Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 6th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is a little sooner than I expected. I put my name down to speak on this because, as the Government have said, this is a framework Bill. Governments like framework Bills because they give them a chance to develop and change as they are going along, with a little bit of freedom and a hint of Henry VII and a half. It is there and they like that. The price they pay is the fact that we want to know exactly what they are aiming at initially.

When this amendment was tabled and it was said which groups were going to be talked to, I saw that we already had employers down there. There is the danger of a dominant employer in here—a dominant employer who may not be the most foreseeing employer. Surely they should be talking to other people as well. Those with local power—that is, the mayoral authorities and local government—are surely dead certs to be involved in that conversation. These are people with budgets which will affect the local marketplace. We have already had a discussion about the green agenda, how that is implemented and the certain skills that are required there. These will be people who will be talking to you as you go through.

The amendments also mention students’ unions and trade unions. Why not? But I do not think that is the really important bit; that is the idea of what the influence will be, and which group will be having the conversation about what you should be doing and what your plan for training is. If we can get an answer to that from the Minister, at least on what the thinking is, we will all be slightly better informed and able to hone our arguments for the next stage of the Bill.

If we do not, we will be going round in a circle here. We will have to impose something on the Government to get them to come back and give us an answer. If the Government can give us an idea of what they actually require on this occasion, life becomes that little bit more straightforward. I hope that when the Minister comes to answer this, she will be able to provide at least the basis of the Government’s thinking about what goes on, because employers are great, but they occasionally get it wrong. I would just point out that many firms that were there 20 years ago are not here today. Surely that means that their boards—however well intentioned—got something wrong.

[Lord Bradley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am pleased to speak to this group of amendments, particularly Amendments 13 and 14. I commend the contribution of my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley. I declare my interests in the register, especially my role as chair of council at the University of Salford.

While I fully support the principle of employers playing a more active role in driving certain aspects of the skills system, as well as the more specialist role for further education colleges in delivering high-level technical skills, this should be taking place within the context of a holistic and objective overview of the whole education, skills and employment support system, to guard against introducing further complexity and fragmentation. One of the best ways to achieve this is to have a formal role for the mayoral combined authorities, where they exist, in the development of local skills improvement plans, reflecting MCAs’ unique position in this area of policy.

As drafted, there is no provision or requirement in the Bill for the Secretary of State or the designated established employer representative bodies to engage with mayoral combined authorities, local authorities or other key stakeholders such as universities in relation to—among other things—the designation or removal of designation of an appropriate ERB to lead activities, the geographical footprint of the local skills improvement plan, and the context and strategic priorities of the area. This omission overlooks the vital roles that MCAs and local authorities play in skills and economic regeneration, as well as MCAs’ devolved functions across adult education and, in the case of Greater Manchester, significant elements of employment support.

Further, the DfE has indicated that while an MCA’s agreement to the proposed local skills improvement plan would assist the Secretary of State’s approval, it is not a prerequisite, so proposals that fail to secure the support of mayoral combined authorities might still receive government approval. Therefore—I agree with the Greater Manchester Combined Authority and am grateful for its extensive briefing on this matter—the Bill should make provision for consultation by the Secretary of State and the consent of MCAs in the designation of employer representative bodies and the approval of local skills improvement plans. Without such a provision, there could be a number of potential issues and risks to their success—and success is what we all want.

First, the Bill focuses primarily on higher-level skills and technical specialisms, which I agree have been neglected in policy and funding terms for far too long. However, there is a vital talent pipeline, starting with community-based engagement and entry-level essential skills, that is barely recognised in the Bill. It is unclear to me how this vital progressive pathway will be protected in the face of employer-led plans that will have a legal status not afforded to strategies for other aspects of the system. This could undermine existing partnerships and collaborative approaches to the local labour market.

Secondly, it is unclear how ERBs will be accountable in relation to strategic oversight, long-term vision and resource and capacity issues to ensure co-ordinated and impactful delivery in partnership with all relevant stakeholders. In particular, checks and balances will be required where designated ERBs are membership organisations and/or where they hold contracts as providers in order to ensure that local skills improvement plans are truly reflective of employers’ needs and interests across a locality, rather than solely for those ERB members.

