods need to be used to increase the number of placements, in order to get away from the current situation. We do not have sufficient high-quality placements for children, particularly those with the most extreme needs, and we are seeing enormous increases in funding to pay for that. The £90 million we have announced will go alongside encouraging local authorities, charities and ethical investors to enter the market. We will work with the MHCLG on planning and ensure that Ofsted can fast-track the right sort of provision. I am sure I will get to some of the other questions the noble Baronesses asked when I respond to other noble Lords, and if I do not, I will write to them.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Government on this encouraging and very ambitious Statement on the development of services for families and vulnerable children. If it is implemented and put into practice, it will be good for children, good for families and good for society.

Will the Minister do all she can to rebuild the family support services that have been robbed of so much of their resources, and rebalance children’s services away from ridiculously expensive and very distant residential care, in order to ensure that there are preventive services to reduce the ever-growing number of children coming into public care? The continued increase of children coming to public care ought to alarm us. What we need is a better balance between preventive services and coming to care, so that when children do come into care, they are given the opportunity of living in a substitute family, be it kinship care or fostering care, and so that residential care is not robbing the other key services that we so much value.

I will ask the Minister one question. This is an ambitious Statement, and it has attracted widespread support. Is the Minister willing regularly to update the House on what progress has been made? Most of us see this as both a great opportunity and a great challenge, and we do not want that challenge to be lost.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord, who has done as much as anybody to improve the lives of vulnerable children, for his recognition of the principles that lie behind this Statement, which are exactly as he says: to prevent children getting into the statutory system in the first place by bringing in services and support for families much earlier on, and by ensuring that all agencies are working together to provide for that. We will of course bring forward the legislative elements of this Statement in the children and well-being Bill, which we hope to introduce when parliamentary time allows. I said to the noble Baroness the other day that we announced it in the King’s Speech and I hope and expect that it will be introduced reasonably soon.

Whether or not it is a formal update, I have no doubt, given the interest noble Lords have shown in this area of work since I have been in this House, that there will be ample opportunity for me to update the House on the progress we are making on what he rightly says is a very ambitious and wide-ranging programme of reform.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, first, I declare a new interest. Tomorrow, I hope to be endorsed as a trustee of Foundations, which is referenced in the Government’s report as having evidence-based the value of family-led decisions when children are at risk of entering care. It has been doing work following on from what the last Labour Government did in establishing evidence-based programmes in this area.

I particularly want the Government, and ask the Minister, to think about earlier interventions, which are mainly pre-school and early school and concentrate on evidence-based parenting programmes and relationship programmes, and which then really reduce the number of children who later in life need to come into care. We know this: the evidence is there in the authorities such as Leeds, which continue to do this despite the heavy cuts. I urge the Government to recognise the importance of these programmes and of sticking with them in the long term. We have learned from the last Government that cutting these programmes ends up in government having to pay far more money and children paying a much higher price.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, I congratulate my noble friend on her new role, to which I know she will bring an enormous amount of experience. She is exactly right: this issue goes wider than children who come within the ambit of children’s social care; we need to ensure that we are supporting parenting, children and maternal health, and that we are intervening and providing preventive measures at the very earliest stages of children’s lives. As I suggested in my first response, that is some of the important work that family hubs are doing, but it is certainly very much part of the principles that this Government have set down. We need to continue that investment, as my noble friend says, in evidence-based practice at the very earliest stage for children and families.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, while I welcome the focus on trying to regulate private placements, that is also going to depend on the capacity within the given local authority. I was disappointed that there was not much focus on a strategy or solution, given that just under half of local authorities, when inspected by Ofsted, were rated not good; we need them all to be outstanding. I also welcome the focus across government and beyond, and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, outlined, on 18 to 25 year-olds. Is the Minister speaking to the Deputy Prime Minister about this? If you are going to build social housing, how you design those houses can help create the support networks for vulnerable young people. As someone who skirted the children’s social care system and ended up in a privately financed, self-financed placement, I know that it is just happenstance —you happen to walk past someone’s window, you happen to be seen by people, who then may take an interest in you. You cannot compel them to, but how you build properties, how architects construct them, can make that more likely. Buildings shape people and can shape the support for some of our most vulnerable children.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point about the relationship between this work and the work of MHCLG. Just a week or so ago, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and the MHCLG Secretary met with the Care Leavers’ Association. We are working with MHCLG on planning provision for additional children’s placements, in order to ensure that high-quality placements can be developed more quickly. I take her broader point about the way in which we literally build our communities in order to protect our children, and I am sure that good planners and good local authorities will be thinking about that.

