Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 15th July 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 27. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in the group to a Division must make that clear in the debate. Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I inform the House that the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Adonis, have withdrawn from speaking on this group. I ask those after them to be prepared for when they are called, please.

Amendment 27

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Clauses 3 and 4 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 39. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate. As I did in the last group, I point out that the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Baker of Dorking and Lord Liddle, have all withdrawn from this group. I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

Amendment 39

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that, by the end of this discussion, we will have started to find out a little more about the Government’s direction and the use of this very useful pot of money, because if you really want to make this a tax on businesses with turnovers of more than £3 million, let us just call it a tax. Let us take the money back and put it into colleges in the normal way. There really is not any point in having this label on this institution if it does not function. If we are going to have an effective training levy, taking out apprenticeships might be the best start for it, so that you are not actually tied to that, and doing something else with it. I hope that, by the end of this debate, we will have a clearer idea of the future direction of this because this really is starting to damage the idea of apprenticeships more than it actually helps. I beg to move.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green. No? I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords, it is an unexpected pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Addington, with his straight talking. I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Storey, in introducing a greater degree of flexibility in the use of employers apprenticeship levy funds.

I am particularly glad to see the involvement of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, who brings practical experience of what works from running a training business and of the red tape—my words, not his—of complying with regulatory conditions, which I fear this Bill increases too much. The backdrop to all this is a dramatic fall in apprenticeship numbers in recent years—exactly the opposite of what we wanted and promised to achieve. A great deal of effort has been put into improving the quality and level of apprenticeships but I fear that, perversely, this has excluded many who would have benefited from the discipline and recognition of a successful apprenticeship, for example in my old industry of retail. However, my noble friend the Minister may have a better explanation for the decline and be able to reassure us that the fall has come to an end.

I was at the birth of the apprenticeship levy as the Minister who took the legislation, the child of Nick Boles, through our House. As noble Lords may have sensed earlier, I am passionate about apprenticeships, which were beginning to be a lost art, but I did have some carefully disguised doubts about the design of the arrangements for administering the levy. The system is a bureaucratic one and was led by education, rather than employers, so bigger employers paid a substantial levy. This often came off their existing training budgets; they were then unable to fix their training into the mould laid down by the Civil Service, so the levy ended up as a tax.

Perhaps my noble friend the Minister can explain why things are better now. In particular, where a company has surplus levy credits, can these be allocated to their supply chain or pledged to other companies without the levy payer having to become responsible in any way for the training in that other firm? That requirement was a real barrier to good practice and spreading the levy into the supply chain. What is the current cap on the new arrangements in percentage or other terms? Has the inevitable move to digital made the system more efficient, with fewer requirements to keep unnecessary records for inspection and more trust in employers to lead and train their apprentices? Or have more requirements been laid down in the digital world because, in theory, it is so very easy?

Amendment 39 seems to suggest that the levy funds could be diverted in other ways, which I might be more concerned about if it led to pressure for a rise in the levy. Companies can ill afford a levy increase at present, especially those whose training budgets have been hit hard by Covid. Before we reach Report, I would like to understand better what is planned for apprenticeships. Apprenticeships provide a passport to mobility from one job to a better one. They provide a route to advancement to people who do not need or want to go to university and incur debt doing so. If we could massively increase their numbers and their status on the German model, that would contribute to happiness and to growth.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. I suspect that her knowledge of apprenticeships is far greater than mine and I appreciate her remarks. I also strongly agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, said at the beginning of this debate.

I have added my name to this important amendment because apprenticeships need to be an integral part of the new skills and education system which the Government are rightly seeking to create. They are employer-led and job-focused, and they cover all levels, from GCSEs up to degree level. Through the levy, they provide a mechanism whereby employers contribute to the cost of skills training—where, at times, they have been less than forthcoming.

