Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025.

Relevant document: 18th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

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

My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for the scrutiny they have provided to this order. This statutory instrument, laid in draft on 5 February, will allow the Construction Industry Training Board to raise one more year of levy on the construction sector to fund training. In particular, I welcome the £40 million from levy funds that the CITB is investing in homebuilding skills hubs to support the Government in reaching our 1.5 million homebuilding target.

The CITB’s latest figures state that the construction sector contributes £186 billion to our economy and employs 2.1 million workers—unquestionably a significant part of the UK economy. However, the sector’s reliance on subcontracting and self-employment means that investment in workforce skills is too frequently left to others to prioritise. This levy order reflects the key role that industry plays alongside government in making its workforce safe, competent and increasingly productive.

Established in 1964 with a remit across England, Scotland and Wales, the CITB’s legal purpose is to encourage the provision of construction training. It is a purpose that, some 60 years on, the independent 2023 ITB review found is still needed, due to what the lead reviewer, Mark Farmer, identified as “ongoing market failure”. His report accepts that the current ITB model, a statutory levy system for construction employers, remains the best way to fund such training. The CITB also remains a key partner with government and is an important player in our plan for change. It will work closely with Skills England when it emerges from the passage of legislation through these Houses.

Over the last three years, the CITB has used levy funding to support almost 69,000 apprentices, given grants to over 44,000 businesses and delivered masterclass courses in areas including roofing and bricklaying. This order is the vehicle to bring in just under £224 million of focused funding from the construction sector for the CITB to deliver training and skills activity to support our missions. I trust that noble Lords will continue to support this approach of levy funding training within the construction industry.

Before I outline the details of the SI, I will address the duration of this order. The primary legislation permits a one-year levy order without consensus, the process of consulting with industry, as long as certain criteria are met. The CITB wanted to give industry time to consider the impact of the ITB review before debating its support for three years of levy payments through the usual consensus process. With the delayed ITB review publication truncating the available time before current levy income runs out, the CITB provided me with levy proposals for one financial year. With the ITB review now published, the CITB will start consensus next week on proposals for a 2026 three-year levy order and will listen and respond to industry views in earnest on that.

I turn to the details of the SI. This one-year order retains the levy assessment rates prescribed by the three-year 2022 order: 0.35% of the earnings paid by employers to directly employed workers and 1.25% of the contract payments paid to indirectly employed workers. The levy order exemption threshold means that employers with an annual wage bill of below £135,000 are exempt from paying any levy at all. The CITB estimates that 69% of in-scope employers fall into that category. The levy order reduction threshold provides a 50% reduction for employers who pay a wage bill between £135,000 and £449,999. A further 15% of employers are in scope of this provision and would pay reduced contributions.

Both thresholds have been increased from the 2022 order to prevent employers who have increased employee wages exceeding the limit and facing new or increased levy rates. Employers who are exempt or pay reduced levy rates are still eligible to claim CITB support. The large volume of eligible employers is counterbalanced by the amount of levy paid by larger employers, enabling the few to support the many for the wider benefit of the construction industry.

In lieu of the typical consensus process, the CITB sought views on the one-year proposal from its 14 prescribed organisations, sector federations representing around 30% of all levy-paying employers and the nation councils for England, Scotland and Wales. The vast majority were supportive, and subsequent industry engagement via CITB comms channels and engagement with trade media has not attracted any dissent over a one-year approach. With the ITB review and the CITB’s strategic plan now published, industry is in a much stronger position to enter consensus for the 2026 proposals and make informed decisions.

In conclusion, I have confidence that your Lordships’ Committee will have suitably scrutinised the impact assessment that was laid with the levy documentation; this articulates how the CITB proposes to spend the levy raised by this order. This spend is focused on activities that support the Government’s ambitions to deliver on the plan for change, especially in commitments to build 1.5 million homes in this Parliament and to drive growth for the good of the nation. This order will enable the CITB to continue carrying out these vital training responsibilities. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I always remember how the late Lord Andrew Stunell, who was a spokesperson at one stage for the construction industry, used to rage at us about the huge shortages in every branch of construction. He said, “Just imagine, if we were able to fill these vacancies, how we would be able really to boost the economy and opportunities for young people”.

With an estimated 250,000 extra construction workers needed between now and 2028, it is vital to look at a wide range of ways in which to increase the number of new entrants to the recruitment pool, creating a more diverse workforce. One problem is the mismatch between supply and demand; individuals find it hard to find the right route into a role in construction, and it can be economically challenging for employers to invest in apprenticeships and new entrants.

Better pathways need to be created into the industry. Construction needs to grow apprenticeship starts, which are the main source of industry recruitment at entry level. In addition, around 30% of further education learners need to be able to progress to an apprenticeship or job in construction by assuring employers that they have the skills and experience they need.

Another problem is retention. Better retention of trainees and current workers in construction can significantly reduce skill shortages. Nearly 60,000 new entrants leave the industry each year. We need to retain the current workforce—many leave due to preventable reasons, such as poor workforce culture or limited career progression. Developing a training and skills system to meet the current and future needs, with CITB working with Skills England, will, I hope, start to reverse the problems we face. We very much welcome the levy.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The review also argues for

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The DfE response is:

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


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

Recommendation 1.3 of the review is:

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


I emphasise that—

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

The department’s response says:

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

Apprenticeships: Entry Requirements

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how they support people enter the apprenticeship system who have not been able to meet the entry requirements, including on literacy.

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

My Lords, apprenticeships are jobs with training, so it is employers who make recruitment decisions. But we have introduced flexibilities, so that adult apprentices no longer need to achieve stand-alone English and maths qualifications, while strengthening job-specific English and maths training. This will allow more adults to access apprenticeships and support thousands more to achieve them, helping to meet skills shortages in sectors such as construction and healthcare. Apprentices under 19 must still achieve these qualifications, putting them in the best possible position to progress in life and work.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to hear that Answer. But the potential of a very large proportion of 16 to 18 year-olds in the Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities—a larger proportion than for any other minority ethnic group—to enter further education and/or to gain the apprenticeship status which could get them employment is still not being realised. In the years 2019-24, their entry into apprenticeships was never more than 170 per year. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the main reason, the significant drop-off in secondary school attendance and attainment for these children, needs targeted research into the many causes, encouragement of schools to sign up to the pledge to create a Gypsy, Roma and Traveller-friendly environment, and specific interim action; for instance, to expand the relaxation—

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

It is coming—to expand the relaxation of the requirement for level 2 maths and English for young people judged to be capable?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is a valued advocate for Gypsy, Roma and Traveller communities, and her work is important in helping us to understand what more the education system needs to do to enable their achievement. We recognise the issues faced by young people in those communities and want them to thrive, whether at school or in work. I want more people from underrepresented backgrounds to be able to access apprenticeships. I attended a very useful round table with some of our largest employers just this morning to talk about this issue. We are developing new foundation apprenticeships for those starting their careers. This is also an important step towards our youth guarantee of education, employment or training for every young person.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)]

