Higher Education Regulatory Approach

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, Liberal Democrats welcome this Statement, but for entirely different reasons from those that noble Lords have just heard from the Conservative Front Bench. This provision removes parts of the Act that we opposed during its passage through Parliament, and we welcome that; we were not persuaded that the Act as such was necessary. It was driven by the right-wing culture war against the “liberal elite”, with the Conservatives taking their cue from the Republican right and Fox News as, sadly, they so often have done in recent years.

The Act contradicted Conservative and Liberal principles of respect for autonomous bodies and limits to government regulation and state interference. The costs of litigation imposed on cash-strapped universities threatened to be heavy. The burdens on student unions were likely to be beyond their capacity to manage. The proposed duplication of complaints schemes was badly designed. The requirements for accepting outside speakers virtually unconditionally potentially opened the door to Holocaust deniers, as well as to extremists of the right and left.

A number of universities clearly made mistakes in responding to student attempts to cancel academics and visiting speakers with whom they disagreed. I recall at least one vice-chancellor admitting in a private conversation the mistakes that he had made in responding to conflicting pressures. But it is not the first time that university administrations have made mistakes in responding to student protests—this is not new. I have been on both sides of student protests and staff responses since the 1960s, with changing political crises and student generations protesting on South African apartheid, Vietnam, civil rights and race inequalities, fossil fuel investments and tuition fees.

Previous British Governments had wisely left it largely to universities as autonomous bodies to moderate intolerant demands and teach their students—and some of their staff—to disagree well and respect those with different opinions. Some of today’s student radicals have been determinedly intolerant in defending identity politics, but many on the right have also become determinedly intolerant in their anti-woke crusade.

The question of foreign funding is also difficult and delicate—but also not new. During my time at the London School of Economics, we had an embarrassing controversy over a large Middle East donation, but we later accepted a larger donation from another Middle Eastern ruler, after whom one of the LSE’s buildings is now named. There are potential problems about undue financial dependence on funding from any foreign state, especially if it is a non-democratic state. Can the Minister explain further what the reference in the Statement means when it refers to taking

“more time to consider implementation of the overseas funding measures”?

What sort of consultation with the HE sector is intended, and how long might it take?

The Act as passed was disproportionate in responding to incidents that had failed to respect freedom of speech. It was also disproportionate in the regulatory and financial burdens that it imposed on universities and student unions. I hope that the Minister will reassert that freedom of speech is a principle to be cherished, recognising how difficult that can sometimes be—and it is not a weapon to be used in a Trumpian “war against woke”.

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

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for their responses to the Statement. I am glad that the noble Baroness welcomed the decisions made by the Government, which, when I addressed the House previously in response to an Urgent Question on this issue, I emphasised would be informed by careful consideration of a difficult and challenging issue. I believe that that is what the Government have undertaken to do.

I also share the noble Baroness’s admiration for those academics, many of whom I have spoken to as part of the consultation that we have done on this, in identifying the challenges in this really difficult area and the need for some of the protections offered by the legislation. I share with them a view that there should be an absolute commitment, which this Government have, to freedom of speech and academic freedom. It was, of course, a Labour Government who first enshrined freedom of expression in law through the Human Rights Act and suggested that higher education must be a space for robust discussion, intellectual rigour and exposure to new ideas. If you go to university, you must be prepared to have your views challenged, to hear contrary opinions and uncomfortable truths, to be prepared to argue for your own beliefs, and to accept that others may hold beliefs that you disagree with. Academics must be allowed to test the truth of the ideas that shape society and participate in a free exchange of ideas, including where that causes shock and discomfort.

The noble Lord is right that those are long-standing principles. However, while they have been long standing and not negotiable, this is a difficult and contested area that has not always had the senior or thoughtful engagement that it needs from university leaders, as the noble Lord concedes. That must change. That is why we gave careful thought to which elements of the legislation were appropriate to be commenced, which areas we thought needed repeal and which needed amendment.

On the complaints system, I was struck by the number of people who argued for the need for a form of redress and by those higher education institutions which argued about the burdensome nature of the tort and the ability for anybody potentially to take complaints under the previous legislation. It was asked why we should distinguish between students and staff. The OIA already has responsibility for considering student complaints and considers some complaints about freedom of speech. It will be much clearer for students to know where to go for any complaints. I am confident that the OIA and the OfS will work closely on complaints that come to them at the same time, as the noble Baroness outlined.

