Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 19th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support Amendments 76 and 80, for the obvious reason so clearly set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, and others that unless full funding is available, many students who could benefit from and would in turn benefit society by attending these courses will simply not be able to do so through poverty. This applies to a significant proportion of those from the Gypsy, Traveller and Roma communities, and no doubt to other minority-ethnic students, as well as to the rest of the NEETs referred to by the noble and learned Lord. I hope that the Government will respect the powerful arguments in favour of these amendments.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a hugely important debate for the future of not only our education system but our society, because unless we have a properly trained workforce in the future and young people have real prospects and qualifications, we are in for a terrible time. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, said, there cannot be levelling up unless we have qualifications, skills and opportunities that level up. It is good that he and my noble friend Lord Watson have tabled these amendments, which give us an opportunity to explore this broad issue and to hear from the Government what their intentions are.

Amendment 76 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, and my noble friend Lord Watson’s Amendment 80 are superficially similar. But I notice that as soon as you start probing them, as the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, said, there are significant differences. I wonder whether my noble friend might elucidate, because his amendment is much more circumscribed then that of the noble and learned Lord, and I wonder why. I find the noble and learned Lord’s amendment very appealing: it has a broad statement of policy objectives, which looks to be absolutely correct for the future of our workforce and society. The bold statement in the noble and learned Lord’s amendment is:

“Any person of any age has the right to free education on an approved course up to Level 3 supplied by an approved provider of further or technical education”,


whereas my noble friend’s amendment says:

“All persons aged 19 or older and under the state pension age have the right to study a fully-funded approved course”.


The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, asked whether that eliminated all people who are over the retirement age. By the way, we need to eradicate from society the concept that once you get to the age of 60, 62 or 65, you are now unemployable and should not be eligible for proper training and the full opportunities that we extend to other people. If the House of Lords—average age 72—does not stand up for those beyond the statutory retirement age, who in this country is going to do so? The noble Baroness’s point is very well made and I look forward to my noble friend Lord Watson, speaking on behalf of my party, making it clear that we are fully in favour of people post retirement being eligible for these benefits as well.

My noble friend’s amendment also does not specify whether this is to be a right, which must go with funding, or simply an entitlement. The amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, says:

“Any person of any age has the right to free education”,


whereas my noble friend’s amendment says:

“All persons aged 19 or older and under the state pension age have the right to study”.


The big question is: who is going to pay for that? I know that we are having a policy review at the moment. The noble and learned Lord is a former Chancellor, so he is well aware of the forms of words that need to be used when you can give no commitment that involves any spending at all. I fully appreciate that may be why my noble friend’s amendment does not extend, so far as I can see, any rights that go with funding. but it would be as well to make that clear.

In the policy review which my party is conducting, it is essential that we put the rights of those who are on a path to technical and vocational education on a par with those who go on to university. We keep mouthing these platitudes about equality of opportunity but we never deliver it. When we look at the priorities facing the country, there is none more important than seeing that those on a technical education track, who at the moment too often do not get those opportunities, have them extended to them. These two amendments give us an opportunity to explore the terrain in this area.

However, the noble and learned Lord’s amendment also raises the very important issue of the apprenticeship levy. In all the instances of major acts of public policy which have delivered the exact opposite of their stated intention within the last generation, I cannot think of a more significant example than the apprenticeship levy. George Osborne, the late lamented Chancellor of the Exchequer who introduced it in his Budget speech of July 2015, said about apprenticeships that the then Government were

“committed to 3 million more”,

and that,

“while many firms do a brilliant job training their workforces, too many … leave the training to others so we are going to take a radical and, frankly, long overdue approach … an apprenticeship levy on all large firms”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/7/15; col. 328.]

to ensure 3 million more apprenticeships. Very few policies which came out of the Government during the past 11 years, which have been a bit of a wasteland for public policy at large, have I applauded more warmly than the apprenticeship levy. It looked to be, and I think George Osborne intended it to be, a bold step forward to raise significant additional funds that would have been available for training. The CBI was not wild with excitement when that policy was announced because it thought that was to be the case.

What then happened is what always happens when there is no one in government who really gets a grip on these things: the policy was essentially abandoned and became an orphan. As we know, Mr Osborne left the scene a year later—one of the many casualties of the Brexit disaster, which has managed to consume all its children during the last five years. The Chancellor of the Exchequer who had been behind the policy vanished and there was never an Education Secretary who was behind it. The noble Lord said that vocational education is the lesser priority of the education department, but among recent Education Secretaries I am hard put to see that it is a priority at all. As I said during the first day in Committee, there has been one Minister of Further Education each year since 2010 and the only one who showed any interest in apprenticeships, Robert Halfon, was promptly sacked because he was becoming too enthusiastic, and was shunted off to become chairman of the Select Committee in the House of Commons. There was nobody taking a grip on this policy and, as a result, two fatal flaws developed in its evolution.

The first, which the noble Lord highlighted, was that firms themselves were allowed to define what constituted training—as he said, it was anything up to and including MBAs. This is why there has been a massive decline in entry-level and level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, while all the emphasis has been on high-level apprenticeships. It is only large firms that pay the levy and that is how they best use the money which they have hoarded for apprenticeships.

The figures speak for themselves. The number of apprenticeships actually being provided is far from George Osborne’s 3 million extra. In the last four years it has declined from 213,000 to 161,900. This is a decline of nearly 50,000 apprenticeships from a policy that was supposed to increase the number by hundreds of thousands: it has moved in exactly the opposite direction to the one intended.

These figures are all taken from a House of Commons research paper from 30 March this year. For the under-19s, the fall has been catastrophic: the fall over that four-year period is more than one-third. The number of under-19s going into apprenticeships has declined between 2018 and 2021 from 66,000 to 39,000. That is a colossal tale of human deprivation and misery, because this means there are 17, 18- and 19-year olds who are basically going on to no proper training whatever.

That leads to the second flaw of the apprenticeship levy. It was a design flaw that I put to George Osborne at the time; he said he was prepared to look at it but, again, things moved on. The apprenticeship levy is not, in fact, a levy. Again, I look to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, as a former Chancellor. When the Government introduce a levy, normally—in almost every other case that I can think of—the levy is Her Majesty's Government by Act of Parliament requiring other bodies to pay a contribution to the Government or a public body for the delivery of a service, or to go into the Exchequer.

This is not a levy of that kind; it is a requirement on large firms to undertake training up to a certain level, which is the amount of the levy as a percentage of their turnover. Only if they do not provide training up to that level is the money then supposed to be volunteered under a scheme, which is very haphazard, and go to the Treasury or a designated public authority.

That was a fatal flaw in the design of the levy. It is like stamp duty being given to estate agencies, which have to pay the money to the Treasury only after they have paid all their expenses, paid into every imaginary marketing scheme that they can think of and paid vast salaries to all the agents. It was a fatal flaw and was done as a concession to business because the deal was that, if the money was first made available to the employers, this would be less of a burden on the employers. As a result, it was a huge incentive to the employers only to train their own workforce—which, by definition, was the existing workforce—so there were not many of those at entry level. This included training up to level 4, MBAs and bespoke training courses at vast expense.

There was no incentive to increase the number of apprenticeships and no mechanism for taking any of the money away from them and distributing it more fairly, nor, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, so rightly said, a provision for small and medium-sized enterprises to get the money either because they do not pay the levy. It applies only to large employers, and SMEs only get any of the proceeds by the process of redistribution if money is returned to the Treasury over and above what companies spend, which is virtually nothing. SMEs are the major employers in this country and should be providing an army of new apprenticeships.

The apprenticeship levy is a complete catastrophe of a policy. It has significantly reduced the supply of apprenticeships, even though it was meant to increase them. It has particularly done so in respect of small and medium-sized enterprises and young people. Therefore, the third part of the amendment of the noble Lord and learned, Lord Clarke, which states that any employer

“receiving apprenticeship funding shall spend at least two thirds of that funding on people who begin apprenticeships at Levels 2 and 3 before the age of 25”

is vital. I would take it further and take the funds out of the hands of the employer and see that they are distributed on a fair, national, basis including to SMEs.

I look forward to the Minister’s response, particularly on what steps the Government are proposing. It is a very basic question: what steps are the Government going to take to ensure that the number of apprenticeships in this country goes up rather than down? Each year at the moment the numbers are going down and we need them to go up.

What I would most like to see is the Minister accept the amendment put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke. It is an excellent amendment and comes with the great pedigree of a former Chancellor; he was not a notable high spender as Chancellor but was quite discriminating in the object of his affection when he was in charge of the national money bags. If he thinks that this should be a big imperative national priority, then we should think so too. I very much hope that something like his amendment becomes the law of the land.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)]

I have received one request to speak after the Minister, from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness said that there was now a scheme for enabling large employers to transfer part of the proceeds of the apprenticeship levy to SMEs. What is the incentive for them to do that? It was not clear to me why they would do it, apart from just good will—they may do it for good will, but it is good to have some incentives. Also, although she issued a lot of warm words about younger apprenticeships, she did not—unless I missed it—directly address the third part of the amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, which requires employers receiving apprenticeship funding to spend

“at least two thirds of that funding on people who begin apprenticeships at Levels 2 and 3 before the age of 25.”