My Lords, I support what the Government are doing in reducing the levels of numeracy and literacy for apprentices starting. The House should remember that the apprentices of the 18th century who created the Industrial Revolution did not sit numeracy or literacy tests. The colleges for which I am responsible—the university technical colleges—produce 20% of the students in this country becoming apprentices at 18, while schools produce only 4%. As a result of these changes, I am sure that our percentage will increase, meaning that many more youngsters will be able to benefit from high-quality apprenticeship training.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord goes slightly further back in history than I do; nevertheless, I understand and share his view. We expect apprentices to continue to learn the maths skills and the English and communication skills necessary for the occupational standards within which they do their apprenticeship, but not to have to pass a separate qualification in maths and English. I reiterate that we will still expect young people up to 18 to study and achieve qualifications in English and maths.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness’s Question was most encouraging, because she well understands that this generation of young people have experienced a great deal of disruption in their education; not just during but since the pandemic, there has been a great deal of absenteeism in schools, as she knows. Can she assure the House that we will not only encourage this generation of young people but demonstrate to them how much we value their potential?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that we need to work harder to make sure that all children are able to succeed in school and that all young people have the opportunities to then go on in education or training. In the area of apprenticeships, that is one of the reasons for introducing, as we will do later this year, foundation apprenticeships, which will provide that first step on the employment and training ladder for young people who perhaps would not otherwise have been able to access it. We will continue to find ways to ensure that all young people, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds or those who have faced other challenges in life, can fully achieve the opportunities that they deserve and can make the most of them in their lives.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the vast number of people who have special educational needs—I declare my interests in this field—and who can have their problems in education solved by using voice-activation and readback facilities to access at least English, should be allowed to do so, as these facilities are so readily available? Without them, we would exclude a lot of people with the mere notion of exams or qualifications.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right that assistive technology can make a big difference both to children in school and to young people as they enter training and higher education. That is why, for higher education, we will continue to ensure that the disabled students’ allowance provides support for students to fully access learning, and why we make specific provision for young people entering apprenticeships who have an education, health and care plan.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, bearing in mind the crucial significance of the maritime sector to our nation’s wealth—and, indeed, survival—can my noble friend the Minister say what we are doing to encourage more maritime apprenticeships both in the Merchant Navy and more widely?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, what can the Minister say about the plans for the proposed new growth and skills levy? How will that, first of all, increase the number of apprenticeships being taken up by younger people aged 16 to 25—which is disappointingly low—and, secondly, how will it promote greater provision of apprenticeships by small and medium enterprises?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to ask us about the growth and skills levy. The current apprenticeship levy and system are—employers tell us—too inflexible and do not allow some of the provision that would ensure precisely that more young people are able to enter apprenticeships. That is why, at the first stage of delivering flexibilities in the growth and skills levy, we will introduce foundation apprenticeships along the lines I outlined, which will encourage far more young people to come into apprenticeships. In doing that, we will also support the small and medium-sized enterprises, which tend to have younger people as apprentices and take more people from disadvantaged backgrounds. We will also introduce flexibility around the minimum length of an apprenticeship, so that in areas where it makes sense to teach the whole standard in a shorter time, or for those who already have a considerable amount of prior learning, that minimum will go to eight rather than 12 months.

[Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)]

My Lords, every young person is good at something. Finding that is not always easy. The required level in maths and English for entry to FE and apprenticeships acts as a barrier to Gypsy and Traveller young people. Does the Minister agree that it would be more effective to open up technical and vocational training schemes to these young people, without the need for relevant levels in maths and English, to enable them to fulfil their full potential?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To be clear, the issue is not that not having maths and English prevents you starting an apprenticeship. That is up to the employer to determine who they recruit to the job that will go alongside the apprenticeship. It also does not stop people from entering college. However, for 16 to 18 year-olds in particular, to ensure that they have the best opportunity to progress in life and they have the basic skills that will enable them to do so, we expect that they then pursue—between 16 and 18—the learning and qualifications necessary to give them those basic skills in English and maths.

International Women’s Day

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That this House takes note of International Women’s Day and the steps being taken to promote women’s participation and leadership in science and technology in the United Kingdom and internationally.

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

My Lords, I first say how pleased I am to open this International Women’s Day debate on my first full day as the Minister for Women and Equalities. In doing so, I take the opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Anneliese Dodds, for the enormously important work that she did in this portfolio.

I also wish the House a very happy—almost—International Women’s Day. The theme of International Women’s Day this year is “Accelerate Action” because, right now, the pace of change just is not fast enough. In recent years—and, I am afraid, with recent Governments—we have seen far too many women left without the safety, security and opportunity they need. That is why the Government are determined to deliver for women through our plan for change, where women are central to all of the Government’s missions: from halving violence against women and girls to kick-starting economic growth, fixing the NHS and breaking down the barriers to opportunity. Through our plan for change, we are making the changes needed to make sure women’s equality becomes a reality. It will be an ambitious agenda for a decade of national renewal, and women will be at the heart of it. This International Women’s Day, we want to celebrate the achievements that have been made towards advancing women’s equality and redouble our commitment to deliver lasting change for women.

There is much that we—and I—could say about the achievements of previous Labour Governments and our plan for change. Today, we are focusing our debate on science and technology. We may not think of this place as a bastion of gender equality—we touched on that just yesterday in an Oral Question—but percentage wise there are more women in the House of Lords, a 1,000-year-old institution, than there are women in tech in the UK, a sector not much more than 100 years old. That gives us a sense of the size of the challenge. If our current trajectory continues, the world will not achieve gender parity until 2158. In the worlds of science and technology, those numbers could be gloomier still.

Our rate of progress will not see women making up an equal share of the tech workforce in the UK for another 283 years. That is an ocean of time—283 years ago, women in the UK could not vote, own land or property if we were married, go to university or enter most professions. Fortunately, we are not willing to let the current pace of change continue. This is a mission-led Government, squarely focused on creating a new era of opportunity and economic growth and a fairer society for all, and gender equality is imperative to that. So today I want to talk about how the Government are accelerating action in the UK and internationally.

First, I will just give a reminder of why this is so important. We should care about all forms of equality in science and technology for their own sake, but we should also care because this drives the betterment of our society and the strengthening of our economy. When women and girls are equally involved in shaping science and tech, the world gets faster breakthroughs, products that work properly and better returns.

We get faster breakthroughs because experts have told us time and again that diverse teams pursue new questions in new ways, leading to better research.

We get products that work because there is a long history of technologies built without women that do not work properly for the whole population. These are set out brilliantly by Caroline Criado Perez in her book Invisible Women, which I am sure many noble Lords have read. Crash-test dummies based on male bodies do not adequately protect women in cars; life-saving drugs, mainly tested on male animals, have a question mark over how they will work for women; and when the first voice assistants were created, they found it harder to recognise female voices because they had been tested only on the all-male developer team who built them. For some of us, that might explain why our phones and speakers do not take any notice of us—or it might be for other reasons.

Finally, we get better returns because businesses and economies stand to gain hugely here. Research consistently finds that gender diversity and ethnic and cultural diversity are both good for business. Companies in the top quartile for gender diversity in their exec teams are 25% more likely to outperform their peers on profit than those in the bottom quartile. Looking at the bigger picture, if women were to start and scale businesses at the rate that men do, we would see a potential £250 billion boost to the UK economy. Without gender equality, our growth mission is stunted.

Let us turn from the why to the what: what this Government are doing to promote women’s participation and leadership in science and technology. “Participation” takes in women as citizens of the digital world as well as creators of it, so we must think about digital exclusion, which disproportionately affects women, as well as online harms that women and girls are up against. My noble friend Lady Jones, closing this debate, may well go into those topics further. With the excellent range of speakers we have today, I am sure there will be plenty for her to respond to.

For now, I will focus on three pillars of improving diversity in science and technology. Skills: how do we make sure that women and girls have the know-how to participate in these sectors and pursue careers in them? Entrepreneurship: how do we support women to start and scale science and tech companies? Industry: how do we protect the rights of women employed by firms in this sector?

On skills, the Digital Poverty Alliance has estimated that if we help everybody currently in work to get essential digital skills, we could see a £17 billion increase in yearly earnings. But if we are to get that boost to the UK economy, we cannot afford to have such a big proportion of our population missing out. Globally, women and girls are 25% less likely than men to have enough digital skills to use technology.

As with everything we discuss today, we must recognise the experiences of the whole range of women in the UK. Women from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are much more likely to lack digital skills, as are women with disabilities. The good news is that STEM education is growing. In the 2022-23 academic year, there were 35% more STEM A-level entries from women and girls than in 2010.

Breaking down opportunities is one of the core missions of this Government, so here is how we are making sure that this trend continues in the right direction. Across the board, the curriculum review is considering how to modernise education and qualifications to fit with work in the 21st century. Skills England is reviewing what courses can better fill the digital skills gap. Our new levy-funded growth and skills offer, with apprenticeships at the heart, will deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers in England, aligned with our industrial strategy, creating routes into good, skilled jobs in growing industries. We promote STEM apprenticeships to girls in schools through fantastic volunteers such as STEM ambassadors and apprenticeship ambassadors.