However, as we have heard, there is a widespread recognition that the levy is not working as well as it should. Relatively few employers are able to use more than a small proportion of their levy funds. Even for major employers in the energy and utilities sector, it is only just over 50%. So, to maximise the funding they can recoup, they tend to use a high proportion of the funds for apprenticeships that are about upskilling or reskilling existing employees, rather than taking on or training new, young apprentices. This is perfectly understandable and, of course, reskilling and upskilling are good things to do—but the result is that the number of 16 to 25 year-old apprentices has not grown nearly as much as the number of over-25s. Although there are mechanisms for employers to transfer up to 25% of their levy funds to other employers who can use them, the process seems overcomplicated and take-up has been pretty low.

At the same time as levy payers are unable to use all their levy funds—with much of the unused funding going back to the Treasury—there appears to be a shortage of apprenticeship funding for non-levy payers. So the impact of the levy on the total funding available for skills training has been rather less than might have been hoped. It is not even clear whether the total amount of funding going into apprenticeships is significantly greater than before the levy was introduced.

The word that crops up most often in discussions with employers about the levy is “inflexible”. As I have said, apprenticeships will surely be a significant element of LSIPs and they need to be properly integrated. I have felt for some time that it would make sense to recast the apprenticeship levy as a wider skills levy—perhaps with a lower payment threshold to bring more employers into the net of contributing towards training. But, at least, if employers in an LSIP area are not able to use all their levy funds, why should it not be possible for those funds to be used for other, defined LSIP training priorities? In any case, what is needed is a review of the apprenticeship levy system in the light of experience to date. It must be clear how it relates to the wider post-16 education and skills system, as set out in the White Paper and now in this Bill.

Amendment 39 does no more than encourage the Secretary of State to conduct such a review. In my view, that is the answer to the argument that it does not belong in this Bill. Well, it does belong in this Bill—it is fundamental to it—and the review is to ensure that levy funds are used in a way that is integrated with the priorities of local skills plans and properly reflects employers’ needs. Of course, such a review must not reduce the amount of funding available for the apprenticeships that are so badly needed. It should seek to maximise the funding available from the levy and to optimise its use in pursuing local and national skills priorities. I look forward to the Minister telling us how this will be achieved—but the review proposed by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would be a very good place to start.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We will go back to the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, to see whether he wishes to participate.

[Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]]

Thank you, my Lords. I apologise that, on the previous occasion, I committed the offence of forgetting to unmute.

I am aware—as are many other noble Lords—of the deficiencies of the apprenticeship levy. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, almost said, we should be careful before we throw the baby out with the bathwater. It has done a lot of good. It has focused employers’ minds on the importance of apprenticeships. We have an Institute for Apprenticeships which is involving employers in creating new standards. I agree with the noble Baroness who said that there was a need for reform. But a consultative process is going on. I ought to have declared my interest as a national apprenticeship ambassador.

Employers already have the ability to use apprenticeship levy money to support not just supply chain companies but other companies outside their supply chain, and there has been a better take-up of that. Indeed, the Government have made more of the apprenticeship levy available. My concern at the moment is that, if we are really looking for growth in apprenticeships, this needs to be in the area of small and medium enterprises, especially in small and micro companies. Those companies frequently complain that the administration is too complicated, and that they find it a burden. We should bear in mind that many are saying, “Look, I’m struggling just to keep my business afloat and now you want me to take on an apprentice”. My response is to be understanding We need to work on helping them to remove some of that administrative and basic training burden. I also say to them, “Look, having a young person whose digital skills might be a lot more advanced than yours can often be of benefit to your company”.

I agree that some of the apprenticeship levy money has been spent in the wrong place. My concern is the 16 to 18 group, where the levels of youth unemployment are exceedingly high. I have already acknowledged the work of the job coaches, but more needs to be done on that front. So I am in favour of reform of the apprenticeship levy. I do not think that we should call it something else. We are just beginning to see a much better understanding by both parents and potential apprentices of the value of apprenticeships. I was interested in a recent development. UCAS, which used to be the clearing house just for those interested in going to university, has now opened another portal where people will be made aware of apprenticeship routes and vacancies. So reform is needed, but I still think that the basic concept is right. There are always areas where things could be improved, perhaps including the role of the Institute for Apprentices.