What is the Government’s view on an actual requirement that two-thirds of the funding be spent on those who are under 25?

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

As noble Lords will be aware, when large employers pay the apprenticeship levy, those funds stay in their account for up to two years and, if unspent, return to the Government. They fund wider apprenticeship provision, such as the provision of maths and English tuition, the administration of the scheme and other aspects of it. However, we know that large employers have unspent funds. They may, for example, want to transfer those to other businesses in their supply chain that would benefit from taking up apprenticeships in that form. That is one incentive they may have to transfer the levy funds.

On the point about obliging employers to have two-thirds of their apprenticeships filled by young people, while we want to ensure that young people and employers are incentivised to take up apprenticeships and are working towards that, one piece of feedback we get from employers about the unspent levy is a lack of flexibility on how to spend it. There is always a balance in ensuring that there is sufficient flexibility for how employers can use their levy while making sure that it delivers on the aim: high-quality, technical apprenticeship schemes that deliver the skills that employers need.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the question I ask with Amendment 76A is: who is making sure, in this new world that we are creating, that the overall educational provision at sixth form and beyond is as it should be? I hope we are not dividing the world into academic and technical; there is such a broad stretch across that divide. I hoped that we were trying to heal that divide, but we seem to be creating new structures for driving technical education that do not obviously or easily fit into the structures we have for driving academic education.

On technical education, the Minister told me last time we were here that the Sussex Chamber of Commerce would be a trailblazer. That is an area that is not obviously different from the South East local enterprise partnership. The main differences for the constituent parts of Sussex are that this is a new entity unused to this sort of responsibility; that it has none of the old associations, familiarities and relationships that go with, in this case, either of the local enterprise partnerships that cover the area; and that it is not congruent in any way with the providers of ordinary education, which are, at that level, East Sussex and West Sussex. It is not clear how they will have a co-ordinated voice in dealing with academic provision, because a lot of the academic provision in our part of the world is provided by further education institutions.

If we look at what is happening in Eastbourne, where I live, we are a town of 130,000 people with no substantial academic sixth form provision. There is one fine free school, but it is small. There is an excellent FE college, whose A-level provision consists of business studies, English, history and sociology. In this new arrangement that we are looking at, who will be responsible for making sure that the young people of Eastbourne have the educational opportunities they deserve? It is not clear to me that there is anyone effective to do that without making a change, such as I have suggested in this amendment, to ensure that the FE colleges sweep up where the schools have failed to provide. I beg to move.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the points from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, are very well made regarding the need to see adequate local provision of technical education, including, as his amendment would provide,

“academic qualifications, taking into account other provision accessible locally”.

I would like to raise one very specific matter. I do not expect the noble Baroness to be able to answer me immediately, but I would be very grateful if she could write to me about it. A very significant aspect of further education—by which I mean post-16 academic education—is the availability of the international baccalaureate. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could write to let me know what the recent trends are in the availability and provision of the international baccalaureate—availability in terms of how many providers there are in the state system, and provision in terms of the take-up of places over recent years.

I see this as a very important part of academic further education provision. There is a bit of history here that I would like to draw to the attention of the House, because this may be an issue we wish to return to on Report. One issue being debated in respect of this Bill, and which is a live debate in the whole of the post-14 education arena, is what should happen to GCSEs and whether we should move to a more baccalaureate-type system. I am sympathetic to the argument in both respects: that we should conceive of the phase of education from 14 to 18 or 19 as a single phase and that we should move to a broader provision of subjects as part of the mainstream academic curriculum—and indeed the vocational post-16 curriculum—rather than the very traditionally narrow curriculum we have had, with the emphasis typically on three A-levels or technical subjects.

A generation ago, the introduction of the international baccalaureate sought to deal at the post-16 level with this very narrow academic subject focus by introducing a now well-established international course, which is taught in international schools and many schools within national jurisdictions. The international baccalaureate requires six subjects to be taught and studied between the ages of 16 and 18, leading to the diploma of the international baccalaureate, which must include mathematics, a science and a modern foreign language besides, obviously, the language which students study as a matter of course.

It is my view—and the view of a large number of educationalists—that the international baccalaureate is a superior course to A-levels. When I was the Minister responsible for these matters, the judgment we reached was that it was too difficult a reform to carry through, for all kinds of reasons, to replace A-levels entirely with a baccalaureate-type system. It was our policy to make the international baccalaureate much more widely available—and available in state schools as well as private school. As the Minister may know, the international baccalaureate is quite widely available in the private sector but, going back 15 years, it was hardly available at all in the state system.

At the time, we provided a significant incentive for the teaching of the international baccalaureate by requiring that each local education authority area should have at least one provider of the international baccalaureate in either a school, sixth form or further education college. This led to quite a big take-up of the IB, which was a positive development in the education sector and led to a raising of the skill level and an extension of choice.

However, after 2010, the requirement for there to be at least one IB provider in each local education authority area was dropped—not, I think, because the then Education Secretary, Michael Gove, was against the IB but because of funding cuts and insufficient funding in the system to provide for it. My understanding is that the number of providers offering the IB and the number of students studying it have plummeted. I see this as a retrograde step and a significant denial of choice in the education system, particularly for students in the state system because, as I said, there are providers in the private sector and parents can choose to pay for their children to study at schools or colleges that provide the IB.

Can the Minister provide—either to the Committee now or, if she unable to do so, in writing to me and other Members; I perfectly understand that she may not have the figures in her brief—an update on the actual position with the IB in terms of numbers of providers and students and how those numbers have changed in recent years?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, on Thursday—day 2 of Committee—I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, about the need for the new section to be introduced by Clause 5. It states:

“The governing body of an institution in England … must … from time to time review how well the education or training provided by the institution meets local needs, and … consider what action the institution might take … in order to meet those needs better.”


I said that I did not think this necessary because, to me, it is self-evident; that is what local further education colleges are about. I asked on what basis the Government felt it necessary to draft Clause 5 if there were many failing FE colleges. The noble Baroness made it clear to me that that was not case.

I feel the same about Clause 22 because, again, it seems to be based on the assumption that, for some reason, a number of colleges are operating on a day-to-day basis oblivious to what is happening in their own back yard. I just do not think that is the case. I repeat what I said on Thursday: not every further education college is perfect, does everything it has to do and does everything well, but there seems to be an impression by the Government that there is an attempt to undermine what the FE sector does—quite apart from the fact that, as we heard in the debate on the previous group of amendments, that sector has been seriously and serially underfunded, which can only inhibit what it is able to deliver for its local area.

I find myself a bit uncomfortable with this clause because, if a further education college does not ensure that there are no gaps in the local provision, as this amendment seeks to ensure, then what does it do? I cannot believe that such colleges just turn a blind eye. I cannot argue with Amendment 76A but I must say something to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. He used the example of Eastbourne, which he mentions, along with its 130,000 inhabitants, often. I must visit it some time; it must be a very attractive place. However, even in that local example—and, by all means, use local examples in these debates—I do not think he made the case for there being widespread failure. I repeat the point I made on Thursday: the vast majority of FE colleges know what they need to do for their locality and do it well.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I speak to government Amendments 76B and Amendment 101 in my name. They relate to the high-level quality rating, which is currently the teaching excellence and student outcomes framework, known as TEF, for providers without an approved access and participation plan.

Higher education providers with a TEF award currently benefit from an uplift to their fee limit, meaning they are able to charge a higher level than higher education providers without a TEF award. Despite the best efforts of noble Lords and the Government, there is an error in the legislation that could prevent a timely link between TEF awards and a provider’s fee limit. For example, currently, where a provider does not have an approved access and participation plan, whether the provider is entitled to the TEF fee uplift in any academic year is dependent on whether it had an award on 1 January in the calendar year before the relevant academic year. This means that a provider seeking to charge the TEF fee uplift in academic year 2022-23 would be able to do so based on an award in force in January 2021, rather than January 2022, which was the original intent of the legislation. This amendment will correct this and ensure a more timely link between fee limits and TEF, helping to further incentivise excellence in higher education. These amendments are of benefit to the institutions that I outlined.

Amendment 101 is a related consequential amendment to Clause 27, which sets out that the proposed new clause in Amendment 76B will come into force two months after Royal Assent. I beg to move.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, in the previous group on Amendment 76A, the noble Baroness did not reply to my point about the international baccalaureate at all. I fully accept that she may not have the data I was after, but I would be grateful if she could put on record a commitment to write to me about it.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, having had a look at this amendment, I really put my name down to speak to ensure we can thank the Government when they correct things on the go. It is a precedent that should be encouraged as we go through this, so I thank them for doing it. The description of the amendment the noble Baroness gave made sense to me, so more power to their elbow. I hope they will correct things as they go, with great rapidity.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions, particularly the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and his thanks for this technical amendment to fix an error in the existing legislation. In relation to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, as far as I understand it, the most recent TEF assessments were from 2017-18. This is a change to make the legislation fit for purpose for when the new round of TEF is announced. I will write to her with any update of the course for the new TEF.