Women’s participation in STEM has improved, but challenges remain. Women now make up 24% of the STEM workforce in the UK, surpassing 1 million for the first time. However, representation remains disproportionately low in certain fields, highlighting ongoing challenges. Higher education is playing a key role in driving change. Universities are implementing mentoring schemes, outreach programmes and gender-balanced research funding to support and retain female talent in STEM.

Early engagement is key to growing that pipeline of women into STEM. Government, employers and education providers are working together to inspire more girls to pursue STEM careers, including through the STEM ambassador programme and industry outreach initiatives. Here are just a couple of further skills programmes of which we are particularly proud. The CyberFirst Girls Competition invites girls aged 12 to 13 to crack codes and solve coding challenges, all to encourage them to pursue a career in cybersecurity. In 2024, 14,500 girls from more than 800 schools took part. On science, the CREST Awards, funded by UKRI, give young people the chance to run their own research projects aimed at solving real-world problems.

Another area where it is crucial that we build up skills is AI. The AI Opportunities Action Plan, launched by the Prime Minister in January, sets out how we will seize the enormous opportunity that AI presents to boost growth, raise living standards and transform our public services. But this opportunity must be open to all. Only 22% of those employed in AI right now are women. Women are also less likely to use AI in their day-to-day lives.

The Government will continue to back AI and data science conversion courses, allowing STEM graduates to gain an AI master’s. It is wonderful to see that 72% of students on these courses so far have been women, far higher than for comparable STEM master’s courses. With support from the DfE, DSIT will explore how to scale up extracurricular activities for girls in schools to cover AI, building on the National Cyber Security Centre’s successful work on cybersecurity skills.

The UK is also opening up opportunities for women and girls around the world. The Girls’ Education Skills Partnership is an £8 million collaboration between the UK, UNICEF and companies such as Unilever, Vodafone and Microsoft. Giving women everywhere the right skills helps them to see new avenues that are open to them, from working as a code breaker to being part of the AI revolution or founding a business of their own.

That takes us to entrepreneurship. Here, let us take a moment to share the story of just one of the brilliant female-founded science and tech companies. Nu Quantum was started by Dr Carmen Palacios-Berraquero as a spin-out from Cambridge. Quantum computing could be our most powerful tool to fight climate change, design better medicines and transform every industry. But to do that, quantum computers need to be 1,000 times more powerful than they are today. That is the challenge the team is working on. It is a team with diversity at its heart. Almost half its employees are women. It has more than 20 nationalities represented and is an LGBT-friendly workplace. Companies such as Nu Quantum are essential for women to look up to, because women are still starting science and tech businesses far less than men do.

When we look at funding challenges, it is little wonder why. Overall, female-founded businesses got just a 1.8% share of total equity investment in the first half of 2024, and that number shrinks further still when we look at the experience of women of colour. In tech, the average deal capital raised by female-founded AI companies is six times lower than that by raised all-male teams.

This Government are supporting female founders across our economy to get the finance that they need. The Women in Innovation programme, run by Innovate UK, has awarded over £11 million to female entrepreneurs since it started, and women now make up one in three successful bids to Innovate UK, up from one in seven. We also back the Invest in Women Taskforce, whose Women Backing Women Fund connects female investors with female-led companies. Specifically in science, the Future Fund invests in R&D-heavy companies in life sciences and deep tech, many of which are headed up by female founders.

As well as helping entrepreneurs find funding, we are supporting the finance sector as a whole to reckon with its role in this. Over 280 companies, including most major retail banks, have now signed up to the Investing in Women code, committing to improve access to finance for women. It is not just a piece of paper. Companies that have signed up are shown to outperform the rest of the market in giving equity to female founders.

The proportion of female-founded businesses around the world has increased steadily in recent years, but we must continue to give them the environment they need to fly, to create new role models for the next generation.

Finally, I turn to industry. We will keep working with science and tech firms to boost gender equality at all levels, particularly in senior roles. The Employment Rights Bill will be a cornerstone here. The Bill will make sure that women, no matter the workplace, are empowered, represented, protected and able to pursue meaningful careers, regardless of whether or not, for example, they plan to start a family. It expands gender pay gap reporting requirements, gives more rights to pregnant workers and new mothers and puts tougher duties on firms to prevent sexual harassment. It also introduces equality action plans, whereby large employers will have to set out what they are doing to improve gender equality. By making sure that science and tech firms foster inclusive working environments, we can make sure these are places where all kinds of people get to succeed.

I am delighted at how popular a debate this is to speak in today and that several Members of this House are about to make their maiden speeches, so I will make way now for them to share their perspectives, and look forward to my noble friend closing our debate, with invaluable insight from her joint roles as Minister with responsibility for science, innovation and tech, and for business and trade. Let me wrap up by reiterating that we do not just improve the participation of women and girls in science and technology because it feels like the right thing to do. We do it because we stand to unlock new realms of scientific advancement, technological innovation and economic growth—the key to everyone being better off—when more women and girls are at the table.

Schools: Mobile Phones

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what is their position on the use of mobile phones in schools.

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

My Lords, we know that using mobile phones in schools can lead to online bullying, distraction and classroom disruption, which can lead to lost learning time. The Government’s Mobile Phones in Schools guidance supports schools on how to develop, implement and maintain a policy that prohibits the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, break time and lunchtime. Head teachers are rightly responsible for the implementation of guidance within their schools.

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I understand the tension between a clear national policy on the one hand and an element of local discretion on the other, but I was struck by the reply of the noble Baroness’s ministerial colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Anderson, in a recent debate on this subject in your Lordships’ House, in which she said that

“last year, around a third of pupils reported that most of their lessons were disrupted in some way by a mobile phone”.—[Official Report, 28/11/24; col. 895.]

Is that not just unacceptable? Should the Government not consult on some stricter options, one of which would include a ban on mobile phones in primary schools and, in secondary schools, making them inaccessible during school hours, except where they are needed for medical reasons?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

First, it is clearly unacceptable if lessons are being disrupted. That is, in many ways, a broader issue than whether mobile phones are being used and goes to the behaviour policies that every school has a responsibility to have and to develop with their parents. I think it is important that we look at the way in which schools are already taking action to limit mobile phones. Actually, schools are moving towards developing many of the things that the noble Lord has suggested should be in place. This comes back to the point he raised about whether we believe that, with clear national guidance, including examples of how phones should be controlled in schools, we should nevertheless allow a determination at school level by head teachers of how that is actually implemented. I think that the balance is broadly right at the moment, although it is of course important that we keep this under review and that we encourage schools to do what is necessary to enable all classrooms to be purposeful and calm and for every child to be able to learn.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is right that there is a place, I suppose, for phones in schools in terms of learning. Equally, parents think that, if the child has a phone, they are far better safeguarded, particularly on long journeys home. However, there is the other side, where phones can lead to bullying, to pupils taking inappropriate photographs, to such photos being sent, as well as to well-being and mental health issues. It is not a clear-cut situation we face. It is also disruptive for classes when schools have to ask teachers to collect the phones, hand them out, et cetera. Technology might be the answer. For example, in Ireland they have spent €20 million on giving schools what is called a Yondr wallet, into which the phones go and they cannot be used during that period: it cuts off all the connections. The Minister said we must look at ways: how will we look at those ways and how will we come to a final conclusion?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There are schools in the UK that are already using the Yondr wallets that the noble Lord refers to. On the whole, schools are not using the approach of making individual teachers collect phones at the beginning of classes. The most recent evidence suggests that the most commonly used way of controlling mobile phones is to collect the phone at the beginning of the day and give it back to the child at the end of the day. The broader point, however, that the noble Lord makes, relates not just to how mobile phones are used in schools but to broader issues of how children are using their phones, with high levels of screen time. Sometimes, we seem to think that what happens in schools solves all problems. Actually, I think we need to look more broadly than simply at a relatively blunt legislative proposal.

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister had any discussions about the innovation that is going on in mobile phones? I am particularly struck by “smart dumbphones” that do not have access to social media and allow children only to text and to keep out of danger. I think that there is a huge opportunity here for the UK to increase the supply of a different kind of phone. Will the Minister explain some of those discussions?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. I have not had those discussions myself, but I have heard about some of the innovations. I would make a broader point about how parents, for example, who might be concerned about how their children are using phones, feel. That type of technological development may well help to provide some of the answers. With respect to schools, the department provides technological advice for schools on such things as, for example, how to ensure that filtering provisions are appropriate. Sometimes, there is an opportunity to use good technology to counter the detrimental impacts of technology. That may well be something that is appropriate in this area.

[Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether any work has been done in speaking to young people about their use of phones in school? I have been a youth worker for over 38 years now and most of the best innovations in dealing with young people and their issues come from asking the young people. Many schools have discussions with their own young people and they give up their phones willingly. It creates a culture in the school that is much kinder. Has that kind of conversation been had with young people?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes a really important point. I suspect that where schools are implementing this most effectively is where they have engaged not just parents but pupils in thinking about how mobile phones should be controlled, not only within the school but also to address concerns about what is happening to young people using phones outside school. I do not know whether the department has done that, but I will go back and check and perhaps follow that up with the noble Lord.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, to follow up on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Young, about school classes being interrupted by telephones, I merely observe that all of us are aware that proceedings in your Lordships’ House are occasionally interrupted by people furiously trying to control their devices. When it comes to mobile phones in schools, it is fine to give guidance to schools: we put so much burden on teachers and on head teachers to manage a whole variety of issues. In the experience that we have had of talking to schools, the issue they have is actually with parents. Will the Government try to ensure that part of the guidance they give to schools will be about how best to have a dialogue with parents, because it is often parents who are the most against their children not being able to take phones into school?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

Erasmus Programme

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport]

To ask His Majesty’s Government, following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the Erasmus programme, what steps they are taking to ensure that youth work and adult education organisations can access international exchange opportunities.

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

We could have done with a bit of diversity in those answering Questions today.

My Lords, the Turing scheme provides funding for adults at further or higher education institutions to do international study and work placements. It also provides funding for staff accompanying school trips. DfE offers several exchange opportunities, including UK-German Connection and language assistance programmes. Additionally, DCMS will be publishing a new national youth strategy in the summer, which will rebuild a thriving and sustainable youth sector.

[Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for that reply, but has her department looked at what the Welsh Government are doing in this area? The scheme known as Taith, which means journey, has developed into a programme which, for many, works better than Erasmus. There is engagement in Taith from schools, youth organisations, adult ed and FE colleges. Those who have never previously considered international exchange as an option are applying for Taith funding, providing more opportunities for those with the least access and the greatest barriers. Would the Minister agree to look at this excellent scheme?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, I would agree. I acknowledge my noble friend’s recognition and explanation of the Taith programme. My department and I hold regular discussions with Welsh Government colleagues about a range of policy issues, and this is a good example of our ability to learn from each other. I also note her important point about how Taith—and now, the Government’s Turing scheme—provides additional support to participants from disadvantaged backgrounds so that they can participate in international placements. We have made considerable progress in the Turing scheme in doing that.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

My Lords, we had a long debate in the House recently on the question of restoring a youth mobility scheme with our European partners. Is it not now surely time for us to proceed with that, given that it has no negative impacts on the freedom of movement issue or indeed on our Immigration Rules? Young people all across Europe want to be able to meet and work together in the interests of future democracy and peace.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

This Government are very keen to ensure that we reset our relationships with the EU, but that, of course, happens across a whole range of areas. The last time I responded to questions on this issue, I said that it feels appropriate to me to carry out that negotiation across the whole range of issues, and to do so in detail and in breadth, as my right honourable friend Nick Thomas-Symonds is doing.

[Lord Patel (CB)]

My Lords, part of the reason why UK students took less advantage of the Erasmus scheme was our language skills capability, and because it was limited to Europe. The Turing scheme, which 42,000 students have taken advantage of so far—21,000 from disadvantaged backgrounds—is global. Does the Minister agree that our Turing scheme is working extremely well, and we should give it time to settle down?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about the Turing scheme: that, unlike Erasmus, it extends beyond the European Union. In fact, some of the most popular destinations have been outside the EU. If we truly want people to have a global opportunity, that is an important element of it.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, the Erasmus+ programme is often talked about as the higher education part—I declare an interest, being on an advisory board for a Czech university programme—but it also allows for vocational education and training opportunities for between two weeks and 12 months. Given that the Minister will not undertake to do anything unilaterally, may I suggest that she takes back to Minister Nick Thomas-Symonds the idea of looking at ways of re-engaging, not just for those in higher education but those in further education and vocational education and training? They stand to gain a huge amount.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. We of course work hard to ensure that international students can come here and contribute to and benefit from UK higher education. When I talk to international counterparts, they talk about the enormous value of our skills and vocational training and the need to ensure shared learning and opportunities. In anything that happens in the future, we should make sure that this is seen as something not only for higher education but for further education and technical and skills education.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, universities in the Cathedrals Group—the 14 higher education institutions founded by the churches—have a higher proportion of students who progress to university when they are older, and/or who are the first in their family to progress to university. How will His Majesty’s Government ensure that all students who wish to, and particularly those experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage, are able to access the life-changing opportunities afforded by studying abroad, given the loss to students of Erasmus funding?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point about this being an opportunity that people need to have at all stages of their life. I think I am right to say that Turing does enable older students to benefit from it, and, as I have already emphasised, it has certainly focused on ensuring that people who come from more disadvantaged backgrounds have the opportunity to experience travelling, visiting and learning overseas in a way they otherwise would not have been able to do.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I warmly endorse the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, and I accept the comments of the noble Lord on the benefits of the Turing scheme. Does the Minister accept that the status of associated third countries, enjoyed by countries such as Norway, Serbia and Turkey, is not incompatible with these other schemes? Might there be a way of bringing them together?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not wholly clear which other schemes the noble Lord is talking about, but I am happy to follow that up with him. If he is saying that we need to ensure that any scheme we support is as broad as possible in the opportunities it makes available to young people and older people, and if he is suggesting that we also need to consider bilateral youth mobility schemes—which we do have—with countries such as India, Canada, Australia, Iceland and Andorra, that is a useful contribution and certainly something we should do.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord was making the point that the Erasmus scheme takes in large numbers of countries that are not in the European Union, so there is no need to conduct this discussion as a competition between Turing and Erasmus. The best thing for the Government to do, surely, is to try to get the best elements of both schemes in one that we can now support in the future.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not think that I have conducted it as a competition between the two. It is not that difficult for this House to work out, had things gone differently in 2016, what situation I would rather be in. But we are in the position we are in at this point, and we have made it clear that we do not plan to re-enter the Erasmus scheme or to reintroduce free movement. However, what we have heard today is a general consensus that future schemes, whatever auspices they come under, that enable people to experience studying, working and living in other countries are important. We should do all we can to encourage particularly those who would not otherwise have these opportunities to be supported by whatever schemes we develop.

Equality Act 2010: Diversity of Political Candidates

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gale]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to implement section 106 of the Equality Act 2010 to require information to be published on the diversity of political candidates.

[The Minister of State, Office for Equality and Opportunity (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government are committed to commencing the Equality Act 2010’s provision requiring registered political parties to publish anonymised data relating to the diversity of their candidate selections. We are currently exploring when and how to commence that provision under Section 106. Implementing this policy would, through increased transparency, demonstrate tangible progress towards better representation among candidates of the population they seek to serve, and thereby increase the involvement of all groups across the democratic process.

[Baroness Gale (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her reply. I am quite encouraged by what she had to say, but does she agree that having a diversity of candidates means that the elected representatives will look like the people they represent, which will give more authority to our elected institutions, because people will be able to relate to them much better? Can she say when this provision will be implemented? We have been waiting 15 years for it now; that is quite some time. Those who are now shadow Ministers in the party opposite will know that I asked them this question numerous times. I am hoping that I will not have to do the same now to my noble friend.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I have enormous respect for my noble friend and the leadership role that she has played in political parties—and, of course, in ensuring diversity. I too hope that she will not need to ask this Government as many times as she had to ask the previous Government, because we have made clear our commitment to implementing Section 106. We need to work through how we are going to do that and who will be included. I think it is right that something as important as this is done properly. I look forward to her challenge and her support as we take that forward.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, we need to understand the picture fully, and while I am sure we are all gratified by the number of women Members of Parliament we have now, the story on other protected characteristics, including disability, race, and sexual orientation, is not so rosy. In answer to a very similar question in January, Anneliese Dodds responded by saying that the Government were looking at when they might be able to introduce this data, much as the Minister has done today. If the Minister cannot tell us today when this will be, can she reassure the House on what approximate date we will be able to introduce this legislation by?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness has found an interesting way to ask the same question again. I will try to find an interesting way to give the same answer. I recognise her point that Section 106 requires us, in commencing it, to think carefully—actually, exactly—about which protected characteristics will be included in the regulations. It is important that we give that sufficient thought, alongside political parties, of course, about how we will implement that.