Thirdly, the Government have not specified what constitutes a local area in terms of the geographical footprint of the new local skills improvement plans. Instead, employer representative bodies are being invited to define their own localities for the purpose of skills planning. So, for example, despite Greater Manchester being a well-recognised functional economic area with a long history of collaboration, there is no guarantee that the new local skills improvement plan proposals will follow existing geopolitical and functional economic footprints. This could undermine the alignment of skills and employment support in places such as Greater Manchester, which has used complementary devolved functions, pilots and other resources to support the creation of jobs and the skills to match them.

To address these issues and others, I believe the role of the mayoral combined authority and the local authorities should be properly recognised in the Bill to ensure the successful development of the local skills improvement plan and that all stakeholders feel they are part of the success going forward. I am pleased to support these amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lexden) (Con)]

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, has withdrawn from the debate, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Lord Bradley Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 15th June 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I join in the congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome, on her excellent maiden speech. I declare my interests in the register, particularly my position as chair of council at the University of Salford. I am particularly interested in the provisions in the Bill in respect of bringing together the higher and further education sectors, and providing greater parity of esteem between the various routes, academic and vocational, that one can travel down to secure a quality job. That blurring of the lines between academic and technical education is at the heart of the University of Salford’s mission. Its founding institution was the Royal Technical Institute of Salford, which was established in 1896 to train the workforce of the industrial revolutions.

Over 125 years later, the university is dedicated to powering the fourth industrial revolution. Today, academics are working hand in glove with employers, both public sector and private sector, to transform higher education. The university offers industry-focused degrees, designed with employers and with real-world experience baked in from day one, alongside new routes such as higher and degree apprenticeships. It is this legacy that the university is now building on, with its ambitions to develop an institute of technology. This innovatory project will bring together, in partnership, employees and further education colleges across Greater Manchester, to offer a range of level 4 and 5 courses, higher technical qualifications across digital, engineering and data, to plug the missing middle skills gap that we know employers are so desperately crying out for.

Turning to the legislation itself, I will focus on two areas. Of course I welcome the principle of the lifelong loan entitlement. Access to funding for training and retraining throughout one’s life will be a critical foundation for any aspiration to build a vibrant economy after the coronavirus, However, despite the positive mood music on the lifelong loan entitlement, the Government are leaving us hanging on for the detail. I look forward to seeing the specifics in due course, but I would like to outline two broad principles that I hope the Government will keep in mind when they decide this funding scheme, and perhaps they will respond to them today.

First, parity of esteem between further education and higher education cannot be achieved by simply increasing the funding going to further education at the expense of higher education. Colleges and universities working in partnership to deliver pathways that are right for the individual learner is how we achieve their ambitions, not by promoting further competition between these parts of the education and skills sector, as colleges and universities race to secure limited resources. The funding system, along with the regulatory system, across further and higher education needs to promote collaboration and co-operation, not competition. It is also worth stating that meeting our country’s economic aspirations is not just about more people choosing to do higher technical qualifications rather than going to university. It is about making sure that people go on to further education rather than stopping their learning at level 2 or 3. Our main challenge is not too many people going to university, but that too many people finish education too soon.

The cost of fees is only part of the issue when it comes to securing greater numbers of adult learners through further and higher education. We know that mature students are more debt-averse and cost-conscious than maybe school and college leavers. We have seen this in the sharp decline in mature students, following the raising of tuition fees and the ending of maintenance grants in recent years. Alongside the lifelong learning entitlement, the Government need to consider what maintenance and cost of living support can be provided, especially for adult learners who might have to reduce their hours to enable them to work and study part-time, and for a block period of shorter time-intensive courses. Again, I would welcome a response from the Minister on that today.