I had hoped, given that these amendments would not affect any underlying policies, that noble Lords would be able to support them but, in the circumstances, I beg the leave of the Committee to withdraw Amendment 76B.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

What about the IB?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

At least I am consistent in forgetting twice. I beg the noble Lord’s pardon. We have no intention not to fund the IB going forward, but I will write to him with the statistics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is a particular pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes and to hear of her practical support for career hubs.

I support those who have emphasised the importance of careers guidance in schools and colleges, particularly technical options and employer engagement. These are one of the issues that I always mention when I do Speakers for Schools. I make a point of visiting the arts, crafts, music, photography and other non-academic facilities because the creative sector is hugely important to individuals and to UK success.

The issue is particularly difficult for those who do not have parents who know much about career options. You can find yourself on the wrong path unless you talk early on to a knowledgeable adviser. Funnily enough, I know this from my own experience. Having been to Oxford University, I wanted to set up a landscape gardening business but discovered that I would have to go back to an educational institution to fill the science gaps in my convent education before I could do the necessary training. Eventually I joined the Civil Service instead.

Many people less fortunate than me fall through gaps in the education system. So I should add that I very much endorse the thrust of what my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham said earlier, in a brilliant speech, about the need to find a way of helping those who missed out, particularly at levels 2 and 3—some of them no doubt because they did not receive careers advice at the right stage of life.

I am not sure that the answer to the problem is yet another strategy, as proposed in Amendment 83. We just need Ministers to require all pupils to be given careers advice—for example, a minimum of twice in schools, once before they start GCSEs and once before A-levels or, in either case, the equivalent. Technical colleges and universities should also be required to have career hubs of some kind, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, has argued. Visits from businesspeople and other role models should be positively encouraged as part of a rich curriculum. Such a system might also require some extra funding.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans. I will listen carefully to her responses to the various options, including the mechanisms that would be needed for enforcement, particularly the idea of a statutory duty that was put forward by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who has given us a lifetime of educational innovation and achievement, for which are most thankful.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness’s remark that she wanted to become a landscape gardener but ended us as a civil servant could make the brilliant first sentence of an autobiography, with us all intrigued as to how the intent to become the one ended up in the more humdrum reality of the other. I only hope that, maybe by utilising all the opportunities of lifelong or lifetime learning, she is able to indulge her passion. She has great artistic genius and this may be the moment when she could set up a new enterprise.

There are two issues here. The first is the careers guidance to students in schools and colleges about what should happen after they leave that institution. The second is the more specific issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, of advertising options to students in secondary schools for moving to alternative providers, including between the ages of 11 and 16—when they might be better served by, for example, one of the noble Lord’s university technical colleges—and seeing that that advice is made available to them.

We need to accept that, as is the experience of all of us in the House, careers advice and guidance has never been done well. The truth is that schools with a more academic bent—which I am glad to say is now most schools, but even until quite recently, they were in the minority—have always been pretty good at giving advice and guidance on universities. That is because teachers are graduates and know about universities, and schools are judged on the university destinations of their more able students. However, those schools have traditionally been poor or worse at providing options for technical and further education. That is partly because they are not incentivised to do so, since public authorities and the inspectorate mostly do not notice whether they do or not, but also because teachers by definition have very little experience of these areas. There are almost no teachers who themselves have done apprenticeships or gone on to further education.

So we need to accept that this has never been well done. I suppose that in all areas of policy there is golden-ageism—“30 years ago it was done brilliantly and it has all degenerated since”—but we must accept that the old-style careers service was not great. It did not turn up in most schools, and when it did it was pretty haphazard. It was not regarded as a high priority by local authorities, and schools’ engagement with it was generally a low priority too.

The various incarnations of the careers service—up to and including the Careers & Enterprise Company, which came partly from the wholesale privatisation of the old careers service and the requirement that it be disbanded, which was a draconian step that I would never have taken—have not led to great careers guidance in schools. All those who do good work in this area should be applauded, and the Gatsby benchmarks are great. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, and the Careers & Enterprise Company, which I hear some good accounts of and some accounts that it barely infringes on the work of schools at all, are to be encouraged. However, there is a systemic problem that we have never properly addressed, which is how we ensure that within each institution there is a facility—which in my experience always means a person—responsible for delivering careers guidance, including technical education guidance.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Barker) (LD)]

I have received notice from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, who wishes to speak after the Minister.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to give us any information about the provision of apprenticeship options through UCAS? I appreciate that she may not have that information available, so could she write to Members of the Committee about it? There is quite an important issue about actual availability and pathways for young people going through vocational and technical education routes.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

I am aware that that was one option being looked at to improve the way that young people can navigate their next steps, post school. I do not have the specific outcome of that investigation to hand, so I will happily write to the Committee on that matter.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, credit transfer relates to the assessment and recognition of prior qualifications and credit by institutions and their transferability between institutions. Currently, they make their own assessments of a student’s previous study by comparing it with their own curriculum and awarding credit. Credit is common but not universal in the UK. Not all higher education institutions are modular or make extensive use of credit; the exceptions, perhaps unsurprisingly, include some high-profile universities. Even so, thanks to the credit framework, degrees from these institutions can be confirmed as similar in overall size and form—if not necessarily in content or learning approach—to the sector standard, with at least a quarter being at the highest level of learning for that degree. This is why a permissive approach was adopted in the credit framework for England, which describes rather than prescribes how credit can be used.

There are already national frameworks for credit in the UK. The national credit transfer system covers accredited qualification in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It comprises all eight levels—nine, including entry level—from secondary education to vocational and higher education qualifications, with every level consisting of qualifications of similar difficulty. The regulated qualifications framework includes qualifications which have been accredited by: Ofqual in England; the Council for the Curriculum Examinations and Assessment in Northern Ireland; and the Department for Children, Education, Lifelong Learning and Skills in Wales. In these three countries, higher education qualifications validated by universities and other HE institutions are covered by the framework for higher education qualifications, which sits beside the RQF.

Scotland has its own credit transfer system, which is known as the Scottish credit and qualifications framework. It covers all qualification levels in Scotland; unlike other systems, the one used in Scotland has 12 levels. In terms of strengthening pathways between further education and higher education, Scotland has an effective system of articulation, where students who gain sub-degree qualifications in college progress to degree-level study at university, and go straight into the second or third year in recognition of their prior learning.

The UK Government consulted on this in 2016, seeking to gauge demand from students for more switching between universities and degree courses. One result of the consultation that noble Lords may recall was the legislation on accelerated degrees, introduced when the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, was the Universities Minister. Since 2019, the OfS has had a statutory duty to monitor and report on the prevalence of student transfers and to encourage the development of such arrangements. This was set out in the Higher Education and Research Act.

Our Amendment 79 would allow the Secretary of State to facilitate credit transfer arrangements to allow students to move between education providers to ensure consistency. As more flexibility is introduced into the education system, particularly modular funding, can the Minister say what frameworks and incentives the Government intend to introduce to ensure that lifelong learning has what might be termed a “common currency”? Given that England lacks an integrated credit and qualifications framework, how might developing one be balanced against institutional autonomy in curriculum design?

The lifelong loan entitlement implies that people will want to adopt a “hop on, hop off” approach to their learning throughout life, which makes it essential that all learning counts for something. I would like to probe what steps the Government are taking, or intend to take, to consult on this. I understand that the Cabinet Office was considering this last year. I am not clear why it was the Cabinet Office, rather than the DfE, but can the Minister also clarify the Government’s intentions there? Do they envisage a UK-wide approach in the shape of a universal credit transfer system? As well as supporting credit transfer within higher education, what are the implications of supporting it between further education and higher education?

A universal credit transfer system would have significant benefits to many students, especially from a widening participation perspective. It would help them to study flexibly by making it easier to break study into bite-size chunks, bank that credit and top it up elsewhere at some point in future. Such a system would certainly support lifelong learning, giving students confidence that they could pause their studies and/or change provider if they needed to, for whatever reason. It would also incentivise innovative models of provision that could be better tailored to students’ needs. An example of this would be the Open University’s OpenPlus programme, where students initially study at one institution before completing their studies at another.

The benefits of credit transfer are many, while other developments could follow the establishment of an effective and accessible scheme. For instance, there could be guarantees that students would be able to progress from a higher technical qualification to a degree course in a similar subject without having to start again from scratch. This is the articulation method, mentioned earlier with respect to Scotland. Students could also be assured of being able to exit easily from institutions that are not providing good value for money, without having to go back to square one, which would be a powerful disincentive.