On the change to the complaints system, I have a strong expectation that one of the requirements to consider a complaint will be that it has gone properly through new internal processes that universities either are setting up or will set up. It is therefore appropriate that the responsibility on the OfS for the complaints system should be a power, not a duty, thereby enabling it to choose that the complaints which get to it have the strongest thematic and sector-wide implications.

We have decided not to commence provisions that would impose new duties on student unions, which are neither equipped nor funded to navigate a complex regulatory environment, with all the potential legal and regulatory costs that will entail. Student unions are already regulated by the Charity Commission, and we fully expect them to protect freedom of speech and the higher education providers within which they operate to support their student unions to do so. That is an appropriate balance to ensure that student unions come within the ambit of the spirit of what is happening here.

On whether a JR will pose the same threat of legal action as the tort, a judicial review does not bring with it the threat of damages in most cases, unlike a civil claim. That threat, linked to the tort, caused higher education providers concern about the burdensome nature of the tort and caused them to instruct lawyers earlier. Frankly, we decided that we would rather see tight resources in higher education going to support students and staff rather than to instruct and fund lawyers.

On the point about foreign influence and overseas measures, I thought more of the noble Baroness than to trot out the slur that the timing of this had been influenced by the Chancellor’s visit. She knows that this has been under consideration for much longer than that. This Government are committed to ensuring that our world-leading universities remain free from foreign interference. Providers should expect the OfS to take regulatory action if they allow foreign Governments to interfere in free speech or academic freedom, and it can already request information from providers about overseas arrangements. We are working at pace on the implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme, which will apply to universities across the UK, but we also want to ensure that, as we work carefully on this, we keep open options around the commencement of the overseas funding measures. We will return with more information about our decision on that.

On the timing of the legislation, as the noble Baroness asked, we will come forward with more information in a policy paper on the details of how our proposals will be implemented and legislated for. That will include more information about timing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

I appreciate those clarifications, but I remind your Lordships’ House that this is questions on a Statement, not additional statements.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness probably identified the issue in her statement. The engagement of the EHRC in the legal case legitimately made it much more difficult for us to meet during the course of that process. However, as she identified, I have ensured that we can meet as soon as possible afterwards to discuss some of the substantive issues she raised.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I remind noble Lords of my interests in the register and warmly welcome the proportionate way in which the Government are acting and my noble friend’s Statement. Free speech is the lifeblood of a university. This reconsideration of the Act certainly recognises that, but all universities also recognise that they have a duty to instil a culture in which free speech flourishes.

I have two swift questions. First, on the OfS power to consider complaints, how will it ensure that its actions are proportionate? Secondly, on the conditions of regulation, the Statement says:

“The OfS should have room to determine the best way to regulate on a case-by-case basis”.


Will Parliament be consulted in any way on how it regulates?

Finally, I say to the noble Baroness opposite that universities are already putting in place codes of conduct—for example, on freedom of speech—so they are acting already.

[Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent (Lab)]

The Minister has to answer the question.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am looking forward to coming to the noble Baroness, but I will answer this question first.

I thank my noble friend and strongly agree that there is an appropriate role for legislation, as we have identified, and an enormously important role for culture, serious thinking and engagement. That perhaps needs to be focused on as well, particularly by those in leadership positions in higher education such as my noble friend. On the decisions around where the focus for the OfS should be, I put on record my admiration for the work of Dr Arif Ahmed as director of free speech, who will remain in his position. He will be able to work with higher education on some of the positive ways in which institutions can respond through best practice and discussions around identifying where the balance lies in the issues my noble friend raises.