The apprenticeship levy is a bit like the curate’s egg—good in parts. I think the Government are aware of that, which is why there is a consultative process. I welcome the opportunity for the Committee to have this debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Willetts (Con) [V]]

I will speak to Amendment 54 in my name. I reflect some of the concerns that have already been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Blunkett. It goes back to the very significant powers being provided to IfATE in the Bill, especially the simple and stark statement:

“The Institute may withdraw approval of a technical education qualification.”


I understand the need for that power. I would not justify every technical qualification currently in existence, but it is a significant power and I think we all want to know how it will be exercised and under what constraints. My anxiety is that power may be exercised in a way that does not serve the long-term interests of the economy or individual learners. For example, the Government have invested a lot in T-levels. I very much hope that T-levels will succeed. However, it would be tempting, if T-levels were not quite achieving lift off at the speed that was hoped. to close down the alternatives in order to drive people, not through personal choice, into T-levels. That would be very regrettable.

We also know that the Government believe in trying to divide young people into the sheep and the goats—the two routes. They are either going for a qualification that leads directly to skilled employment or one that leads to further study. Sadly, life is not that tidy, nor is the modern economy. There are enormous overlaps between the paths and there are qualifications that straddle that divide of which the BTEC—already referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—is a conspicuous example. It would be a great pity if BTECs lost out simply because they have an employment value as well as being accepted by universities.

I say to Ministers that expecting young people to give up on the option of university if they go for T-levels seems to me the wrong way of trying to promote them. In reality, young people do not want to close off their options. Of course they have a subsequent decision to take, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Flight, that they must have vocational options in apprenticeships, but expecting them to take a course that explicitly makes that impossible for them will not improve and encourage the take-up of T-levels.

Finally, we have to think of employers. Those of us who are veterans of these education and skills debates know how frustrated employers are by frequent changes in qualifications and frequent changes in the systems. Some qualifications, such as BTECs, have gradually achieved acceptance over decades. Employers are familiar with them and it would be very dangerous for IfATE simply to defund them when employers have become familiar with them and trust them.

All my amendment really does is ask the Minister to set out a process of consultation to be followed. The Minister has on several occasions during this Committee stage—and I commend her on what she has been saying—made it very clear how keen she is on a role for employer representative bodies. Would it not be a natural, logical result of the Government’s own approach that employer representative bodies should be consulted before IfATE exercises the powers that are being given to it?

I hope that as well as the designated employer representative bodies, the public consultation might also involve others, such as LEPs. I am not totally clear why LEPs appear to have fallen out of favour; they have a good understanding of the local economy and would be an obvious group to consult. There are also colleges—it is noticeable how the Association of Colleges has expressed some of its concerns about these powers—and students, whose choices we must trust. I very much hope that the Minister will accept that these powers need to be used in a way that reflects the needs of employers and the choices and preferences of individuals and that therefore the framework for consultation is entirely consistent with the underlying philosophy which she has been expounding.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking.

[Lord Baker of Dorking (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment that my noble friend Lord Willetts has just spoken to and the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, concerning T-levels. This gives us an opportunity to discuss T-levels, probably for the first time.

The Bill gives the Institute for Apprenticeships far too great a power in that it can decide, without any constraints, to abolish a qualification. In the past, this has lain with Ministers. Some Ministers have used it in a very absolute way and done it without consultation, while some have consulted. The power to cancel qualifications was probably seen best in Michael Gove when he abolished all technical qualifications in 2012, which determined the curriculum of all schools thereafter. It determined the basis of EBacc and Progress 8. The cancellation of qualifications is a very important political, as well as an educational, issue.

The Government are now promoting T-levels as the technical qualification at 18. I do not think they will ever abolish A-levels because no T-level that has been announced so far has been required to guarantee A-level maths as the level of maths at that level. There will be many engineering and manufacturing companies that will still require someone who is 18 to have passed A-level maths.