Any future methods of allowing students to use credit flexibly need to enable transferability across the UK and internationally. The international context is important, because international perceptions of a coherent UK sector are influential in attracting international students, academics and researchers to the UK and in exporting services through transnational education. There are similar advantages in retaining alignment with European and other international frameworks. Were that to be lost through quality being diluted following the progress of this Bill, it would be damaging to the higher education sector. I will be interested to hear the Government’s intentions with regard to maintaining a UK-wide approach, not least because of the perception that the shape of the new system that emerges will project to those beyond our shores.

It is important to move beyond the impression that leaving a higher education institution without completing a full degree is an indicator of failure, either for the student or the institution. The form that this Bill eventually takes will decide the extent to which people can develop their skills with confidence, at a time and a place convenient to them and their family. I look forward to hearing the Minister articulate—in another meaning of that word—her Government’s ambitions in that regard and describing what credit and qualifications framework they intend to have in place, hopefully before 2025, to support the introduction of the lifelong loan entitlement. I beg to move.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Watson has made a compelling argument for enhanced, nationally recognised and organised credit transfer arrangements. I do not want to repeat the points he made except to note that, in the context of the move towards more degree-level apprenticeships, the issue of credit transfer becomes particularly important because many, indeed, probably the generality of students starting out on apprenticeship programmes leading to degree-level qualifications will start in further education colleges.

Many of these have not conventionally offered higher education but are good apprenticeship education providers and will start providing the level 3 and 4 education which can lead to degree-level apprenticeship programmes. If we want to encourage more students through the apprenticeship route and for them to regard this as something they can progress to degree level, the issue of credit transfer is going to become a still more significant one in the education system in future years. The points my noble friend made are especially compelling.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment seems such a good thing, but I really doubt whether all the administration it involves is actually necessary or desirable. Governments are not always very keen on looking at what happened in the past, whether it succeeded and the reasons why not if it did not. Of course, that is never a reason not to try again, but it does seem pointless to spend time and money re-enacting things for which the criteria have not changed. This is one of the reasons I deplore the crash introduction of T-levels with no regard for other vocational initiatives—I am thinking of diplomas in particular— that were introduced unsuccessfully without consideration of past mistakes. I am afraid I do have quite a long memory of such things.

In the olden days of polytechnics, all accreditation was carried out by CNAA, the Council for National Academic Awards. In theory it should have been a very simple matter for students to transfer credits between organisations, as obviously there was a level playing field for credits. In practice, very few students ever transferred from one institution to another, and the mechanisms for doing so were by no means straightforward.

In 1992, polytechnics disappeared and were reincarnated as universities. For some this was not a great advantage: Oxford and Hatfield polytechnics, for instance, had tremendous names and becoming universities was certainly not initially a help to their well-earned reputations.

I was working for City & Guilds in the early days of national vocational qualifications in the 1980s. The Government gave permission for a large number of awarding organisations—some with pretty dubious credentials—to award NVQs. All awarding organisations had to agree to recognise any units awarded by any awarding organisation. City & Guilds, as the premier vocational awarding organisation, was not delighted by this, but conformed by spending a great deal of time and money ensuring that its highly protected accreditation mechanisms could accommodate units from another organisation. In practice, this arduous work proved largely unnecessary. There were few, if any, requests to transfer between awarding bodies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Touhig (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, this is very much a probing amendment, allowing me to highlight a particular unintended consequence in existing legislation and allowing the Minister the opportunity to give what I hope is an encouraging response.

Representatives of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference have been working the Minister’s officials on this issue for some considerable time in anticipation that there would be some education legislation going through Parliament where an amendment can be made to resolve the problem that I will now outline. As things stand today, Catholic sixth-form colleges benefit from several protections set out in the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 relating to issues such as governance, collective worship, religious education and many others. These protections are vital for maintaining the Catholic ethos of the colleges and provide a choice for those who wish to be educated in a religious setting.

Any sixth-form college can become a 16 to 19 academy. However, the definition of “school” in the Education Act 1996, as amended by the Education Act 2011, excludes 16 to 19 academies, which means that they are currently ineligible for the protections and freedoms needed to remain Catholic. If a Catholic sixth-form college were to become a 16 to 19 academy, it would therefore lose those protections and freedoms.

Catholic dioceses across England that oversee schools and colleges have strategies to bring the Catholic community together by creating families of schools within multi-academy trusts. This supports the schools to work in partnership and share resources. Many other sixth-form colleges around the country have now converted and are benefiting from the advantages of academy status, and the 14 Catholic sixth-form colleges across England wish to do the same. Without being able to become academies, the Catholic sixth-form colleges are isolated from the opportunities of joining a multi-academy trust. Allow me to quote Danny Pearson, principal of Aquinas College in Stockport and chair of the Association of Catholic Sixth Form Colleges:

“We are disappointed that Catholic Colleges are unable to take part in the school improvement and systems leadership processes that the Academy system champions. Many of our settings are in areas of high deprivation and Catholic colleges do much for social mobility. As leading performers within our sector, we currently cannot use our expertise for the benefit of our communities. As a matter of fairness, equity and parity across our education system it is important that measures are quickly taken to allow Catholic sixth-form colleges to both maintain the statutory protections they currently hold while being able to become academies if they so wish.”


This amendment to the Bill would empower the Secretary of State to allow sixth-form college corporations to convert to academies without losing their current statutory protections. This will guarantee the religious character of the Catholic sixth-form colleges when they convert, and enable dioceses to include these new sixth-form academies within their strategic planning of Catholic multi-academy trusts.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, this issue goes back some time. When I was a Minister, there was an issue about whether voluntary-aided schools—of which a high proportion are Catholic, as my noble friend says—could maintain the protections afforded to them in terms of their designated religious character and appointment of governors with a religious background and associations, and so on, as they transfer to academy status. The case he makes is overwhelmingly powerful. At the time there was also the issue of whether we would allow sixth-form academies at all because, in the original academy conception, until there was a change in the law, that was not possible. Now sixth-form academies are possible and, as my noble friend said, there are quite a few of them. Indeed, there is one just 200 yards from your Lordships’ House, Harris Westminster, a sixth-form academy sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Peckham, and Westminster School. It is an outstandingly successful institution, right by St James’s Park station. Noble Lords will see the students going backwards and forwards every day. It is excellent and exactly the kind of institution that we want to encourage more of, so it seems perverse that it is not possible for a Catholic promotor, including promoters of existing sixth-form colleges, to take advantage of the status.

As my noble friend says, encouraging sixth-form colleges—both the Catholic Church and the Church of England have their own sixth-form colleges; the Church of England is of course a major educational promoter in its own right—to become part of multi-academy trusts seems a very worthwhile step. This seems a straightforwardly technical issue, which perhaps the Minister can resolve with the stroke of a pen.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I briefly add my support to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, which would ensure that any conversion to academy does not mean abandoning the religious affiliation of any colleges. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, this issue goes back a long way. He mentions only Catholic schools, but I presume this would apply to other faith groups as well.

If we were starting from scratch, we might well decide to divorce education from religion, as many other countries do—the French seem to manage this quite successfully—but that is not where we are. Churches and other faith organisations have long played a very significant part in the lives of our students, to the very great advantage of young people and the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I too am a fan of Kickstart, and I hope that the Government will consolidate and build on it. A review, as proposed in this amendment, seems a timely suggestion. I support a lot of what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said, and I would add only two emphases. First, there are certainly some occasions when a Kickstart six-month placement ought to be combined with a course of training. For instance, if we employed Kickstarters to do environmental work, it would not do them much good if they had not achieved their chainsaw certification and other necessary qualifications to enable them to continue in the industry. Sometimes the Kickstart placement ought to be bundled in with training, and that ought to be made easy.

Secondly, £1,500 for looking after a Kickstarter is really not much. You have to have spare employee time substantially beyond that value to make good use of a Kickstarter and to give them a really good experience. I hope the Government will review people’s experience on that front and consider what it would take to really recompense employers—particularly small employers, who often do not have a lot of spare capacity—for the effort they are making, day to day, looking after a Kickstarter.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, all three noble Lords who have spoken, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, have made pertinent points. I will make a suggestion and ask a question. Unusually, the House has it within its powers to cause an inquiry into Kickstart, because a Select Committee is currently proceeding on youth unemployment. Indeed, my understanding is that it is being chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who is a colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Addington. May I therefore suggest that he asks his noble friend to ensure that that Select Committee examines Kickstart and makes recommendations to the House on its future, which of course will carry weight with both the House and the Government? My question for the Minister is this. I assume that an independent evaluation of Kickstart is taking place. Can she confirm whether that is the case? If not, obviously it is desirable that one should.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to signify our support for Amendment 87 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Shipley, because a review of the Kickstart scheme is certainly necessary. I regret to say that I cannot endorse the view of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, in introducing this group, that the scheme seems to have done well. More than nine months after its launch, it has so far failed to have any meaningful impact.

The Kickstart Scheme provides funding for employers to create new job placements for 16 to 24 year-olds on universal credit who are deemed to be at risk of long-term unemployment. Employers can apply for funding to cover 100% of the national minimum wage for 25 hours a week for a total of six months, as well as employer national insurance contributions and automatic enrolment contributions. However, in a Written Parliamentary Answer in June, the DWP Minister Mims Davies stated that the scheme had helped only 20,000 people into work since its introduction last September.