I reiterate that I will come back with the policy paper on some of the other questions my noble friend raises. I very much welcome the fact that universities have begun to take action on developing the codes of practice and on putting in place the academic bodies and committees that will consider some of these very difficult issues around challenges to academic freedom. On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about what people should be doing, they should be continuing in a spirit of engagement with those areas of the legislation that we have been clear we are going to commence, and continuing the important work that has started.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, when the Government initially halted the legislation, we Liberal Democrats agreed that defending free speech at university was important but that the legislation was unnecessary and overbearing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, just said, free speech is obviously integral to universities. Can the Minister explain what new information came to light that requires the reintroduction of the legislation? Can she also assure us that universities will not be exposed to financial risk as a result of it?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It was exactly the position that the noble Baroness has taken that brought us to this conclusion. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are at the heart of what is good and important about our universities, but perhaps there had not been the focus on them that was necessary, particularly at a time of some quite contested ideas and difficult challenges. That was important, but it was too important, frankly, to be left to legislation that, while important in many areas, on occasion looked as if it was more about creating a headline than solving a problem. The burdensome elements of the legislation, particularly around the tort and the requirement to, essentially, lawyer up earlier on, and the impact that may well have had on universities’ decisions and the concerns of vulnerable and minority groups as a result, meant that it was right to pause the commencement of the legislation and find a more pragmatic, balanced and less burdensome way of delivering a nevertheless important objective.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome what the Minister says. I look forward to the legislation when it comes, and to it being effective. Would she take a look at extending the provisions on non-disclosure agreements to free speech issues? Knowing what has happened, what has gone wrong and how it has been solved is a really important part of improving practice, and having that supressed by NDAs does not work. Will she also look at how Clause 16 of the Employment Rights Bill will affect free speech at universities? Will she look at the effect of both of those issues on schools?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I will limit myself to the provisions on non-disclosure agreements within this legislation. It is our intention to commence the ban on non-disclosure agreements for staff and students at higher education providers in cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. The other provisions and requirements will ensure that we do not see a situation where people are being silenced when they actually need to be involved in serious consideration, with the ability to take their concerns externally to a complaints system if they are dissatisfied with what is happening within the institution.

[Lord Mann (Lab)]

The Minister will recall that I advised strongly when she was first appointed that she takes her time to get this right, considering my remit on anti-Semitism, because getting this right is essential. I commend the removal of the tort. I have met every single university leader in this country as part of my remit, and in every discussion I have advised them to de-lawyer the situation and resolve it within the universities.

My question to the Minister is referenced directly in the Statement. The Government still have available a £2 million innovation fund for dealing with anti-Semitism. Would the Minister look very seriously at how some of that fund could be used creatively to spread the good practice on how to have difficult conversations that has been developing over the last year in a number of our universities, so that those who are succeeding in doing that can do more of it and spread their expertise to further types of difficult conversations, and to other universities and beyond?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for his advice at the point at which we were making the decision and for his ongoing commitment to ensuring we are tackling anti-Semitism widely in higher education. I undertake to consider the use of that element of the £7 million of funding that the Government have made available on anti-Semitism for precisely that purpose.

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I welcome back the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act; I never wanted it to go away. I will push the Minister further on one of the points from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Can the Minister address those worried free speech societies, debating societies and ordinary students—not student bureaucrats—who feel that the removal of duties on student unions is like “a Machiavellian betrayal”, according to Student AFAF? This is because student unions are often at the vanguard of the really quite vicious hounding of student members; Jewish students have often made this point to me. The Charity Commission just does not cut it.

Finally, will the Minister put to bed this notion that the Act was ever part of a Trumpian war on woke or a hate speech charter? It was a good faith, genuine attempt at tackling spiralling attacks on free speech. We should all view it in that way, even if we disagree on the detail.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I hope that is the approach that I have tried to take. With that pragmatic approach, I reiterate that I expect student unions to behave in a way that safeguards and promotes speech and events with which they perhaps as a majority do not agree—that is an important part of the experience of being a student—but to impose on them the same level of burden imposed on the institution itself was unreasonable. That is why we took the decision that we did.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to ask questions on this Statement, particularly as the noble Lord, Lord Mann, who is sitting behind me, raised issues of anti-Semitism. In Manchester, where I live among a very large Jewish community, it is an ongoing issue that we are always very sensitive to.

We have heard a lot about free speech, which, unsurprisingly, I am in favour of, and of difficult conversations from the noble Lord, which, again, I am in favour of. But sometimes the language shades over into what can only be called mob intimidation. It is about how we make that distinction between a difficult conversation and people being intimidated by loud, vociferous, angry behaviour that seeks deliberately to make them uncomfortable.