[Lord Shipley (LD)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my registered interests. I strongly welcome the Statement and particularly the confirmation that, wherever possible, children should remain with their families. Where it is not possible, children should live close by, not miles away. From what the Minister has said, I have not fully understood how long it might take to achieve that objective, given the Government’s plans.

I see in the Statement that the Government plan to set out funding plans on children’s social care in the upcoming local government finance settlement. I hope it will be possible to have a debate on that, because that settlement will include many things, Sometimes we have a Statement—often there is not even that—but I think that this settlement will need a debate.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I welcome the noble Lord’s welcome for this work. I agree with the point that has just been made that it is important that we work closely with partners across local government to address this. The noble Lord is right that more detail will be set out in the local government settlement, but it is not for me to decide whether there will be a debate. However, I assure the noble Lord that, if there is one and if I am called on, I will be more than happy to come and give more detail on how the spending will help to support progress on the objectives that we have set as quickly as possible, as he rightly says.

The problem of how far children live from their homes—I think over 20% of children live more than 20 miles away from their home authority—has been around for a very long time. That is not a reason not to take quick action; the noble Lord is right. This will be difficult, but we are absolutely determined to make progress.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the Competition and Markets Authority concluded in a recent report:

“The UK has sleepwalked into a dysfunctional children’s social care market”.


That is on the Benches opposite. I raised this as a question a few weeks ago, when my noble friend the Minister agreed to have a conversation about the diversity of suppliers that are needed in this sector: social enterprises, charities and community-based businesses. I look forward to that discussion being helpful in this process.

However, it seems to me that the challenge that the Government and local authorities will face is how to transition away from companies making excess profits in a dysfunctional market to local government getting cost-effective, proper suppliers in this marketplace. One of the reasons that local authorities have been trapped in the profit gouging is their legal imperative to provide care for some of our most difficult children. How do the Government intend to bring about that transition to make sure that no children find themselves with no care at all?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an important point. She is absolutely right that we are seeing profiteering in this market. The Competition and Markets Authority found profit levels of nearly 23% for the 15 largest providers of children’s homes. There is good provision in the private sector and there will still need to be private sector provision as we develop, but a 23% profit level is not appropriate competition.

The first solution, as my noble friend said, is to increase the supply of placements—this is where the £90 million is important—and we can use local authorities, the voluntary and charitable sector and ethical investors to do that. That has to be the first step. In making this Statement, my right honourable friend has also made it clear that we will not stand by if that message and action do not provide the necessary placements and we continue to see the profiteering that is breaking the banks of local authorities, when it comes to providing the care that children need. We will take action on that profiteering, if necessary, and we will have the legislative ability to do it in the children’s well-being Bill.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, I declare my position as a vice-president of the Local Government Association. I follow on from the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Shipley and Lord Laming, and the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong. There is lots in this Statement to agree with about early intervention and tackling problems before they escalate. However, I had a meeting last week with groups supported by the Crossroads Women’s Centre, who are very concerned that parents affected by poverty, particularly single parents, are simply not getting the support they need at an early stage. They referred to Section 17 of the Children Act, which this Statement does not refer to: the general duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, which rests with local authorities.