On 16 June I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Penn—I am sure she remembers it will—in an Oral Question what action the Government would take to overhaul the Kickstart Scheme, not just by widening access but by beginning the drive towards equalising its impact on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities and women. In response, she told me that the scheme had been adapted and improved in a number of ways to improve take-up, although all that she mentioned was that in February, the 30-vacancy threshold for a direct application to Kickstart had been removed. She went on to say:

“The figures I have show that there are more than 140,000 approved vacancies under the Kickstart scheme. We hope that take-up will improve as it goes on in delivery.”—[Official Report, 16/6/21; col. 1893.]


I fear that more than hope is needed.

Is the Minister aware of the report from the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House published in December 2020? My noble friend Lord Adonis just suggested that the committee sitting at the moment might produce a report on Kickstart. Just seven months ago, a committee did just that, and recommended that access to Kickstart should not be limited to people who have been on universal credit for six months. My caution to my noble friend is that that committee’s recommendation was not given much weight. The effect of the six-month rule is that a young person who loses her or his job has to wait for as long as nine months before they have the chance of training. Surely that cannot make sense and it must be demoralising for young people. Local authorities and other civil society partners should be able to refer young people who are not on benefits to the scheme.

The charity Mencap told the Economic Affairs Committee hearing that making only young people on universal credit eligible had excluded many with a learning disability, who are still claiming legacy benefits and who are unlikely to move to universal credit in the near future. The Learning and Work Institute said that the scheme should be

“open to young people, including apprentices made redundant, not on benefits”

and that

“partners, such as local authorities, should be able to refer young people in this group to Kickstart”

also.

As I said earlier, it seems that the committee’s recommendations fell on deaf ears, but one step that the Government should certainly take is to build a link between Kickstart and apprenticeships. One means of doing so would be to encourage Kickstart employers, perhaps with incentives, to offer apprenticeships for those completing their Kickstart placement—this may have been what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, was suggesting in describing a link between Kickstart and more permanent employment. That would have the extra benefit of increasing the number of apprenticeships, which, as we know, have reduced sharply since the introduction of the levy in 2017.

Perhaps the Minister can update noble Lords on the approved vacancies and say how many of the 140,000 that she quoted in answer to my Oral Question a month ago have since been filled. Whether or not she is able to do so, one thing she cannot rationally do today is to deny that the Kickstart scheme is in need of, well, a kick start—the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, rather stole my thunder with that line. The review must begin as a matter of urgency. I look forward to hearing that, despite this amendment being withdrawn, the Government intend to do as it suggests.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, as ever from the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, these are excellent suggestions and I strongly commend them to the Government.

I would just like to add to his second proposal, which is to

“facilitate universities’ communication through the Student Loans Company with their graduates without passing any personal data”.

He said that this was so that universities could market to the graduates what the universities can do for them, which is excellent in respect of lifelong learning. However, equally valuable is marketing to the graduates what they can do for the universities, in particular what mentoring opportunities they can provide for current students.

As noble Lords know, students from better-off backgrounds, particularly those who have gone to schools with strong university and graduate traditions, provide a dense web of networks, employment opportunities, advice on employment destinations and so on. Graduates who are not endowed with those advantages, even while they are at university, do not have the benefits of such developed networks. Graduates could be engaged much more systematically in providing mentoring opportunities, particularly, as the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, says, at the point at which universities generally lose contact with their graduates, which is often quite soon after graduation, though the more years that pass, the more they lose contact. When graduates are 10, 15 or 20 years out of university, they are reaching senior positions in their professions and are often in quite niche organisations, such as voluntary organisations. Advertising to them the opportunity to mentor students, which, in my experience, graduates are very willing to do, could be a real and significant benefit to existing students.

Like other noble Lords, I am often contacted by students, just by virtue of the fact that they know who I am, asking for mentoring opportunities and seeking advice. There are very few of us who would not provide that as a matter of course, and I think the same would be true of graduates. If they were harnessed in a systematic way, which this would make possible, it could be transformational for the life chances and career destinations of graduates, particularly those who do not come from graduate families or from schools with lots of graduate connections.

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I thoroughly support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Willetts and the addendum to it by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

The Student Loans Company is a real treasure trove of opportunity. The long-term relationship it has with graduates is a way of improving our university system over time, improving the lives of the graduates themselves and—my particular interest—improving the decisions taken by potential students as to which courses they should pay attention to.

I would go a bit further than my noble friend Lord Willetts and encourage the feedback to universities from the Student Loans Company to include something that puts some context into the raw earnings figure. Earnings can be a very one-dimensional view of what is happening to alumni. Not everything—not every decision or judgment as to the quality of a course—should be based, let alone entirely so, on the earnings profile of its graduates. You want something much more than that, which is why I absolutely support what my noble friend proposes in the second part of his amendment, in contract with graduates.

As he says, it is really difficult to get universities to tell you what their graduates are up to. I am somewhat relieved to discover that that is because they do not know. This is a vital piece of information for prospective students: if you are going to judge what you should invest upwards of £50,000 and three years of your life in, you want to know what it leads to. Very few historians end up as historians. Few physicists end up as physicists. People go off in lots of different directions, but the skills and the understandings that you have gained as part of your university degree absolutely help shape what you go on to.

To know which courses—even the very academic ones—lead to people becoming professional writers, say, is a really valuable piece of information if that is the direction that you want to take. You have to go back a decade or so to the Next Gen. report from Ian Livingstone, which looked at university courses that had “computer games” in the title, to see his analysis that 85% of those courses produced graduates that the industry would not hire because the courses had been designed not with the industry in mind but just in terms of catching the attention of students. We owe our students better than that.

The real source of information that they ought to be able to see through to is: where do students go on to, where does this lead to and perhaps, beyond that, are they happy? Are the alumni pleased with where life has taken them since university? Do they look back on their courses with pleasure? Coming back to the first part of the noble Lord’s amendment—do they have insights about the courses that they were on that ought to be fed back to the universities so that they can improve their offering?

There is as much potential for the nation in this as there is in the national health data. We are taking, mining and using that seriously, professionally and carefully, and we are setting about that in government and in the legislation to come. We absolutely ought to be doing that in the case of the Student Loans Company.

My noble friend is quite right that there is a lot of value to be offered in return. It took Oxford 40 years to realise that perhaps someone who had spent three years of their life studying physics was interested in physics—and, therefore, if it combined its “Please will you give us some money?” letters with an opportunity to keep up with the latest trends in physics, it might have more success. That should absolutely be extended to looking for opportunities for career support and for ways in which the learning and understanding of the university can be accessed again to make it a lifelong relationship. We need to build that sort of lifelong relationship into learning providers around apprenticeships as well. There is a lot of value for a person in having somewhere that they can turn to in order to refresh their skills and understand what opportunities now lie open to them.

I also very much approve of what the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said about mentoring. This is difficult—it is a very tricky relationship—so I would not like to pitch anyone into mentoring without giving them some training first. However, if you have been trained and if you are supported, neither of which come free, it can be a very rewarding experience for both sides—but it needs to be done well. We ought to look at it being done cross-university. It does not seem to me that all the experiences of Oxford graduates ought to be confined to young people at Oxford; we ought to be able to spread these things around a bit to have wider access than that when we are designing the scheme.

However, if we do it with one of the professional mentoring companies, I think we would get something like that, because the focus will very much be on how to help the uncertain and disadvantaged, rather than just compounding the advantage of those who know already what a good thing mentoring can be. So, altogether, this is a really worthwhile amendment. I hope that the Government will take it seriously, and I look forward to my noble friend’s response.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Lords Chamber

My last point is this: when you look through the Bill, it is often the case that local plans will have to have regard to national plans, national frameworks and national guidance. So when does a local plan stop being a local plan and just become a mirror image of everyone else’s local plan, which makes up the national plan? My question to the Minister on that would be: how brave are the Government going to be in allowing local plans to do their own thing, which might not always accord with the national plan? Who is going to prioritise this big list of things they have to do, and what will the Government do to welcome innovation, which might be ideas they themselves have not yet thought of?

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, this Bill is largely a Bill in search of a policy, and indeed a Bill that is a substitute for policy. It does almost nothing that actually requires legislation. As far as I can tell, there is only one aspect that actually requires a change of the law to be accomplished, which is the extension of student loans to further education courses—a reform I support. But all the rest of it is the enshrining in legislation of policy goals—some of which are inherently contradictory —which do not require legislation at all.

I am surrounded by former Ministers on all sides, and we all know that whenever you do not have a policy and cannot quite work out what to do, but want to proclaim a priority, you produce a Bill. The Civil Service loves producing Bills. It has Bill teams. The one thing you can do from Whitehall and that big building on Great Smith Street is produce reams of paper—White Papers, Bills and all that. It does not actually mean you do anything to improve skills levels in the country, but you do produce Bills and White Papers and requirements on other people to produce plans and so on themselves.