We had a really good session in this House a couple of years ago, looking at an amendment about the rights of protesters near abortion clinics and the rights of women to access those services. I worked with Peers from all sides of the House and we came up with something that commanded massive support in the House and that I hope is proving workable. Can we just get that balance between people’s right to protest—and to speak sometimes a little loudly and emotionally—and not moving over to the point where people intimidate others and prevent them from feeling that can pursue their educational studies?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate exactly outlines the balance that we need to strike. It is wholly reasonable that students engage in protest. In fact, I engaged in a fair amount of protest with my noble friend Lord Mann during my time as a student. However, it is wholly inappropriate, as the right reverend Prelate says, if that then prevents those with whom you disagree from operating. Where serious thought has been given to this, higher education institutions have managed to find that balance between the right to protest and the requirement that views with which you disagree should not, essentially, be cancelled from campuses.

If we can work on that, and if we can also ensure that we develop that culture that we were talking about earlier, and that ability to recognise that disagreement is an important part of the experience of being in higher education, then we will have made important progress.

[Lord Verdirame (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I very much welcome the Government’s change of direction on this matter. It was reported only a few weeks ago that arms manufacturers were cancelling events at universities because of intimidation and harassment. If arms manufacturers feel compelled to cancel events in universities, one can only imagine what it must be like for a first-year undergraduate who has nonconformist views on questions such as the Middle East conflict or gender. I therefore welcome the Government’s change in direction, but I have concerns about the exclusion of student unions. Do the Government really consider that the objective of the Act can be met if student unions are not fully in scope, given that so much of the intimidation is done through student unions? Related to that, the Statement says:

“Student unions are neither equipped nor funded to navigate such a complex regulatory environment, and they are already regulated by the Charity Commission”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/1/25; col. 380.]


The Charity Commission and charity law are complex regulatory environments. If they can navigate those, why can they not navigate a piece of legislation on free speech?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I think I have made the position with respect to student unions pretty clear. In my discussions with vice-chancellors, they recognise their responsibility under the legislation to work with student unions to make sure that the type of intimidation that the noble Lord and others have talked about does not happen. Once again, we have found a pragmatic approach to ensuring progress on this issue, and I think the balance is right.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)]

My Lords, first, the Minister indicated to the House that she would be publishing guidance or regulations fairly shortly, so will this be available before the newer deadline for judicial review, which I think is July 2025? Secondly, I think I understood her to say that the reason she did not engage with the Equality and Human Rights Commission was that we were an intervener in the JR. I would like to put on record for the House that the decision to intervene happened only around 10 December. There was a period between July, when the Act was paused, and 10 December or thereabouts, when we would have been delighted to engage with her on the profound points of the public sector equality duty, as well as that of Article 10 on the right to freedom of expression.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

What I said was that we would bring forward a policy paper to outline how we were going to put in place the decisions that we have made on this. I am sorry if the noble Baroness thinks that there has not been sufficient engagement with her. All I can say is that there has been very widespread engagement with a whole range of stakeholders —probably a majority of whom supported the Act and quite a few of whom supported the totality of the Act, alongside those who actually would have preferred us to have completely repealed it. I hope and believe that what we have done is to appropriately listen and to find a responsible way through.

Primary Schools: Swimming Lessons

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hoey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the number of children in primary schools who do not have regular swimming lessons in school time.

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

My Lords, swimming and water safety is a compulsory element of the primary PE national curriculum. We do not collect data from every primary school about how many lessons pupils get, but sample data from Sport England shows that in 2023-24, 95.2% of state primary schools surveyed reported providing swimming lessons. The department also supports schools to provide swimming and water safety lessons through teacher training and resources, and the PE and sport premium for top-up lessons.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. I understand and know her personal support for school sport and swimming; in fact, we worked together many years ago on this issue. I know provision in some schools are very good, but does she agree that, because children have to be able to swim 25 metres, there is a tendency, once they tick that box, for swimming to finish for many of our youngsters, and they do not have the family support to get it outside school? Will she look again at some of the statistics that come from some of the organisations? It is sometimes in their interests to say that things are going very well. We need to look at this, so that youngsters get that life chance to swim not just safely but for fun, enjoyment and competition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question. I was reminiscing about a previous life in which we worked together as Ministers to considerably increase the sporting opportunities for children in our schools and for people more widely. She is absolutely right to identify that, although it is obviously important that children learn, as the national curriculum suggests, to swim 25 metres by the time they finish primary school, there is much more to swimming as an opportunity for life than simply meeting that standard, important though it is. We need to think about how schools can provide more opportunities for broader sporting activity, including swimming, and, of course, how our community facilities, which have been reduced in recent years, can support the broadest possible engagement, including from those children whose parents are perhaps less able to take them for swimming lessons and activities than is the case at the moment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as patron of the Royal Life Saving Society. The Minister will know that, in the 10 to 16 age group, one in three young people cannot swim; that is the group with the highest occurrence of drowning. More shockingly, within the black community, 95% of adults and 80% of children cannot swim; the figures are roughly the same in the Asian community. These are shocking figures. Does the Minister agree that it is time we had an action plan so we can ensure that every child who leaves school can swim?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point about the discrepancies in achievement in children’s swimming. He is absolutely right that if someone comes from a well-off background they are more than 80% likely to have fulfilled the requirement, whereas that goes down to a third for someone from a poorer background. As he also rightly says, there is a real difference depending on someone’s ethnic background. That is completely unsatisfactory.