I quickly turn to the second matter, the OfS. I have grave concerns about the Government’s plan to allow the OfS to set minimum baselines on quality that do not have regard to students’ background, institution type, subject or location. This move seems at odds with the aspiration to level up access to education and training. It could well also have unintended consequences. There is a real risk that universities will be disincentivised from increasing access to further and higher education to those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds and from introducing more flexible modes of study.

I conclude with another word of caution to the Government on the Bill. Where collaboration is already taking place in local areas between many local actors—including colleges, schools, universities, businesses, local government, the NHS, elected mayors and combined authorities, as we have in Greater Manchester—support it to flourish. In my area at the University of Salford, we are already leading a consortium of employees and colleges to develop new technical qualifications to meet local skills needs. The university and college sector has already committed to working together. Where structures are in place for joint working, do not seek to replace them for the sake of it. Work with those places to deepen and enhance those structures, recognising the unique needs, strengths and challenges of individual places.

Queen’s Speech

Lord Bradley Excerpts

Wednesday 12th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bradley (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, I first add my congratulations to the maiden speakers and wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth all the very best for his future outside the House.

In declaring my interests in the register, I am pleased to make a short contribution to this Queen’s Speech debate, with a particular focus on the legislation presented on health and especially mental health. First, the health and care Bill is underpinned by the NHS Long Term Plan, which sets out the ambition to achieve parity of esteem between physical and mental health. But despite this commitment, mental health services are struggling to meet demand, and this has been exposed and exacerbated by the pandemic. As the Royal College of Psychiatrists pointed out, there are record numbers of referrals to mental health services. The most recent figures for December 2020 show an 11% increase compared to the same time the previous year. Similarly, in parts of the north-west, calls to mental health crisis teams by children and young people have doubled during the pandemic, as BBC North West movingly reported this very week. Therefore, it is essential that the new integrated care system gives equal weight to mental health by making it a legal requirement that NHS mental health trusts sit on their boards, and that non-statutory bodies, allied health professionals—such as speech and language therapists—and the voluntary sector providing mental health and related services for people with complex needs should also have a statutory right to be on the boards of these bodies.

Further, the key policy paper, Integration and Innovation, makes it clear that the Bill will bring forward several measures to improve accountability in the system in a way that will empower organisations and give the public confidence that they are receiving the best care every time they interact with it. This is clearly welcome, but so far these measures seem extremely top down government-heavy, with an emphasis on the powers and responsibilities taken back to the Department of Health and Social Care and, specifically, to the Secretary of State. Crucially, it seems silent on how the views of the public will actually be represented on ICOs and ICSs. To ensure public confidence at a local level, their voice must be heard and have a direct role in influencing and determining the priorities in each local community, especially guaranteeing that mental health services and provision for people with learning disabilities and complex needs are given equal consideration. Again, I believe this should be explicit in the forthcoming legislation.

I turn briefly to the proposed mental health reform Bill, for which I hope the pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill will be quickly brought forward by the Government. I will make two small but important initial comments on the interface between mental health and the criminal justice system. First, it is proposed that a statutory time limit is introduced for the transfer from prison to mental health settings for those requiring mental health care. I made a similar recommendation in my report in 2009 and therefore strongly support it. However, it needs to be emphasised that such transfers can be extremely problematic due to lack of appropriate beds. This can particularly affect women and lead to transfer far from home. The Government must invest quickly in appropriate, secure and specialist provision to ensure that they deliver on this statutory time limit recommendation.

Secondly, the Government have committed that by 2023-24, investment in mental health services, health-based places of safety and ambulances should allow for the removal of police cells as a place of safety. Again, it is essential that the gaps in current provision in health-based places of safety are addressed, perhaps with a specific capital allocation to honour the 2023-24 target.

I conclude by making the point that to ensure that the NHS can continue to develop as an integrated system and meet the growing demand for healthcare, particularly in mental health, sustained investment will be required, predicted to be over £100 billion over the next decade. The first test of this will be the comprehensive spending review in the autumn. It will set the direction of travel and will allow an early assessment to be made of whether the levelling-up agenda is real or just rhetoric and whether the repeated claims of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that this is a Government who deliver have any real substance. I look forward to further debate on these matters.