In my experience of big change in education, the biggest changes are usually produced by the smallest pieces of legislation that focus in particular on funding—because the one thing the Government control in this is funding. In parenthesis, further education funding is declining; let us not get away from that. No amounts of legislation, no White Papers extending to whatever this latest one is—it is in very large type, but it extends to 73 pages—can make up for the fact that funding is being cut. There is some opportunity for substituting public funding with private funding through the loans scheme, but public funding is being cut.

That is one way you can do it. The second is by great ministerial and Civil Service drive on the ground, which we desperately need in this sector. But this sector has had, by my calculation, one Minister of Further Education each year since 2010. The only one who was any good was sacked and now chairs the Select Committee in the House of Commons—I think because he was actually too committed to making a reality of further education.

The one big reform in this area, which is the apprenticeship levy, has been so badly mishandled that, astonishingly, it has managed to lead to a decline in the number of apprentices, particularly at entry level, which is the area where we have the biggest skills failures. So this is an absolutely farcical piece of legislation. The Minister has my deep commiserations on having to spend hour after hour camped in this House proclaiming mantras and platitudes that will have been written for her by civil servants and will do absolutely zero to improve further education or the skills level.

Producing local skills improvement plans does not require legislation. The Government could today announce —and, with funding, incentivise and require—public authorities to do them. I can assure noble Lords that employers’ bodies, if some money was waved in front of them, would willingly co-operate in the production of local skills improvement plans. So legislation is absolutely not necessary.

But, because one always hopes the Government are actually producing a policy that is well thought out and crafted and has a proper chain of connection between the conception of the policy and the levers, goals and outcomes, I actually read the White Paper. It is always a big mistake to read the actual policy statement that underpins the legislation. The White Paper says on page 14, in one of its many platitudinous statements:

“At the moment, employers do not have enough influence over the skills provision offered in their local area or enough say in how all technical training and qualifications are developed.”


We are then referred to footnote 14, which states:

“See for example England’s Skills Puzzle: Piecing Together Further Education Training & Employment (Policy Connect Learning & Work Institute, 2020.”


Well, I read that report. It is not a survey of employers; it is not even a proper study of employers. It is a report of an ad hoc commission chaired by Conservative MP Sir John Hayes, one of the former Ministers of Further Education. Having done a few dipstick surveys in different parts of the country, it makes five recommendations, none of which is for these local skills improvement plans.

The first of the five recommendations is that there should be national targets, monitored by the new skills and productivity board in the way the Climate Change Commission monitors its targets. I am not up on the creation of the latest quangos, so I am not yet fully familiar with the skills and productivity board. No doubt the Minister will tell us what this new quango is doing. But that does not require this reform. The second recommendation is for further devolution of budgets. That may be a worthwhile thing to do but, since the budgets are declining, that does not inherently help. As King Lear told us:

“Nothing will come of nothing,”


But, in any case, devolving budgets does not require these skills plans; it can be done by fiat from the department tomorrow.

The third recommendation is further funding incentives for collaboration—which, again, can be done without any of these local skills improvement plans. The fourth is a national campaign to recruit teachers to further education. I entirely support that; again, it does not require this reform. The fifth is piloting personal learning accounts. I strongly urge the Government to be cautious about that one; some of us on this side of the House are deeply scarred by things called individual learning accounts, which turned out to be a massive scam for rapidly created local skills organisations to cream off all the money. They certainly should not go there at all; the extension of the student loans reform would be much better. So the statements that underlie this are not rooted in any evidence base.

We then come to the skills plans themselves. I thought that, since this Government are deeply versed in evidence-based policy, they would have piloted these properly so we can see: what these local skills plans are going to look like; what employer bodies are going to produce them; and what the relationships are with the local further education colleges, the mayoral authorities and the other public authorities. I thought we could perhaps read one or two of them. I am very keen to read them because, from my experience of the centre trying to mandate other people to produce plans, it is not the bodies charged with producing the plans that produce the plans; it is consultants employed by the bodies, who are paid a fortune and have no responsibility whatever for delivery of any of the outcomes. Some of us on this side of the House will remember the words “education action zones.” A whole army of consultants grew up to produce the plans for education action zones, which led to precious little further education and no action—except by the people producing the plans for the education action zones, who made tens of millions of pounds. I see this happening again.

But I thought, “Well, maybe it’s being piloted”. So I googled “pilots,” because the White Paper’s pages 15 and 16 refer to pilots of these local skills improvement plans. The pilots have not started. There was an article on 20 April in a magazine called FE Week—which is after my time, a new entrant to the block, and seems to provide a lot of good information on what is going on—and the headline was:

“Hunt begins for ‘employer representative bodies’ to pilot local skills improvement plans.”


There is not long between 20 April and 6 July, but none of these bodies has yet appeared. It turns out that these local skills improvement plans are to be piloted in six to eight “trailblazer” areas. “Trailblazers” is a word the Government always use when they want to proclaim action when absolutely nothing is happening—so we are having six to eight trailblazers that do not exist.

Now, bids for those trailblazers, which are to be backed by £4 million of revenue funding—all of which will go to the consultants charged with writing these plans—were being sought by 25 May. Perhaps the Minister can tell us how many bids had been entered by that date, give us some description of who they are, tell us when they will start and tell us what indication there is that they will be coherent. I do not want to detain the Committee unduly, but all the indications as to who the bodies are reference bodies that do not exist at the moment.

We have a whole box on page 15 headed “Case study: German Chambers of Commerce”. I strongly welcome the Government’s study of Germany and aligning more closely with the European Union; it is something that I have spent my political life seeking to do. If we had taken our membership of the European Union more seriously and done a better job of learning from the Scandinavian countries, Holland and Germany, our skills system would have made a much better start. So it is good that, as we leave Europe, we none the less regard as a model for policy the German Chambers of Commerce. However, there is nothing in these proposals that will lead to anything like the construction of the German Chambers of Commerce. There is no statutory power for the establishment of chambers of commerce. There is no requirement on employers to be members of these bodies and no public duties are imposed on them.

So who are the bodies that will be the skills-based bodies that will produce these local skills improvement plans? I should say “employer bodies” because the Government say that they must be employer bodies. Who are they? I look forward to the Minister telling us so that, by the time we come to Report, we will have been able to test this and perhaps propose a few amendments—perhaps, indeed, to remove this entire provision, save the public tens of millions of pounds and have some real action in terms of further education skills and what they will be.

My further remark is one that causes me real concern. The one area of policy that has at least taken some steps forward in this area over the past 10 years is the development of the mayors. For the first time, we actually have public authorities outside London with some real strength and political credibility. Andy Street is a great guy and is doing a fantastic job in Birmingham and the West Midlands. There is Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester. Ben Houchen has created a big name for himself and is perhaps the only major recognisable political figure apart from Tony Blair to have come out of the north-east in recent times. This is very welcome. It is something that, at the political level, England desperately needs.

However, the one body specifically banned from producing these local skills improvement plans—I must get the jargon right—are the mayors. The reason why, it turns out, is that they are not employers. Well, as a definitional thing, obviously they are not employers—they are mayors—but they are the people who have the capacity to generate real activity and engagement by employers and colleges in a serious way. They should be tasked with this mission, but instead they are totally isolated from the process on the grounds that they are not employers and the Government want to be promoting employers.

Instead, in paragraph 8 on page 16 of the White Paper, Mayor Burnham, Mayor Street and Mayor Sadiq Khan—very big political figures whom we want to seize this agenda—are told this:

“Mayoral Combined Authorities will be consulted in the development of these plans.”


That is a fat lot of good, is it not? The most dynamic, potentially active and crucial agents of the state—they are also the people who, as public authorities, are closest to employers—are simply going to be consulted by bodies that do not for the most part exist at the moment. They are going to engage consultants who also do not exist; I suppose at least the consultants can engage with the consultees quite easily because they both have “consult” at the root of their job descriptions. However, the one thing that this is not going to do of its own volition is produce more skills education and training.

My noble friend Lady Whitaker made the point that the fundamental problems with the education system in these areas—I look at the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who wrestled with these problems 40 years ago; we wrestled with them too—is that basic skills are still too low and we have do not have high-quality apprenticeship routes for those who do not go on to university. This is not rocket science. It is simple. If we got this right, employers would be cheering from the rafters and we would not need this whole new panorama of local skills improvement plans, which I suspect will simply lead us to have exactly the same debates with very little progress having been made in 10 years’ time.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received requests to speak after the Minister from the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Knight of Weymouth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker. I will call them in turn. I call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister said that over 40 applications for LSIP trailblazers have been received by the department. Could she make them available for the Committee to see? It would be very helpful if, while we are considering the Bill, we could see what is going on in the real world. Could she also assure us that, when the selection of those trailblazers is made, they will not just go to areas that have Conservative MPs, reflecting the gerrymandering that took place with the towns Bill? There is a very acute concern that the funding that is available under the Bill is just going to places that are favoured with Conservative representation in the House of Commons, which would be par for the course for this Government.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

The successful ones will be announced later on this month. There are no plans—and I clarify that it is not our normal process—to release the applications of those who have not been successful. I will write to the noble Lord if I am wrong about that.