Although work is ongoing through the Inclusion 2024 project to try to ensure that more children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, get access to swimming, the noble Lord is right that there is more we all need to do together, and across government, to ensure that children meet the required standard by the time they leave primary school. Furthermore, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hoey, identified in her previous question, we need to ensure that they are also able to get the enjoyment and opportunities that come from being able to swim confidently.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a teacher. Swim England reports that, since 2011, almost 500 publicly accessible pools have closed, and that child drowning deaths have doubled in the last four years. Would the Minister agree that it is difficult to swim if you do not have a pool?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I strongly agree with the noble Lord. As he says, there are 500 fewer public-access swimming pools operational in England now than there were in 2010. Alongside that, there has been a 7% increase in the pay-per-swim cost in the last year. Whether in schools, where we need to make sure that teachers are supported with the skills to develop children’s basic swimming skills, or in the provision across our communities more widely, there is more we need to do to support swimming.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the Minister has spoken about the correlation between ethnicity and poverty. We often talk about the cost of a school uniform, but there is no need for swimwear or anything of that nature to be branded. Are His Majesty’s Government looking at whether the cost of additional items such as swimwear is part of the barrier to kids, who grow so quickly, accessing swimming lessons, as well as the lack of facilities?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness identifies probably one of the many barriers that prevent parents and their children being able to swim if they are living in poverty. I am not aware of whether expecting branded swimming items is a barrier to children being able to swim, but if it is that is clearly wrong. I suspect that would be covered by the provisions in the Bill that we will receive in the near future to ensure that school uniform is not a barrier to children being able to learn, in this case, a very important skill.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, as we have heard, under the last Tory Government a lot of swimming baths were closed. The failure of that Government is a fact that they do not like to be reminded of. Is it not the case that deprived areas had their pools closed? Should we not look again at whether we should provide new swimming pools in the most deprived parts of Britain?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is right. I have already identified the decrease in the number of public pools, as others have. He also makes an important point about ensuring that there is access to public leisure facilities on a fair basis. The responsibility for that lies at the local authority level. We are continuing to encourage local authorities to invest in leisure facilities, notwithstanding the considerable pressures on their funding that they have faced over recent years.

[The Earl of Effingham (Con)]

My Lords, unfortunately, sport in schools has been described as in “crisis”, with a “Covid cohort” of children not returning to physical activity. The neglect of sport is leading to catastrophic effects on childhood obesity and mental health, and evidence suggests that many children are now addicted to their phones. Can the Minister please deliver on what her Prime Minister said, which was that children are being

“locked out of emulating their heroes”

because of a lack of PE provision? Will she commit to focusing on there being no mobile phones in schools and more physical education in the curriculum?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am trying not to be grumpy in answering this Question today, as I was a bit grumpy yesterday. However, the noble Earl has a bit of a cheek talking about the crisis in PE provision in our schools. This Government have acted quickly, but have been in government for only six months. The 6.7 percentage point decrease in those able to swim 25 metres unaided, compared with 2017-18, cannot be laid at the feet of this Government.

Having said that, there is a range of ways in which we want to reinvigorate sport, PE and other opportunities for children in our schools, whether by increasing the number or teachers, by increasing the funding that we have provided or by ensuring that the capital funding is there for provision. We take seriously the responsibility to ensure that every child has access to the sporting activities that are so important for both their health and their future opportunity.