The practice under which T-levels has been established is that each subject has to be 20% practical and 80% academic. That is quite a small element for a technical qualification. At university technical colleges, students from 14 to 16 do 40% practical and 60% academic. When they become 16, they do 60% practical and 40% academic because by that time they will have mastered a series of tools and machinery—drilling machinery, turning machinery, lasers and all the very complicated equipment of engineering companies. They will have also learned to make things with their hands doing projects. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, asked whether the engineering T-level will give students that degree of experience at 18. It seems highly unlikely that it will not.

There is a digital T-level. We are trying to make it work in UTCs, and we are still experimenting with it. Once again, the general feeling is that it is very academically based with far too much concentration on coding and not digital skills, which are much wider than coding and relate to things such as cybersecurity, artificial intelligence and robotics. T-levels will succeed only if they are accepted by two groups: universities at one end and industry at the other.

For decades, industry has been accustomed to BTECs. Engineering and manufacturing companies up and down the country know exactly what they will get for a BTEC qualification or a BTEC extended diploma. In fact, the extended diploma is so important that it is one of the two subjects that industry requires to be provided to appoint an advanced or higher apprenticeship. Two qualifications are needed: A-level in maths, physics or chemistry and a BTEC extended diploma. This means that employers know that the students whom they employ will have had wide experience of using tools and machinery, making and designing things and problem solving. I have no idea whether that can be provided by the T-level engineering, but, if it is only 20% technical, I would have thought that the chances are slender.

My other point is that, technical qualifications have to be very wide, not narrow; they are not as narrow as academic qualifications. Over the years, industry has recognised their quality. The bedding in of T-levels will take some time. Not only universities but also businesses will have to see whether they are in fact providing the degree of technical expertise that they require. That will take some years to establish. Therefore, I hope that we have less talk of abolishing BTECs early on in order to give preference to T-levels before people really know what constitutes a successful T-level and what does not.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and the noble Lord, Lord Young, have both withdrawn, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

My Lords it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who has done so much to keep the candle burning for technical and vocational education through many difficult times. This group on the role of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is one of the most important and it has widened out in discussion.

In considering these amendments, I would like to understand more about the leadership of the institute and its level of independence from the department. I would like to know the extent of business representation, which has barely had a mention in that context, and understand any plans to change its governance or composition as the Government’s very welcome new emphasis on skills and post-16 education takes shape. How does it compare to the set-up in Germany, Switzerland or Austria? My concern is that it is much less employer-based and flexible than the arrangements that I have encountered there, but I would of course be happy to be proved wrong.

Is small business, the backbone of British innovation, properly involved? I agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on the importance of encouraging small business apprenticeships. Will there be a culture of simplicity and speed, or is this a very bureaucratic organisation, as, I am afraid, the impact assessment suggests? It would be helpful to have an answer on some or all of these points today or, if it is easier, in writing.

With his Amendment 55, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, is I believe right to explore the issue of charging for approval of qualifications, pointing out that the deterrent effect on providers might be a problem. That might lose us useful innovation and competition in the provision of qualifications. Should this not in fact be a public service, rather than a charged-for service, as I suspect it is in universities?

I also support the simple Amendments 51 and 53 of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which probe plans to cancel some qualifications to avoid duplication. It is always a great pleasure to hear from him and to be reminded that he is a brilliant product of vocational education. Against a background of declining achievements in technical education, is the proposed moratorium wise? Could we hear which employers are likely to be affected? We have heard quite a bit about individual qualifications, but what kind of employers are likely to be affected? For example, I recall that at Tesco we were able to frame qualifications in a way that suited our work patterns and needs, and we helped many thousands of apprentices to get on and indeed rise up within the retail sector. Is that kind of arrangement now at risk? One of the reasons why I loved working there with my public sector background was that it was a great provider of opportunity for some of the most disadvantaged in the land.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I very much share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and my noble friends Lord Willetts and Lord Baker in particular.