Schools: Exam-year Pupils

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the Covid-19 crisis is itself a highly exceptional circumstance and therefore that there may be many occasions where it would be in the interest of the pupil to repeat a year? The job of the Government is to make that possible, including putting in place the logistical and funding arrangements that are necessary. Does she not accept that, for pupils who drop out and do not get the exam grades and qualifications they need, the long-term impact, including the impact on society and the direct costs that we will have to bear in due course, may be much greater than those of making arrangements for pupils to repeat another year?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord is correct. Catch-up is for this Parliament, as I have outlined. We are looking at summer schools and at the immediate catch-up that pupils need, but the necessary arrangements are longer-term and for the duration for this Parliament. Yes, we also need to look at individual cases. No idea is ruled out and off the table but, as I have outlined, there are very serious implications if whole cohorts of pupils repeat an academic year.

Education (Exemption from School and Further Education Institutions Inspections) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2020

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Thursday 29th October 2020 Grand Committee

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the arguments for and against this regulation are finely balanced—more finely balanced than some of my colleagues have suggested. When I was Minister for Schools, our principle of action was intervention in inverse proportion to success. There are so many problems that we have to confront in the education system and there is such a big problem still in the English education system of the long tail of chronic underperformance that the arguments for investing finite resources—and good inspectors are a finite resource—on schools that are clearly successful does not seem to be worth while on a cost-benefit basis.

Having said that, when I was Minister we inspected all schools and I can hardly complain that the present Government moved to a system where they exempted a whole category of schools from inspection. I supported that move at the time, as it was the direction of travel in which we were moving. It is not the case that you do just one or the other. You can tell pretty well from data what is happening to school in terms of standards. It sounds as if this decision is now firmly taken, but these things are constantly under review, particularly in this crisis.

However, I would have preferred it if we did not move to a wholesale system of devoting Ofsted resources to clearly successful and outstanding schools and did so only either when the data gave cause for concern or, crucially, where there are parental complaints. Parental complaints are always a good guide to when there are issues in a school that need external intervention. I simply say that to the Minister to bear in mind in the next iteration which will come with these regulations.

However, my bigger concern is that all this is beside the point at the moment. We are in the middle of a crisis, where no inspections are taking place, as the noble Baroness said. It is not the case that the school system will get back to normal, as we had all hoped, in a month or two; it now looks like it may not get back to normal for another year. Meanwhile, inspections closed down entirely in that period.

The issues at stake are significant and urgent. I will make some suggestions to the Minister. It is always important to understand what went wrong in the past and what we can get right in the future. In my view, a fundamental mistake was made in March and April in closing the school system down. Legally, all state schools were closed in March. That was a fundamental mistake. I am not just saying that in hindsight; I said it at the time. It might have been the case that some schools could not operate physically—although, as it happens, I think it was a mistake to close all schools physically in March and April—but there should have been the expectation that schooling would continue as near to normal online. That did not happen in the beginning.

The Government have corrected that now with the continuous learning provisions, which mean that where schools cannot continue physically there will be online learning, but at the moment Ofsted is playing virtually no part in this process at all. My concluding suggestion to the Minister is that Ofsted should play a part in this. It is producing some guidance, and I understand from reading the new regulations that have been issued that it is monitoring the performance of schools in online learning. However, I do not think that this is enough if we are to be in this situation for many months. I will make three specific suggestions to the Minister about what Ofsted should be doing over the coming months while we are still in the Covid-19 crisis.

First, Ofsted should be not just giving advice, but grading all schools by the quality of their online learning, a good deal of the assessment of which can, by definition, be done without needing to visit the school, although I think some visits to schools would be perfectly appropriate in this instance. Secondly, it should be highlighting best practice for the provision of online learning away from school, including best practice in use and provision of IT, and the provision of wi-fi where that is not available. Thirdly, it should be not only highlighting best practice, but naming the best schools in the country in provision of education during the coronavirus pandemic so that other schools can imitate them. In my experience of education, imitating the best is the best way of levelling up.

Educational Settings

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Thursday 19th March 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

I am grateful to my noble friend. We are aware of the situation for early years funding. Yes, all the three and four year-old entitlements and disadvantaged two year-old entitlements that the Government pay will continue to be paid regardless of who walks through the door. As of yesterday, the early years providers were included in the business rates exemption. We are working closely with Her Majesty’s Treasury because we are aware of the mixed model of free entitlements funded by the Government and private income from other parents that is used by most early years providers.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

First, can the Minister tell us the legal basis under which the Government are acting? She will have picked up the concerns around the House about what happens when people feel that their livelihoods are at stake if they cannot place their children in school. If they do present on Monday and head teachers seek to turn children away, what is the precise legal basis on which they will be acting? Is there one? Secondly, on the issue of social equity, year 11 students’ whole future is at stake—whether they can go on to sixth form or college next year. I do not think that they or their parents will find it satisfactory that the arrangements for tomorrow are being put in place on a hit-and-miss basis. Would not the fair way of doing this be to guarantee that all year 11 students who wish to study in the sixth form of their school should have the right to do so, and the department should make that clear to schools, and that where their school does not have a sixth form, they should have the right to study at the local FE college? If not, there will be a massive sense of discontent and inequity in the country.

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, in relation to the sixth form issue, I will have to come back to the noble Lord. In relation to the legal power, obviously the Bill in relation to the coronavirus will be published today. As a lawyer, I will have to write to the noble Lord in relation to the precise legal basis that head teachers will have. But they will have protection to make the decisions that we have asked them to make.

Trade Bill

Lord Adonis Excerpts

2nd reading (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 11th September 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has just spoken powerfully about the benefits of expert sectoral attachés at our embassies, and I am sure that the Minister will be taking her suggestions seriously.

I make no apology for returning to the critical issue of Northern Ireland, following on from my speech on the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill last week. Ireland is the Achilles heel of Brexit, because it cannot be squared with the prosperity and flourishing of Ireland, because of the impediments it will impose on trade within Ireland and between Ireland and Great Britain. The crucial thing to understand about this, as I now appreciate only too well from successive visits to Belfast and Dublin in recent months, is that as an island off an island, Ireland’s trade is overwhelmingly centred on, or routed through, Great Britain. Some 14% of Ireland’s trade is directly with Great Britain, while 85% of Ireland’s EU freight trade is routed through British ports.

The issue we and Ireland face, therefore, has two critical dimensions. The first is the extent of the trade between us and the damage we will inflict on Ireland if we unilaterally erect barriers to that trade. The second is the impact on the fragile peace and stability of Northern Ireland, which, even 20 years after the Good Friday agreement, is in a state of crisis, with no Assembly or Executive for 600 days and the constant threat of re-entering a spiral of civil disturbance or worse. These two issues are interrelated, since nothing contributes to peace more than prosperity, and nothing undermines prosperity more than civil unrest, uncertainty and an absence of democratic institutions able to deliver for the people.

Since I spoke last week the position has worsened, because of the incredibly inflammatory remarks by Boris Johnson, Mrs May’s Foreign Secretary until two months ago, about her Brexit policy being a “suicide vest”. Leaving aside the nauseating attention-seeking tone of that metaphor, it is important to understand that Mr Johnson was referring to the backstop provision for Northern Ireland. As an irresponsible hard Brexiter, Mr Johnson has long been opposed to the backstop by which EU law and the EU’s trade regime will continue in Northern Ireland if there is any question of a hard Brexit requiring border infrastructure after the implementation period in 2020.

Mr Johnson’s reason is simple: the backstop imperils Brexit itself. This is in fact true. The problem is that anything else imperils the Good Friday agreement and threatens to provoke paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland—which is precisely why the Prime Minister agreed to the backstop last December, as a key element of any withdrawal agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union this autumn.

I know that the Minister will totally dissociate herself from the “suicide vest” remark—but will she say what the Government’s current position on the backstop is, given that the Prime Minister herself said in Belfast, shortly after Mr Johnson’s destabilising resignation, that she no longer favoured a backstop that had force in European law or was not time-limited?

I have two other vital questions for the Minister about the Government’s post-Brexit trade and customs policy on Ireland. First, can she say how Section 10 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act relates to the Irish backstop? My specific point is that if there is no deal, there is no backstop—so, by definition, on 29 March 2019 there will be a hard border and customs tariff arrangements between Ireland and Northern Ireland. I do not see how this, or any weakening of the backstop, is compatible with Section 10 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which noble Lords will recall—because we inserted it into the Act—provides that a Minister of the Crown must act,

“in a way that is compatible with the terms of the Northern Ireland Act 1998”.

The same provision—Section 10 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act—also specifically prohibits the Government from agreeing to,

“create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU”.

I ask the Minister, therefore, whether Section 10 prohibits no deal, or a weakening of the previously agreed backstop in relation to Northern Ireland?