[Baroness Pinnock (LD)]

My Lords, in response to an earlier question, the Minister said that local government could fund additional swimming pools where they have been closed. I am asking her to put her realism hat on to say where that funding will come from. Would she be prepared to go to her department to see whether grants are available for local government to fund new swimming pools, particularly in areas such as Dewsbury in my council, where there is no public swimming pool?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

To be completely clear, I said that it is a responsibility of local authorities to provide swimming pools. I also conceded that, over recent years, those local authorities have faced considerable financial challenges. I recognise that that is the cause of the issue my noble friend raised. I am not in a position, at this point, from this Dispatch Box, to promise largesse to local authorities. I am sure that the Government are aware of the many challenges local councils face, and we will work, when we can, to help alleviate them.

Erasmus Programme

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 20th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Balfe]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to fulfil demand for the revival or replacement of the Erasmus programme.

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

My Lords, following the UK’s departure from the EU, the Government introduced the Turing scheme in 2021, which provides grants for students to study and work anywhere in the world and has supported tens of thousands of UK students since its launch. In addition, we are working with the higher education sector to ensure that our world-leading universities continue to attract the brightest and best. However, we have no plans for rejoining the Erasmus programme.

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, the EU clearly wants a new EU mobility scheme for youth, and there is a great demand for that among young people in Britain. It would strengthen our society, labour market and economy, so why do the Government—as did, in fairness, the previous Government—seem so hell-bent on avoiding any commitment to a European solution?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We are, of course, already engaged in defining the important reset of our relationship with the EU. That is why the Prime Minister and the European Commission President met in the autumn to agree to strengthen our relationship. My right honourable friend, Minister Thomas-Symonds, has been taking discussions forward with his counterpart. We will look at EU proposals on a range of issues, but there are no plans for a youth mobility scheme and we will not return to freedom of movement.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that a critical advantage of Erasmus is reciprocity, which is lacking in the Turing scheme?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Turing scheme focuses on ensuring that UK students in higher education, learners in further education and school pupils are able to take advantage of studying or working abroad. I am encouraged that, of those taking part in the scheme in 2024-25, 53% are from disadvantaged backgrounds. The focus remains on providing opportunities for UK students to experience the benefits of studying and working abroad.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the scheme that has been running in Wales with the support of all parties there. None the less, I think there is an acceptance across parties in Wales that the full Erasmus scheme was much more beneficial for everybody in both directions. The reopening of it would not necessarily prejudice the attitude towards other questions relating to the European Union. Surely the Government can make an example of this one to get progress in its own right.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am not sure that, if you are engaged in a quite important reset as the UK Government are, it makes enormous sense to pick and choose the different issues on which you might negotiate. I acknowledge the noble Lord’s recognition of Taith, the Welsh Government’s international learning exchange programme, which, like the Turing scheme, provides important opportunities.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, David Lammy said that he wanted to reinvigorate our relationship with the EU. Would not the Erasmus scheme, or something very like it, be a good step towards that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We are already resetting our relationship with our European friends, to strengthen ties, to secure a broad-based security pact and to tackle barriers to trade. The President of the European Council has invited the Prime Minister to meet EU leaders in Brussels on 3 February, where the Prime Minister is looking forward to discussing enhanced strategic co-operation with the EU. We are also resetting our bilateral relationships alongside our ambition for our wider reset with the EU, as demonstrated by the Prime Minister’s recent visits to France, Germany, Ireland and Italy.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister tell us why the Government have no plans to join Erasmus? She has stated flatly that we do not have plans to, but why not, when the Erasmus scheme was recognised by both main parties when in government as one of the major advantages of being in the EU?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Erasmus scheme may well have been a major advantage, but we had to leave that scheme at the point at which we left the EU in 2020.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, did I imagine it or, when the Labour Party was in opposition, did we not hear endless questions condemning the previous Government for not joining Erasmus? What has brought about this change of mind? Has the penny finally dropped that, as the Minister answering the previous Question said, it is better to take back control?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

As I have just said, there were considerable benefits to being part of the Erasmus scheme, but of course the UK ceased to participate in Erasmus as a programme country after leaving the EU on 31 January 2020—a decision for which this Government were not responsible, but we need to clear up the mess.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, what is the objection in principle to having youth exchanges as part of a reset?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is important that we provide opportunities for our young people to study and work abroad. That is what the Turing scheme is currently doing, to an extent. I am pleased that in the past year it ensured that disadvantaged students in particular were able to take advantage of it. As I have already said, as part of our reset, we will consider in the round any proposals that we believe to be of advantage to our country and to our young people.

[Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister understand that the idea of Erasmus is not simply about British students going to other countries but about a genuine exchange at the stage in life when it can fundamentally change people’s experiences and help the United Kingdom in future? It is a form of soft power and would be beneficial whether as part of a wider reset or not, whatever one’s attitudes to the European Union may be.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand that, and I understand the benefits that come, for example, to our higher education sector from international students coming to the UK. That is why the Government have set out the valuable contribution that international students make to our universities, our communities and our country—and, of course to our economy in terms of the £12.1 billion fee income that comes from those students. I wholly understand the noble Baroness’s point. That is why I hope that, in future, we will be able to build on that to ensure that people can come to the UK to benefit from our education system.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, perhaps I can give the Minister a little relief from talking about Erasmus by talking about the Turing scheme itself. Yesterday, the DfE published the updated guidelines for Turing applicants for 2025-26, which appear pretty much identical to those published under the previous Government. Can she confirm that the funding will be maintained for this year? Given how oversubscribed Turing is, will there be any shift in priorities between schools, colleges and universities?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am pleased that we are able to continue the Turing scheme for the coming year, with £105 million allocated this year. I will come back to the noble Baroness on the allocation for next year. My wish is that we make even further progress than has been the case this year on ensuring that those who can benefit from it are participants from disadvantaged backgrounds, who would not otherwise have that opportunity.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I certainly welcome the Turing scheme, but it is not the same thing as Erasmus. The important thing about Erasmus is that it is not just about education; as we have heard, it is about the wider cultural exchange of ideas. With respect, I do not think that the Minister answered my noble friend Lord Clancarty’s question about reciprocity. We do not accept people from abroad. Is that not surely the whole nature of an exchange of ideas?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I talked about the considerable benefits that come to our country and our higher education system from the ability of international students to come to study in the UK. We are also committed as a department to ensuring school visits and other opportunities for exchange. We can, where possible, eradicate some of the challenges that have arisen in relation to children going to experience visits in the rest of Europe and to students being able to come to the UK. Of course, we recognise the benefit that comes from language assistants, for example, being able to come to the UK. I do not think it is true that I have not recognised that, but that is different from committing to a specific programme at this point in the UK’s reset with the EU.

State Schools: Creative Education

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Keeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the value to state school pupils of school visits to theatres, museums and galleries, and of the value of a creative education for all pupils.

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

My Lords, a creative education and enriching experience must be for all, not just the preserve of the privileged few. Drama and theatre studies students at GCSE and A-level are entitled to experience live theatre, and schools can and do decide which other visits to offer to other students. But it is also important that students can benefit during curriculum and lesson time. That is why the independent curriculum and assessment review will seek to deliver a broader curriculum and consider how best to support a young person to develop the knowledge and skills needed to thrive.

[Baroness Keeley (Lab)]

My Lords, there is evidence that the experience of attending live theatre helps children to learn, while structured arts activities at school increase cognitive skills across all subject areas. Companies like the Royal Ballet and Opera and the RSC are doing amazing work in opening their doors to schools, but the Sutton Trust still reports that state school trips were cut by 68% in the most disadvantaged schools in 2023. Further, since the introduction of EBacc and Progress 8 there has been a systematic downgrading of arts subjects and experiences in state schools. Can my noble friend the Minister tell me if it is a priority for the Government to start to reverse these trends and to ensure access to a creative education and arts experiences for all state school pupils in order to help build their confidence and skills?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend rightly identifies that there has been a decline in student entries into, for example, the arts and creative GCSEs, a reduction in the number of staff available to teach them, and a fall-off in the ability of schools to support students with visits and the type of experiences that she rightly outlines. That is why it is so important for this Government that we ensure that creative subjects such as art, music and drama are important elements of the education that every child deserves, and that we do better in ensuring that culture is an essential part of supporting children and young people.