Of course, local authorities are terribly cash strapped. The Statement talks about future investment in preventive services. Can the noble Baroness assure me that local authorities will get the funding they need to provide that early support, so that poverty does not put children on this path—particularly the children of disabled parents, where I heard particular concerns about a lack of support that was desperately needed?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes an important point, taking us even further back in the process to the situations that families find themselves in that put them under the sort of pressure that sometimes—not always—brings potential harm to their children. Of course it is important that we think about child poverty in a holistic manner, which is what the task force with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is working on now. It is also important that we support local government in providing some of those broader services. At the moment, we are seeing enormous increases in spending on children’s social care but relatively small increases in benefits for children. That is why we need to reform the system, alongside ensuring that the money is there.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I first declare an interest: I grew up in a children’s home, so I have a bit of knowledge about it. The system is broken. Not by the last Government: it has gradually been broken over 50 years since we got rid of children’s departments. My one criticism of this document, which is a very good step forward, is that it mentions virtually everything except talking to the children about what they want.

Secondly, as I have said before, you cannot devolve compassion. You have to get the private sector out of this business. There is no other way forward. When we had children’s departments, we had university departments backing them up; we had a profession devoted to children, not profit. Will the Minister go back to the department to see how she can get this service back into the public, municipal care that it thrived quite well under from the Curtis report of the 1940s to the Seebohm Rowntree changes in the early 1970s, which undid it because the Treasury got greedy?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I make no comment about the Treasury, but the noble Lord is right to bring us back to the most important element of these reforms: how we can ensure that we not only listen to children’s voices—he is absolutely right that they should be at the heart of our work—but do everything we can, cross-party and with local government, the voluntary and charitable sector and elements of the private sector that are providing a good service, to reform our system so that it puts children and their welfare at the heart of what is happening.

I am not quite sure what the noble Lord means by “children’s departments”. All local authorities have directors of children’s services and those who are responsible for ensuring that children get the services they need appropriately. We also have excellent social workers across the country who deserve credit, alongside those who support them, for their work in protecting and safeguarding our children and, as he rightly says, listening to them so that their voices can be at the heart of the reforms we are making.

[Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a question about a category of children who are perhaps the most vulnerable within the category of extremely vulnerable children: those who are subject to deprivation of liberty order. The Children’s Commissioner recently highlighted that the number of people for whom there has been an application for deprivation of liberty has doubled in the last three years, and the conditions in which some of these children are placed are really appalling: roughly 50% are in unregulated or illegal placements. I very much applaud the idea of integration, a comprehensive approach and clamping down on profiteering, but what is the plan for taking urgent action for the most vulnerable children in these appalling circumstances while the longer-term plan is assembled?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right: there has been an unacceptable increase in the number of children subject to deprivation of liberty orders. That is because there is not the often very specialised and regulated provision that is appropriate for them. That is why they need the order to place them in what is essentially unregulated provision. Going back to the urgent action that we need to take to increase the number of placements, I come back to the point I made about the £90 million additional investment. Part of its work will be to find new forms of secure accommodation that can safely, and with high quality, care for the sort of children my noble friend rightly brings our attention to.

Curriculum and Assessment Review

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my technology and financial services interests as set out in the register.

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

My Lords, the curriculum and assessment review is independent. The review will make recommendations to the Government based on evidence and widespread sector engagement. The ambition in the review’s terms of reference is for

“a curriculum that ensures … young people leave compulsory education ready for life and ready for work”,

with digital skills. This may include the other areas that the noble Lord mentions, but it will be for the review to consider that in the context of its overall recommendations.

[Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that we need not only to significantly increase the levels and quantity of digital, AI, media and financial education but to ensure that it is personalised, flexible, relevant and responsive? One reason alone is that low levels of financial literacy currently cost the country £20 billion and individuals at the sharp end almost £500 a year. Does she agree that if we enable the levels of literacy we need, this will deliver immeasurable benefits to individual flourishing, levels of innovation and economic, social and psychological growth, for the benefit of us all?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about the breadth that we need in the teaching that goes on in our schools and in the skills, attributes and knowledge that young people have when they leave school to enter into life and into work, as I said. That is why this Government set up the curriculum and assessment review: to use the evidence being gained from the wider engagement to make recommendations about how we can improve on providing skills in all those areas, and particularly ensure that the curriculum supports students with special educational needs and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to close some of the gaps in pupils’ learning.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a state secondary schoolteacher. Does the Minister agree that it is ridiculous that our children leave school now with a very good knowledge of the religions and their gods but cannot have a working knowledge of Microsoft Office?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not think it is strictly true that large numbers of young people do not have a working knowledge of important areas of digital skills and computing. Of course, increasing numbers of them take GCSEs and A-levels in computing, but the noble Lord makes an important point about it being important to have the necessary skills for life. The curriculum and assessment review will consider that, and this Government will take decisions on it when we receive that review.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, whatever the outcome of the curriculum review, a pedagogical focus on oracy would assist in the teaching of all the important skills that young people clearly need as they enter the world of work, and in being able to discuss issues such as anti-racism?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure that young people are able to express themselves and to engage in discussion and debate. That is why we welcome, for example, the work that Geoff Barton and his Oracy Commission have carried out in this important area. It is also why developing language skills is vital in early years to enable children to thrive. We are funding evidence-based early language interventions, targeting children who need extra support with their speech and language development.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, these Benches support the prioritisation talked about in this Question. There have long been calls to include this on the school curriculum. But young people are generally digitally savvy, and the problem is often the older generations, who struggle with everything going online and are not digitally literate in many cases. What are the Government doing to encourage local authority libraries to offer free courses on digital education to older adults?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I make no judgment about the digital skills of Members of this House, but the noble Baroness makes an important point about the need to ensure that adults can also access digital skills. In referring to libraries, she is also talking, I think, about the importance of being able to access the hardware as well to do that. We continue to fund the essential skills legal entitlement through the adult skills fund, which will enable an opportunity for fully funded study for eligible adults who are 19 years and over and who do not have either essential English and maths skills up to level 2 or digital skills up to level 1. This will ensure that, alongside what is happening in schools, adults have the crucial basic digital skills that they need to access the modern world.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, one of the early themes coming out of the curriculum review is that teachers feel that there has been overstipulation about the content that they have been required to teach. The Government having a review after 10 years is entirely appropriate. We are encouraged by Professor Francis’s remarks about her concern that,

“by alleviating accountability and prescription, we risk facilitating poor practices that further marginalise disadvantaged young people”.

Can the noble Baroness be clear with the House that there will be no slippage in the academic rigour in the curriculum, particularly focusing on closing the attainment gap in school and post 16?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can, I hope, reassure the noble Baroness that this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring higher standards in our schools—particularly with respect to English and maths, for example, which are fundamental and important skills—and that we do more to close the attainment gap in both English and maths. In recent years, this has grown between those who achieve the highest levels and those who do not achieve so well, and between those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged. Everybody in our schools needs access to the most rigorous and effective curriculum and teaching, which is what this Government are committed to delivering.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, in addition to the subjects being considered, will the review look at the provision of the infrastructure behind them—for example, libraries for books and, for music, peripatetic teachers, instruments and music itself?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Notwithstanding the very difficult financial situation that this Government inherited, we are committed—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sorry, but I am tempted by murmurs opposite to remind noble Lords that we have inherited a considerable fiscal challenge—in fact, a £22 billion black hole that we have had to close. Notwithstanding that, the noble Lord makes an important point about the importance of continued funding and particularly capital funding, where we have already made some progress in the most recent spending review, and where this Government will continue to prioritise the needs of our children—both the teachers and the equipment they need to learn.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

Is the Minister aware that, of the students this year taking GCSE, fewer than 20% took computer science? That is appalling. At the same time, a report from 6,000 companies up and down the land, big and small, showed that the biggest thing restricting their growth in profit was their inability to appoint data analysts. Does she not accept that she has responsibility in this matter, and that children leaving school at 18 should be trained in artificial intelligence, data analysis, virtual reality and cyber security? If she does not introduce these changes next year, the Government she supports will not reach the economic growth that they hope for.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure the noble Lord will know that, in its first report, Skills England identified a lack of digital skills as one of the key areas holding back productivity, and where we need to make progress. I assure him that, whether in schools or later on in life, we will put a priority on the skills that are so important to ensure growth in our economy—and, therefore, future investment in further skills development.