As a further consequence of the crisis in the Conservative Party this summer, following the Chequers declaration on Brexit policy in July, the Government have gone significantly further than Section 10 is respect of provisions relating to Ireland. We now also have Section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act that we enacted only last week, which was inserted as an amendment in the House of Commons by Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg. Section 55 of the latest Act states:

“It shall be unlawful for Her Majesty’s Government to enter into arrangements under which Northern Ireland forms part of a separate customs territory to Great Britain”.


This gives rise to an obvious and huge question that I will now also put to the Minister. If under Section 10 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act a no-deal Brexit or any Brexit without a backstop is illegal in respect of Northern Ireland, and given that Section 55 of the Taxation (Cross-border) Trade Act states that it is not legally permissible to have different customs arrangements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, does it not logically and necessarily follow that a no-deal Brexit, or any hard Brexit that is inconsistent with the Northern Ireland backstop and the Good Friday agreement, is illegal not only in Northern Ireland but across the whole of the United Kingdom?

I would be grateful if the Minister would respond to these two questions, either verbally at the end of the debate or in writing as soon as possible. Given the gravity of the issues at stake, it may be that she will want to give me a full response in writing. I should also say that I am taking other eminent legal advice on these vital questions. In conclusion, it looks to me as if the Irish Achilles heel of Brexit might be about to go gangrenous—and the force of the Brexit laws already enacted by Parliament might well be the cause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

I can confirm that we are still aiming to have them in the case of a no deal so that they can be signed. That is our clear aim, but the timing is tight. I can write to the noble Lord; I was actually going to do so, in detail, before Committee. I can say that conversations are ongoing. The noble Lord referred to statements from South Africa, some of which said that they supported it even in the case of no deal, which I think that statement was about.

The issue of our approach to future free trade agreements was raised by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Monks, the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Hooper. I understand the desire to discuss such issues—they are important—but it is worth reminding ourselves that we propose a very different approach for those future agreements. We want to consult and involve a wide range of stakeholders and others before we decide how best to proceed. Once we have left, we will establish appropriate mechanisms to scrutinise future free trade agreements. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, the Secretary of State has already announced that the Government will bring forward bespoke primary legislation, if required, for each future trade agreement. He also committed to keeping Parliament updated in negotiations through the provision of statements and updates to the ITSC. This is in addition to our commitment to engage more widely. The aim is to be transparent and inclusive. Our 14-week consultation is ongoing, as many noble Lords discussed, and will feed into the government process. We aim to ensure that both Houses have adequate time and ability to scrutinise. The Government will set out in due course how we will proceed.

I want to address specifically a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, about trade union involvement. As the Secretary of State announced on 18 July, the consultations launched by the Government on future trade agreements provide one of a number of means by which trade unions can have their say on the government approach.

I touched on parliamentary scrutiny in my opening remarks. I want to cover the issue of how we may use the reporting exemption in Clause 4, as raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine. We do not plan actively to use the exemption. However, it is right that the Government prepare for a range of scenarios to ensure that we can deliver continuity. In exceptional circumstances, the Government must reserve the right to ratify agreements before they lay a report on the changes. This reflects a similar position in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act that has never been used.

The noble Lords, Lord Grantchester, Lord Fox, Lord Monks and Lord Whitty, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Henig, raised the issue of standards. It is clear that future trade policy must work for UK consumers and businesses. High standards are what our domestic and global customers demand and that is what we should provide. I am pleased to have this opportunity to provide reassurance that the Government are committed to upholding the high standards that this country is rightly proud of. Not only that, we want to champion standards as a world leader. The noble Lord also mentioned that free trade automatically leads to a lowering of standards. I invite noble Lords to look at the EU trade agreement with Canada, CETA, which makes it clear that the lowering of standards is not an option.

I turn now to the European Medicines Agency. Life sciences are a critical part of our nation’s strength. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, raised a particular issue on which I have a detailed response. We made clear that we want to provide noble Lords with the strongest possible reassurance on our commitment to implement the CTR. If it comes into force during the implementation period, as is currently expected, it will apply to the UK. If not, we will take certain steps. I will write to the noble Lord with more detail on that and I will place a copy in the Library.

The noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Grantchester and Lord Wigley, and my noble friend Lord Elton raised the issue of the devolved nations. The UK Government want all parts of the UK to support the Bill. We have been clear from the Bill’s introduction that on the elements of this legislation, namely relating to Clauses 1 and 2, we want to engage the legislative consent process. We are working with the devolved Administrations and have made significant strides through amendments tabled in the other place. I reiterate the Government’s commitment to continue to engage with the devolved Administrations, and I remain confident that we will reach a position which the devolved Administrations can support.

On our independent trade policy and the independent Trade Remedies Authority, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, and my noble friends Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lord Elton, who expressed recognition of the vital importance of putting in place an effective and independent Trade Remedies Authority. I listened with interest to the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, on the prospects for the UK’s independent trade policy. I do not share his views and I think we need to have this TRA to be able to support our independent trade authority.

The noble Lords, Lord Monks and Lord Whitty, questioned why we could not have individuals with particular expertise on the board. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe stated the opposite. We believe that it is vital that board appointees are not beholden—or perceived to be beholden—to the groups whose interests they represent, otherwise it could undermine their independence. We are committed to staffing the TRA board with the appropriate range of background and experience. On the sort of experience and specification, we have consulted the Scottish and Welsh Governments on the job description and the person specification for the Trade Remedies Authority chair, ahead of launching the recruitment campaign. Appointments will be made on merit alone.

I welcome the interest expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine, in ensuring that the TRA is set up and staffed appropriately. We have restricted it to a maximum of nine members to ensure that the senior membership can be resourced flexibly in response to business needs. It is broadly consistent with an arm’s-length body of that size.

My noble friend Lord Tugendhat raised the issue of WTO membership and the recent policy towards that body. The President has said that he wants to see the WTO modernised. At the G20 we have started this discussion, and the recent EU-US discussions included an agreement to co-operate on WTO reforms.

Finally, the noble Lords, Lord Hain and Lord Adonis, as well as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering raised the Northern Ireland border. This is crucial: the Prime Minister has been clear that we need to respect the Belfast agreement—there will be no hard border—and the constitutional integrity of Northern Ireland. She has rejected the backstop proposed by the EU—these are ongoing negotiations.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords—

[Baroness Fairhead]

I am just coming to the noble Lord’s question. The noble Lord asked some very specific questions and I will write to him and take up his kind offer.

United States Tariffs: Steel and Aluminium

Lord Adonis Excerpts

Tuesday 13th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fairhead]

I thank my noble friend for his supportive words. Although officially I am not in the Trade Policy Unit—I am concentrating on exports—I obviously have interactions with it. It is likely that I will visit the US in a few weeks’ time and I will continue to represent the importance for us of addressing the excess steel capacity in the world, which is the root cause of the problem. We have made good progress along those lines. Where we see other countries behaving improperly, we are able to initiate anti-dumping or anti-subsidy measures. In the UK alone there are 45, which have proved to be effective. We will continue to fight but it is important that we do so within a rules-based system.

[Lord Adonis (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on her appointment, and we wish her well in her trade export work. We commiserate with her, however, for having to repeat that Statement from the Secretary of State for International Trade, which was a catalogue of name calling and impotence. If he had the influence he claims with his great long list of American friends, whom he will be lobbying over the next week or two, we would not have had these tariffs in the first place.

I have two questions. First, is the Minister in any way optimistic that President Trump will lift the tariff he has announced? Secondly, does the Minister not think that this situation gives the complete lie to the argument for leaving the European Union on the basis that Britain’s global trade will somehow compensate for the loss of trade with the European Union that we will suffer? In addition, does the Minister not agree that the Prime Minister’s choice of words in her Mansion House speech—she said that it is now an object of policy on the part of Her Majesty’s Government that we will have less market access to the European Union—looks ever more unwise with each tweet and utterance from President Trump?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Fairhead]

I agree with my noble friend Lord Lawson that when we are an independent trading nation, we will be able very directly to use the relationship we have with a key ally. That said, given that we believe so strongly in global free trade within an international rules-based system, and given that we are part of the EU and have a duty to co-operate, we will use our special and deep relationship with the US to help the EU overall in progressing this with the US by trying to ensure that we have the best possible chance of eliminating the tariff or getting significant exemptions.

[Lord Adonis]

My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that it is a complete fantasy if the noble Lord, Lord Lawson, thinks that we will be in a stronger position to negotiate with the United States when we do not have the weight of Europe behind us and we are acting entirely independently? Further, does she not think that that is a controlled experiment which can only do enormous harm to the country and that we would be better off not engaging in it in the first place?

[Baroness Fairhead]

We should be happy that we have a long, enduring and strong relationship with a very important partner and all our efforts should be concentrated on addressing where we do disagree, because where that is the case we will say so, and in this case we have done so. Equally, however, the numbers I have seen on our trade with the US show that we have $1 trillion-worth of mutual investment in each other’s economies. We should be taking that forward and using it to make sure that global trade really prospers around the world.