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of Tate. May I say to the Minister how reassuring it is to see an Education Minister addressing this Question? To make arts education as effective as possible, close working between the Department for Education and DCMS is essential. I am afraid that money involved. For example, visiting a theatre or museum costs schools money and many of these museums have to find money from their own budgets as well. Will the Minister meet with her counterpart in DCMS and look at a strategy in the round to engage our schoolchildren in meaningful visits to theatres and museums, with some financial support to help that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is absolutely right. It is important for those of us in the Department for Education to work across government with DCMS colleagues in this area, and I assure him that that is already happening. We are making sure that, as he will know, the £444 million being invested in arts by this Government and the Arts Council is used to the best potential. He will also know that 79% of the national portfolio supported by that money is already delivering activities specifically for children and young people. We need to ensure that schools and children are able to benefit from that.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

I thank you for being allowed to speak. Will the Minister take on board that museums often tell you certain things about development, for example, and the importance of design and technology? Unless you can develop the mouse to work with the computer—something we can all use easily—it does not happen and does not become a mass tool. That information is best conveyed by showing it. Can the Minister make sure that this is an important part of the curriculum for those subjects?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord makes an important point about the benefits to children’s learning of being able to see the development and design of ideas; I wholeheartedly agree with him. That will be an important part of our thinking on how we support existing initiatives, so that children can benefit, and so that, through the curriculum, those opportunities are not only available but supported, particularly for disadvantaged children, who have too often missed out.

[Lord Bird (CB)]

Can we also include, while we are at it, young people in the custodial system? I am here only because I did art and creative things when I was in a juvenile detention centre. Unfortunately, a lot of those opportunities have disappeared in our custodial system for young people.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I have no doubt that a broad education, which also enables children and young people to engage in creative activities, is one of the things that protects against some of the circumstances the noble Lord identifies. As I have my noble friend Lord Timpson sitting alongside me on the Front Bench—

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

He is over there.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

He flits. I have no doubt that my noble friend has also heard what the noble Lord has to say. He is a strong advocate to me and other Ministers of the need to ensure that, in everything we provide, those in custody can also benefit, because of what it means for them as individuals and for their future ability not to reoffend.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I know that His Majesty’s Government are particularly concerned about opportunities for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Can the Minister update the House on how those children are able to access these trips, particularly bearing in mind the correspondence that I am sure she will have seen from the special educational needs and disabilities transport operators? They have concerns about the impact of the increase in national insurance contributions on their ability to take 200,000 children to school every day.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right to identify that, if we believe that these opportunities are important for children, they must be perhaps even doubly important for children with special educational needs and disabilities. That is why, in trying to mend the special educational needs system we have inherited, we will focus on ensuring that it is inclusive and enables all children—whether in mainstream schools or special schools—to benefit from the things that will support them. We will also find ways—for example, through the music opportunities pilot, launched last autumn—to offer disadvantaged and special educational needs pupils across primary and secondary schools the opportunity to learn to play an instrument of their choice or to learn to sing, with free lessons. We are committed to this, and we will continue to develop it.

[The Lord Bishop of Leeds]

My Lords, schools feed in to universities, and the number of arts and humanities departments in universities has been in decline. I learned recently—and I speak as a linguist—that if all the students currently training in modern languages at university were to go into teaching, we would still only fund 70% of the language-teaching posts. This is a systemic problem in the arts and humanities. Trying to get PhD funding for arts and humanities is increasingly difficult. Will the Government commit to looking at the whole stream of the educational system in this respect, and not just schools?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right that, in order to offer opportunities to children, we need to have the qualified teachers in place to deliver them. That is why this Government are committed to recruiting 6,500 more teachers and, of course, have in place the £10,000 tax-free bursary for teachers of art and design and music. It also means that we have to ensure that our higher education institutions receive the support necessary to develop these subjects. That means overall support for the financial sustainability of higher education, alongside the specific funding we make available to support high-cost subjects such as performing and creative arts subjects and media studies. There is also the government grant that we provide for small and specialist providers that are recognised as world-leading, of which, out of the 20 we support, 12 are creative and performing arts providers.

Qualifications Reform Review

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

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

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

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


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

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

State-funded Schools: Special Educational Needs

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 11th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

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

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

Children with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vocational Training

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Finn]

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

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

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

[Baroness Finn (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[The Lord Bishop of Sheffield]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

Maintained Schools: Term Dates

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carrington]

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

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

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

[Lord Carrington (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Laming (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

Higher Education Sector

Baroness Smith of Malvern Excerpts

Wednesday 4th December 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

My Lords—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Patel (CB)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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