The last legislation that we had in this area was the Technical and Further Education Act. There was a belief then in the perfection of the new—almost a post-modern belief that destruction was the necessary precursor to success. The Government had just destroyed the sector skills councils and they have not yet managed to recreate the complex relations and understandings that led to their successes. In the run-up to the technical education Bill, the Bill team said they thought that this would probably result in the destruction of City and Guilds, as if that institution and all its reputation and quality had no value for the future in the face of their newly-created ideas. Now we seem to be destroying the local enterprise partnerships, which in many areas have established a pattern of understanding and reputation that has enabled projects to be undertaken that would have been very hard otherwise.

I do not share this disdain for the old; I think that it is best to work with it where we can. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out, the reputation that qualifications have built up with employers is a thing of great value. It means that employers know what they are getting but it also means that, when a young person gets that qualification, it is something with strong currency. People know exactly what to expect. It has a high reputation and is a highly tradeable asset.

This is not yet true of T-levels. As noble Lords may know, I have run the Good Schools Guide for many years. I cannot yet imagine advising a parent to let their child do a T-level. It still seems a misconception that you should have to spend the whole of your sixth form years doing this one qualification to the exclusion of everything else. If one is aiming for parity of esteem then it ought to be through the route of being able to mix academic and other qualifications. As the noble Lord, Lord Baker, said, that would allow the technical qualifications to be heavily technical to carry the sorts of skills an employer is looking for, rather than being overly general and not directed towards making someone instantly employable when they come out of school.

Doubtless we are all going to put a lot of effort into making things succeed. We are where we are; we have to make the best of where we have got to. But to give powers to IfATE and others to continue on a path of destruction without consultation and care, and in particular to give them the direction of this Bill without the permission of employers seems wrongheaded. I very much hope that, between those who have proposed amendments to this Bill, we will get something on Report that will help change the Bill’s direction.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Lord, Lord Liddle, has withdrawn, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, this is one of those occasions where I thought I knew what I was going to say before the debate started, but I have changed my mind—or, at least, my words—considerably having listened. When the Minister replies to this, I feel that the audience behind her might be the most worrying. I suggest that when the noble Lords, Lord Willetts and Lord Baker, are saying “beware of this”, any sensible Minister would listen. I know the noble Baroness falls into that category.

The Minister has to pay attention to what has been said. Everybody here said, “We are not sure what you are doing yet”. T-levels may sound neat, but we do not quite know what they are. Are they doing something else? Are they a replacement? I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, who asked if they are replacing BTECs, which are an established way forward and allow flexibility, university entrance and other qualifications. That is the sort of thing we want, especially as we are giving more power to level 4 and 5 qualifications, which is overly due. Can we have some assurance that there is no government thinking that T-levels will be used to replace all this? They will simply not lead to these places; they cannot.

Other institutions with qualifications which are understood and known, such as City & Guilds—if I do not mention City & Guilds, I fear that my noble friend might well have a few words with me afterwards—will be saying, “Everybody knows what these are.” If you are going to bring in T-levels, do it slowly and make sure that you are adapting them to take over these functions. A one-off exam at this age cannot do what these do because they do wonderful and flexible things. A few employers cannot find their way around them, but others can. You could simplify them a little and not sweep them away to do something else.

I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, into his very intellectual comments about the destruction of post-modernism because we have quite enough on our plates without thinking about the centre of Glasgow and its planning issues. But I hope that when the Minister answers she will say that we are not getting rid of all of these good and established things straightaway, just because we have a lovely new toy that sounded good when we first put it forward. T-levels, I am afraid, will have to earn their stripes. They may become something that replaces or works into the rest of it, but further education deals with a diverse range of subjects and paths. It will never be that straightforward. I look forward to the Minister’s response and do not envy her task.

--- Later in debate ---

Clauses 9 to 13 agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, we now come to the group consisting of Amendment 59. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in the debate. The Committee should know that the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Young and Lord Liddle, have all withdrawn.