There is nothing to stop political parties at this point, for transparency, publishing information about their own candidates. But, of course, the reasoning behind this piece of legislation is to ensure we get consistency; in doing that, we challenge ourselves as politicians, we challenge our parties, and we show to the country that those people who represent them reflect those whom they are speaking on behalf of.

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, before International Women’s Day this weekend, it is important that we reflect on this issue. I ask the Minister whether there is a need to engage with political parties right across the United Kingdom to enable them to empower women to look at politics as an honourable profession. We know that there are many perceived barriers—and actual barriers, let us be honest about that—that they see when they look at political life. Is there some work that the Government can do with political parties across the UK, whether that is through the Electoral Commission or directly, to try to assist with that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness makes a very important point. Some of that, of course, is the responsibility of political parties themselves, but particularly in areas where she and I have previously shared views and work—such as the abuse and intimidation that impact all elected politicians but disproportionately impact women—there is work that the Government can do, building on work done outside this place on this issue; for example, by the Jo Cox commission. The Government are working with the Electoral Commission to take this forward in terms of practical actions that will help overcome some of these barriers, which, as the noble Baroness says, might put people off coming into democratically elected life, and, in doing that, make us all poorer.

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

How long does my noble friend the Minister think it will take before we achieve 50:50 representation of men and women in the House of Lords?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend the Leader assures me that the Front Bench on this side is pretty good. I am afraid it is not within my power, but I see in the other place that considerable progress has been made since 1997, when I was elected, which was equally a big jump in women’s representation. Then, however, it was just over 18% women—it now stands at 40%, which is the sort of progress that we would all like to see.

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the Conservative Party has led the way on diversity when it comes to our party leaders? I know we have had a few. We have had our first Asian leader, when Labour has had none, and our first black leader, when Labour has had none—all, I add, chosen on merit.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that there has been an enormous diversity of leaders of the Conservative Party—some of it good, some of it less good. Given the noble Baroness’s understandable wish to talk about the diversity of leaders, I find it slightly more difficult to understand why the party opposite, during its 14 years in government, was not as keen to enable that, through Section 106 of the Equality Act, to be something that all political parties should do and why it is not willing therefore to say more about its candidates and their diversity. What we know is that, when it comes to real progress in broader representation, the fact that there are now more Labour women in the House of Commons than Conservative MPs in total tells us something about which party has made the most progress on gender.

[The Earl of Devon (CB)]

My Lords, given the Government’s enthusiasm for gender equality in these matters, why will they not legislate for female succession to hereditary peerages?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think my noble friend the Leader of the House has considerable sympathy but also a lot of experience in the complexities of this type of legislation. I think, on the basis of her wisdom, I will leave it to her to respond to that particular issue.

[Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)]

Ahead of the Senedd elections next year, my party Plaid Cymru has decided to reserve the first position on the internal selection process for half of the constituencies for women. Will the Minister share some more ideas for what other parties could do to ensure that we have a gender-equal Parliament in Wales and here in Westminster?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Our colleague Jane Hutt has written to the Secretary of State to talk about the action being taken in advance of the Senedd elections next year. I am sure that Labour and other parties will want to ensure a representative Senedd. I suspect that the ability to take the action the noble Baroness outlined was dependent on the previous Labour Government putting into law the ability to take that sort of positive action. It is because of that that we have seen the progress we have up to this point. Better representation in our politics does not happen by accident; it happens by people being willing to take action and be transparent. That is what parties which are serious about it support.

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

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 20 January be approved.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 3 March.

Motion agreed.

Relationship, Sex and Health Education

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 4th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have for publishing revised guidance on relationship, sex and health education in schools.

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

My Lords, the subjects of relationship, sex and health education are vital to support children and young people to thrive in the world in which they are growing up. Children’s well-being must be at the heart of this guidance and, as such, we are analysing consultation responses, talking to stakeholders and reviewing relevant evidence to ensure we get it right. We will publish the guidance when this important process is complete.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington (Con)]

My Lords, I have been contacted by a number of parents and teachers who are increasingly concerned by what feels to them like a lack of urgency from the DfE. They also make the point that the teaching and content of RSHE are not covered by Ofsted inspections, and anyone can set themselves up to provide and deliver courses to schools with no qualifications. This has led to contested ideologies being taught as fact, and age-inappropriate material being shown to children. Many parents are still reporting that schools are unwilling to share the content of the lessons with them. Why are parents being kept in the dark about what their children are being exposed to in schools? Does the Minister consider this to be a satisfactory way for RSHE to be delivered?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I would certainly share concerns if parents did not feel that they were being properly engaged with on what their children were being taught, both on the overall policy and in being able to look at the specific materials that are being taught. It is precisely in order to ensure that children’s well-being and the confidence of parents are achieved that we are taking our time on this work.

[Lord Cashman (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, relationship and sex education must be inclusive if it is to achieve its aims of sustaining and protecting the young person or child. There must be no return to the days of Section 28 and the promotion of prejudice and ignorance. Therefore, does the Minister agree that education must be about allowing young people the space to become themselves and not who others would wish them to become?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I certainly agree that we do not want to go back to the days of Section 28 and intolerance throughout society. It is important that children get the opportunity at the appropriate time to learn, from trusted teachers and with the support of their parents, the precise skills and knowledge that will enable them to grow up safe and, as the noble Lord says, in a way that will give them a fulfilled life.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, the 2019 RSHE guidance was praised for its robust, evidence-based, cross-party and cross-sector support. Will my noble friend the Minister take note of concerns that revised guidance could undermine children’s access to protective and preventive education if teachers are not supported to engage with the questions that pupils seek answers to when looking to understand the real world around them? If children are forced to turn to the internet for their education, does my noble friend agree that this carries real risks?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right that one of the important decisions that schools need to be supported in making is delivering the right content at the right time for students to gain, from trusted sources, the information that they need to grow up properly and to keep themselves safe. That is of course our key aim in reviewing the guidance, ensuring that children’s well-being is at the heart of it. That includes ensuring that they have the knowledge they need at the right time to help them to be safe.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I have taught more PSHE days than I care to remember. The fact that in secondary schools they are a stand-alone day once a term enables some parents to keep their children at home to avoid the uncomfortable truth that homosexuality, religious tolerance and contraception are part of a normal society. I too get the impression that relationship, sex and health education in schools is down the list of priorities. Can the Government urgently find a way for us to teach these vital topics, plus citizenship, in a more effective way?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope I can reassure the noble Lord that it certainly is not down the list of priorities. It is precisely because we need to provide guidance that identifies children’s best interests and the well-being of children, having drawn on a considerable process of engaging with a wide range of stakeholders, that we are taking our time to get it right.

[The Lord Bishop of Norwich]

My Lords, the Church of England’s National Society for Education is proud to be part of the White Ribbon project, whose aim is to prevent men’s violence against women and girls by addressing its root causes. In our Church schools, we support the ability to explore these themes in collective worship, RSHE curricula and class time. What plans do His Majesty’s Government have to address the root causes of violence against women and girls in their revised guidance?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes a really important point about one of the areas where relationship, sex and health education can make an important difference. Education has a key role to play in the prevention of violence against women and girls, and it is therefore essential to the Government’s safer streets mission. We want to ensure that the revised guidance enables schools to tackle harmful behaviour and helps to ensure that misogyny is stamped out and not allowed to proliferate in schools. I commend the efforts of the right reverend Prelate and his colleagues in supporting us to do that.

[Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)]

My Lords, what action are the Government taking to ensure that relationship and sex education in all schools includes medically accurate and evidence-based information about contraception and reproductive health?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Precisely as I suggested, it is particularly because of the stakeholder engagement that commenced in December 2024 that we have not got to the point of publishing this guidance yet. That stakeholder engagement is still ongoing; it has included LGBT round tables, a round table for parents and events both online and in person for key stakeholders, teachers and local authorities. There are also plans to convene a round table for children and young people. The broadest range of voices will help us to come to the right place on this. In relation to the advisory panel that the noble Baroness mentioned, I will perhaps come back to her in writing.

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hazarika (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, we know that pornography is poisoning the minds of our young women and men. It is so important to teach men and women at a young age what healthy relationships look like, as they are often not seen at home. They are seeing the most violent, misogynistic and dangerous images. We know this hurts women, but it also hurts men who are drawn to people such as Andrew Tate. Will the Minister give us an assurance that the Government will make this education a priority?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right, which is why healthy relationships are a key part of RSHE and contribute to the Government’s mission to halve violence against women and girls in the next decade. That is why yesterday, or earlier this week, the Government also responded positively to the important work in the review of the noble Baroness, Lady Bertin, on online pornography.

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

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Smith of Malvern]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

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

My Lords, I thank the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its scrutiny of these draft regulations. This statutory instrument, which was laid in draft on 20 January, increases the limits on tuition fees that higher education providers can charge students studying undergraduate courses at approved fee cap providers in the 2025-26 academic year. It also introduces new lower tuition fee limits for foundation years in classroom-based subjects offered by approved fee cap providers, starting in the 2025-26 academic year. A separate SI making changes to maximum fees, loans and living costs support for the 2025-26 academic year was laid before the House on 13 February.

As so many noble Lords, including those present today, have witnessed at first hand, our higher education sector is something to be immensely proud of and, as I am sure they agree, to protect for this and future generations. We have spoken recently in this House about how our higher education sector is one of the best in the world, delivering internationally recognised research and teaching. It is an engine for national economic growth as well as providing important local anchor institutions, contributing significant employment, delivering local skills needs, supporting local communities and enriching society. Higher education providers change the lives of individuals by opening up new opportunities and allowing them to follow their passions. We have also heard in the House how higher education is a public good, benefiting not only those who walk through its doors but the wider communities in which the providers sit.

But now that world-leading sector is facing severe financial challenges. This House acknowledged the financial health of the sector when we debated it in the Chamber in September. With tuition fees frozen for the last seven years, universities have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income. Teaching income per student that higher education institutions receive has declined in real terms since 2015-16 and is now approaching its lowest level since 1997. The Office for Students reports that a growing number of higher education providers face significant financial difficulty. Its analysis suggests that, by 2025-26, up to 72% of providers could be in deficit and 40% will face low liquidity if no mitigating action is taken.

As many noble Lords said during our debate on financial sustainability, the time for action is now. We must ensure that our higher education sector is put on a secure footing in order to face the challenges of the next decade and to ensure that all students have confidence that they will receive the world-class education they deserve. We also need to ensure that students are receiving value from their investment. I will take each of those objectives in turn.

This SI is intended to fix the foundations and put our higher education sector on a more secure footing. It will mean that, from 1 August 2025, tuition fee limits for undergraduate courses will increase by 3.1%, in line with forecast inflation based on the RPIX inflation measure. This means an increase to a maximum of £9,535 for a standard full-time course, £11,440 for a full-time accelerated course and £7,145 for a part-time course. Increasing maximum fees has not been an easy decision, but it was the right decision to ensure that the sector has an injection of funding before it faces irreparable damage. Increasing fees will mean that providers can continue to contribute to our economic growth, globally important research and delivering for our local communities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister is right to talk about financial sustainability. She is also right to talk about how we must value students. I remember quite clearly how the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, told us at every opportunity that we needed to increase tuition fees for the sake of the university sector. It always struck me as interesting how we would laud our university sector by saying, “We have three universities in the top 10 in the world rankings” and “We have got x number in the top 100 rankings” and—

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Four.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

King’s is not yet, but will be.

--- Later in debate ---

I am deeply sympathetic to students, who would benefit from greater transparency in their choice of HE options, and to university staff, who are obviously suffering from cuts at the moment, but there is an imperative to focus on the quality of courses offered across all of our HE institutions and to build on the many truly wonderful courses that are currently offered. With those reservations, I look forward to the Minister’s reply.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. It should perhaps have been sponsored by King’s College; there was clear quality from King’s on display in the quality of the contributions made. I will endeavour to answer noble Lords’ questions but, before I turn to those questions, I would like to reiterate the importance of this SI in putting our higher education sector on a secure footing and ensuring that students receive value from their investment; I will go further into some of the challenges and questions from noble Lords on that.

First, there is recognition that this a decision made for one year. That is why I was keen to emphasise in my opening comments that, in the summer, the Government will return to a fuller programme of reform that will include a longer-term answer to the question of the financial stability of higher education. It will also recognise the considerable investment in higher education that we are asking students to make and the responsibility, therefore, on the higher education sector to maximise its contribution to the growth of the economy in its role as a civic player and an anchor in communities; to ensure the quality of both teaching and the student experience; to close the gap in access and participation in higher education; and to ensure that that is done on the basis of efficiency and value for money.

I hear the call from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for the Government to listen widely to contributions made on those reform pillars. That is the reason why, at the point at which we announced our decision to increase maximum tuition fees, we set out our determination to come back with that programme of reform. I will certainly reflect on many of the points that noble Lords have made today as we go forward on that work. I will want to hear—even if I did not want to, I am sure that I would—noble Lords’ views on all of those areas of reform.

On the point made by several noble Lords about the impact of national insurance contributions, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the Office for Students’ estimate that the employer national insurance contribution changes will result in additional costs for the sector of £133 million in 2024-25 and £430 million each year from 2025-26. However, although noble Lords have rightly called for recognition of the value of higher education and its impact on other areas of public service, it is also important to recognise the Chancellor’s challenge, as set out in the Budget, in raising the revenue required to fund public services and restore economic stability. It is important to recognise that that required difficult decisions on tax, which is why this Government are asking employers to contribute more through national insurance contributions. We strongly believe that this is the fairest choice to help fund the NHS and wider national priorities.

The HE finance and funding system needs to work for students, taxpayers and providers. The fee increase represents a significant additional investment from students into the sector. As I say, that will both support higher education providers in managing the financial challenges that they face and bring a responsibility for them to engage in the type of reform focus that I outlined earlier.

Several noble Lords asked about not only the process for repayments but the way in which students starting their higher education, and others, understand the consequences of taking on the loans that enable them to cover the cost of tuition up front. We understand that some students may worry about the impact that the increased fee limits will have on the size of their loans. As other noble Lords have done, we want to reassure students that, when they start repaying their loans, they will not see higher monthly repayments as a result of these changes to fee and maintenance loans.

That is, of course, because student loans are not like consumer loans. Monthly repayments depend on earnings, not simply the amount borrowed or interest rates. At the end of any loan term, any remaining loan balance, including interest that has built up, will be cancelled. I hope, therefore, that those considering higher education will recognise both the enormous and broad benefits that come from higher education and the fair and manageable way in which they will be expected to repay out of their higher earnings—from higher education—the contribution that has been made towards their education.

I will be very pleased to meet the noble Lord, Lord Willetts—I am sorry that we have not already organised it—to learn from his experience, to consider his scars and to think about what we could gain from that as part of our longer-term thinking.

The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, talked about her contribution to the independent Augar review and the conclusion it came to on foundation years. She welcomed the Government’s approach on this, but it is fair to challenge us to continue to monitor the levels of enrolment and see what the impact is. We could undertake to do that. She also made the important point that we need to be clear that students are accessing this level of education preparatory for higher education in the right institution. That is why another important area of focus for this Government and for the higher education reform process will be a greater emphasis on routes for students—particularly in the collaboration between higher and further education—and ensuring that they get the opportunity to learn at the appropriate institution, cost and time. We are clear about the contributions that institutions in further and higher education can play in that.

A couple of weeks ago, I was very impressed to see the relationship between the University of Birmingham and an FE college in Birmingham, where students were studying the first two years of an engineering degree before going on to gain that degree at the University of Birmingham in the third year. That is the type of innovative approach to opening up access and to high-quality pathways that we are keen to see more of.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, rightly emphasised and recognised the arguments that the Government have been making around value for money. He also described how that is not always necessarily best measured by a direct correlation with earnings from a particular degree, quite often within a relatively short period of time. It is important to think about how we measure that: how it might be influenced by the different types of institution, particularly those which might be contributing more to social mobility, and what the impact of that quite crude measure would be on those choosing to go into our public services.

I was taken back to an event I attended where the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, spoke about his recent pamphlet on precisely this issue. It is complex, and it is important that we do not make a direct correlation, as occasionally the last Government fell into, between earnings levels and the quality of particular courses, particularly when that tips over into a suggestion—I am sure that the noble Baroness never did this—that there are Mickey Mouse courses and others. There is quality in higher education courses. Although it is important, as the noble Lord rightly says, to ensure that that quality is properly and broadly measured, including through the TEF, crude measures may not necessarily help us make the best decisions here. However, ensuring quality in higher education is an important element of the Government’s reforms that we will say more about.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, rightly focused on the student experience. He makes a fair point that we should have high expectations of higher education, increasing expectations such that students not only can access university but succeed in their time there, whether they choose to stay close to home—there are benefits to that—or to travel. We also need to ensure that universities are working closely with local authorities and others to make sure that the costs and quality of accommodation and the impact on students of the broader need for accommodation in university areas are properly considered. As I have said, the noble Lord volunteered to contribute ideas towards the higher education reform work that we are doing, which I welcome.

I have covered some of the points and questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, but she made a specific point about the foundation fee reduction falling on a few providers. It is likely not to fall equally across providers and to fall on particular providers. It will be important for the OfS to consider that in its analysis of financial stability.

Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Thursday 27th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

I thank noble Lords for their responses to the Statement made earlier this week by the Secretary of State, in which she spelled out very clearly the delivery plans for the Government’s commitment to deliver on their pledge to provide free breakfast clubs in every state-funded school with primary-age children. Let us reflect on what that means for those children. Evidence shows that, where schools run breakfast clubs, they report improvements to pupil’s behaviour, attendance and attainment. We want every school, child and family to have the chance of those benefits.

In response to the noble Baroness, I think that is where this scheme builds on—in some ways it is fundamentally larger and more significant—the national breakfast club programme, which has previously been running. I know there will have been some enormously good work and pupils will have benefited, but it is not universal; it is not open to every child and every school, and it is not necessarily free. That is the difference in the proposals this Government are putting forward, which are being tested and will be evaluated and developed through the early adopters scheme the Secretary of State announced earlier this week. Some 750 schools, chosen from a whole range of different sizes, regions and levels of deprivation, will have the opportunity to test it.

In response to the question about the continuation of the national breakfast club programme, we have committed to continue that until March 2026 for all those involved. After that, we will make decisions based on the spending review which, of course, is coming soon. The funding made available in the early adopters scheme is not just for food; it is for delivery, staff and food. Compared with the previous scheme, an average school would receive £24,000 as part of this scheme, which is £21,000 more than they would have received as part of the national breakfast club programme. We can see there the scale of the ambition of this breakfast clubs policy.

On the case reported by the BBC, I can assure the noble Baroness that the BBC has now changed that story because it was wrong. There are 754 schools that have accepted and will be part of the early adopters scheme. There is a very small number the department is in discussion with about the details of those arrangements and making sure that they are able to continue. But the vast majority of the schools have taken up this very important opportunity. I think we will learn a lot from their experience about how we can ensure the national rollout.

On the £450 figure, of course, not only are children being provided with breakfast, but they are also being provided with 30 minutes of free childcare as part of the breakfast scheme. A calculation of the value of 30 minutes of free childcare five days a week gives us a figure of up to £450 that could potentially be saved by parents. At a time when parents face considerable cost of living pressures, I am sure that this will be widely adopted and welcomed by parents.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, argued that this should be something that is happening at lunchtime as opposed to breakfast time. The Government already rightly spend a considerable amount of money on free school meals for those who are eligible, but what is being provided here is something universal for all children and free at the beginning of the day. Although it was some time ago for me, I had some sympathy with his picture of the parent in the morning struggling to get themselves and their children organised, and to get themselves to work and their children to school.

However, I have to say that I think that struggle would be made easier by the idea that your child—I would not want anybody to think this ever happened to my children—is not being flung out of the car just before school to start the day in some disarray without having had a proper breakfast, or the time to settle into the school day in a way that is likely to make them calmer and more able to learn. The idea is that not only are we providing children with a breakfast, but we are also providing them with a calm start to the day, and we are providing their families with an additional 30 minutes of childcare first thing in the morning when it is often very needed in order for parents to get to work.

On the point the noble Lord raised about the quality of the food, of course that is important. It is not true that school food standards only apply at lunchtime. They also apply to what will be served in breakfast clubs. That will ensure the quality of food available for those children.

Breakfast clubs will ensure that every child, no matter their circumstances, can achieve their full potential by providing a supportive start to the day. I hope noble Lords will feel able to celebrate and support the scheme, and that we are all able to learn from the 750 early adopters how we can make this policy a real success.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the innovation set out in the Statement, but I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will agree that it is of such importance that it should be properly evaluated. She mentioned evaluation in answer to one of the other questions, but it would be very helpful if she could tell the House what this evaluation and monitoring will consist of. There is some scepticism about take-up. If we are to succeed in reaching children living in poverty, it is important that we get to those children from very disadvantaged homes. That should be part of the evaluation.

We also need to see what works and what does not. I would be grateful if my noble friend could put more flesh on what she said about evaluation and tell us when it might be completed. What steps will the Government then take to publicise it, so that local authorities and teachers can see it and officials and Ministers can move to make changes where they are needed?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point. It is at the heart of the early adopters scheme that, exactly as she says, we are able to see in different circumstances, with different types of schools and different needs of children—there are 50 special schools included in the 750—how the scheme works and therefore learn what more we need to do.

In order to ensure that that happens, we will engage with academics to be able to evaluate it. We will make sure that there is peer-to-peer learning throughout the early adopters scheme. We will then want to reflect further on that evaluation to think about how we develop and roll out the scheme nationally. I am sure that I will be able to come back to this House with more information about what we have learned from the early adopters scheme and how we are intending to put that into operation to deliver the whole scheme.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, there are many different schemes in addition to the one the Government have just announced, which aim to provide breakfast for children in schools. How and through which government departments will these be co-ordinated? I ask this because I fear that there is a siloed approach to many of these schemes, which means that there will be gaps in the service provided If there were proper co-ordination through a department that is overtly in charge of these schemes, those gaps would not occur.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is right that some good schemes are already in place but, to reiterate, none is universal or free. The breakfast club commitment that will be brought into law through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will come to this House soon, will ensure that there are no gaps because there will be universal provision across all state-funded schools with primary-age pupils. It will be co-ordinated by the DfE, supported in some of the ways I have outlined. That is how we will get coherence and opportunity for everybody. To be fair, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, also pointed out the benefit of a universal scheme: it removes the stigma associated with schemes targeted specifically at some children.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, as someone whose daughter has just started breakfast club this week for the first time, I absolutely recognise their value for children and parents. The Minister was helpfully clear that the key difference in the Government’s approach is that it is about universality and a free-to-use service. She was also clear that the intention is for the funding to cover food and childcare, but there is a bit of a tension in those two statements. The IFS has been clear that the funding available is sufficient to cover all pupils if it covers only food costs, but that it would cover only about 60% of pupils if it covered food and childcare costs. While I welcome the Minister’s clarity that the intention is to cover food and childcare, it seems that the Government are missing about 40% of the funding needed to do so on a universal basis.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We do not believe that that is the case. With the considerable additional money that will go into schools—£24,000 for an average school—we believe that it is possible to cover all the elements I outlined. However, part of the reason for having the early adopter scheme is to be able to look at how these 750 schools are delivering and the extent to which the resources are right for them to do so, and to use that to plan for how and what resources are necessary to roll that out nationally.

[The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford]

My Lords, like many other noble Lords, I welcome this Statement. How will the Government ensure that breakfast clubs will be accessible to learners with special educational needs and disabilities who may usually be supported by one-to-one staff during the school day?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point. As I suggested earlier, 50 of the 750 schools in the early adopter scheme are special schools and will receive a higher rate per pupil. They will give us the opportunity to see what design, level of staffing and type of organisation work best for those children. Equally, for schools that are not special schools, we are clear that these breakfast clubs need to be available for all children, including those with special educational needs. Being able to evaluate and look at the experience of the early adopters will help us ensure that we can deliver that.

[Baroness Brown of Silvertown (Lab)]

My Lords, I once represented an area that had massive child poverty and where children had great needs. I have been told by children that it was not their turn to eat that night. I have been told by teachers that children stand by their friends to have the leftovers of their packed lunch because their family cannot provide food for them. Is there any flexibility in this scheme for children who find it almost impossible to get to a breakfast club because of its timing? Many of the children I once represented are in temporary accommodation and homes. They move around quite a lot and often find themselves having to access their school via three or four bus journeys, which makes it almost impossible for them to get in for an 8.30 am or 8.15 am breakfast club. If we could feed those children at break time to give them that extra start and boost, I am sure that would be most welcomed by teachers, parents and children. Is there flexibility to allow that to happen?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes an enormously important point from a position of considerable experience. The intention is that this club happens before school and provides childcare and food, but I take her point about children in particular need of food who find it particularly difficult to access it at that time. I will certainly take that away and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and Minister Morgan, who are responsible for this and, I am sure, will want to think carefully about it as part of the early adopter scheme.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, in the Statement, the Secretary of State asserted that there are areas underserved with childcare places yet overwhelmed with demand. I am very conscious that it is a statutory duty of local councils to provide sufficient childcare places, so I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me and place in the Library evidence that they are underserved. When I was in government and took this up with the Department for Education, I was assured that there was no evidence of childcare being underserved. Going further, I respectfully say to the Minister that the increase in employer national insurance will have a massive effect on childcare provision. I would be grateful if she could address whether any impact assessment has been done on that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The last Government, rightly, had an objective of ensuring a considerable expansion of the availability of childcare entitlements. For example, there was an objective to increase the free entitlement, from this September, from 15 hours to 30 hours for all children from nine months to two years to match the entitlement delivered for three and four year-olds, which was ramped up last September. The problem was that, while there was a pledge, there was no plan to ensure that that provision was available in all parts of the country. That is why this Government have worked enormously hard, alongside local authorities, to make sure that that plan is in place and backed up by sufficient investment—£8 billion will be spent on childcare entitlements, which is a £2 billion increase in funding for entitlements compared to last year. It is also why we announced the £75 million expansion grant to support providers for children using the new entitlements, delivered through local authorities. On the national insurance contributions point, we will also make available £25 million for public sector providers of childcare via local authorities.

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

For the scheme to be successful, will the Minister address some of the concerns raised by teachers about which facilities will be made available—ideally, it should not be a classroom—and who will provide the care? I am sure she does not wish teachers to have to extend their already long working day.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness asks precisely some of the questions that the early adopter scheme will enable us to consider. I agree that teachers should not be extending their day to do this. Schools will find different ways to think about the staffing of these clubs, which we can look at in the early adopter scheme, and the accommodation in which to do it. I do not necessarily agree that it would not be appropriate to use a classroom; some schools might think that is the best way of doing it. There is the flexibility, if necessary, to use premises close to the school if that is more appropriate. However, those are very legitimate questions. The early adopter scheme will help us iron them out and find the best practice that I am sure schools will develop.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

I want to follow up one of the questions that has already been put to my noble friend. I was very pleased to hear the number of SEN schools that are part of the project. Has the Minister had talks with transport authorities about getting children with SEN to their school earlier, in time to have the meal? We all know that those transport arrangements can go awry for all sorts of reasons; if talks are not being held, this might add extra complexity that could jeopardise the system.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend makes a very important point, which links to the point about children with turbulent lifestyles and how they can get to school on time. I will certainly take it back to my honourable friend Minister Morgan, to think about in the development of this. As he is very good at this sort of stuff, I am sure he has already thought about it, but I will make sure that he has.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, child obesity is one of the biggest problems that we face. I welcome the direction of travel and the opportunities this presents to address some of the long-standing problems. The Minister mentioned that school food standards would be applied. I see a wink from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on the Benches opposite, given the number of interventions I made to her about the quality of school food standards being, in my view, inadequate, and the lack of enforcement. Can the Minister say what enforcement we will be applying? What standards will we have about the quality of the food? Is it not important that we spend more time looking at that, during this experimental period, to get the model right for the future?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend’s point about school food standards is a broader one and very important. I have previously told the House that, during my first time round in the Department for Education, I had the joy of being heavily lobbied to introduce school food standards in the first place, and I am very glad that we did. However, my noble friend makes the legitimate point that it is important that we keep those school food standards under review. There may be some learning from this scheme. I know that my colleagues in the department are keen to ensure that we have not only the right standards but the right ways of ensuring that they are delivered universally across schools. That is something that my noble friend will have the opportunity to badger me about in future months and years.

[Lord Desai (CB)]

My Lords, there seems to be uniformity, in that everybody has to have breakfast. Why cannot some schools have breakfast and others have lunch? I always went to school in the morning and always had lunch at home, so I did not have breakfast. I do not think my concentration was affected at all. It is a matter of choice, and one that should be given to students.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Choice depends on there being provision. At the moment, there is not universal free provision of breakfast clubs for those children—probably their parents, frankly, at that age—who choose that to be the right thing for them. There will not be compulsory attendance at these breakfast clubs, but they will be available for anybody who wants them. I come back to the point about lunch, and reiterate that the Government are already rightly spending a considerable amount of money on providing free school meals at lunchtime for around 3.5 million children and young people. That will remain for those children.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, notwithstanding the results of the pilots, can the Minister tell us whether the department, or indeed head teachers, are encouraging children to stay at home to have breakfast, because it is quite valuable for the family unit? I realise that breakfast clubs are an idea, and I am interested to see what the pilots are doing, but this could be run in parallel.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

There is enormous value in families being able to sit down and eat together. My personal experience is that breakfast is not necessarily the most likely time to bring fruitful conversation and calm family time. To reiterate my point, any family who wants to carry on having breakfast together as a family should of course be able to do so. The point is that, for those who want their children to have a smooth start to school, the opportunity to be part of the club for 30 minutes, and the chance to have their breakfast at school, this will be provided through the scheme.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I want to follow up the point made by noble friend Lady Coffey on the impact of the national insurance rise on childcare providers. The Minister recognised the impact that rise will have on childcare provision by saying that public sector providers will get an additional £25 million to help meet those costs. However, a lot of childcare provision is in the private sector. How are those providers meant to meet the additional costs when the rates that the Government are paying for the provision of additional free hours are not going to change?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We could have a broader debate about why it has been necessary for this Government to introduce an increase in national insurance contributions, but let us not do that today—everybody knows why, given the legacy that we had. I talked about support for the expansion of childcare and the additional £75 million that is being provided as part of the expansion grant. That will be available to private sector and other childcare providers, to support them in developing the necessary childcare.

[Baroness Coffey (Con)]

My Lords, I would be grateful if the Minister would place in the Library information about the local authorities that the Department for Education believes are underserved with childcare places. I asked the question earlier; I would appreciate it if that letter could be placed in the Library.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will undertake to come back to the noble Baroness about that. The point I was making is that we are talking not only about the current situation, in which quite a few parents would suggest that they have not been able to access childcare provision at a cost they can afford. I do not think the noble Baroness is suggesting that every parent who wants to access childcare is able to do so. That is why I gave some credit to the previous Government for recognising that, along with the significance of childcare provision, and making the pledge to increase the free entitlements. The problem was that they did not put alongside that pledge a plan and investment. It has taken this Government to turn a promise into a reality.