Amendment 59

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Amendments 60 and 61 not moved.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 62. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate. Before I call the noble Lord, Lord Addington, I inform the House that, again, the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Young and Lord Liddle, have all withdrawn.

Amendment 62

Moved by

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Friday 16th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I do so as a former member of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which he chairs so ably.

I remain a firm supporter of the vision and commitment of all those who have worked to ensure that this legislation reaches the statute book before the end of this Session. Indeed, I would go further and call on the Government to hear the strong case made by many children’s organisations that there should be a Cabinet-level Minister for Children to oversee a children’s charter and introduce government legislation where appropriate, not least in support of the need for enhanced welfare measures to support children. Should that have been in place already, this Bill is an example of a legislative change that could have been better introduced by government.

As a result, my comments in support of my noble friend’s amendment are made more for the record than out of any desire to impede the important progress of this legislation, since this important Bill is better than no Bill. Should this amendment be pushed to a Division, thereby impeding the chances of the Bill reaching the statute book, I would not support it. Under no circumstances, I might add, do I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, is correct in his assessment that this is in any way a blocking amendment. It is certainly not. For my noble friend Lord Blencathra is right—I hope that the noble Lord agrees—that this House has a duty to consider the balance of powers between the legislature and the Executive. Far too frequently, as has been pointed out, we allow the Executive to take powers and resist parliamentary scrutiny. This is a textbook case.

Full front and central to this Bill is statutory guidance. Personally, I would urge the Government to include keeping branded items to a minimum, provide more parental choice, use enhanced online exchanges for second-hand uniform and address the monopolistic practices of certain single supplier agreements that impact cost-competitiveness; my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft just gave a good example of that. I would also urge the Government to provide financial support for struggling parents, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, emphasised.

However, even if all these laudable claims were included in the guidance, there is no strict legislative requirement on anyone to comply with it. The requirement “to have regard to”, as set out in paragraph 13 of the Explanatory Notes, does not impose any course of action on schools or appropriate authorities. No one has a legal requirement to comply with the guidance—just to “have regard” to it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, the Delegated Powers Committee made it clear:

“If an entire Bill can be dedicated to the cost aspects of school uniforms, the resulting guidance should be subject to a parliamentary procedure.”


That must be correct.

So we are giving the Government maximum discretion. Although I have absolute faith in my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues—I am very grateful to her, as I know the whole House is, for all the hard work that she has put into this issue—unfortunately, she cannot guarantee that a future Government would not ignore the calls made by, for example, the Children’s Society and issue revised guidance without ever coming back to this House. That would be the legal position under this Bill and would negate the objectives that so many of us have in support of it, as we set out at Second Reading.

This House does not legislate for good will. We seek statutory responsibilities and accountability because we want to ensure that what is important always has to be tested and assessed by, and made accountable to, Parliament. That is why, even if he does not press this amendment to a vote, my noble friend Lord Blencathra is right.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope I set out clearly at Second Reading the view of these Benches regarding the need for the Bill, and I have no intention of repeating what I said then. I would like just to recognise the valuable advice that the Children’s Society has continued to provide to myself and other noble Lords since Second Reading.

Since Second Reading we have also received the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. At paragraph 3 the committee draws attention to the fact that the Bill’s Explanatory Notes at paragraph 13 say that the Bill

“sets out who has to comply with the guidance”,

yet paragraph 12 of the Department for Education’s memorandum to the committee states that the Bill does not impose any particular course of action in terms of compliance. Can the Minister offer clarification as to the at least apparent discrepancy between these two statements?

The draft guidance is welcome, not least paragraph 15, which reminds schools that they should keep branded items to a minimum—although it would have been useful to have an indication of what is meant by a minimum. The guidance also refers at paragraph 39 to local authorities and multi-academy trusts providing school clothing grants to help with the cost of uniforms for less well-off families. That will prove a decisive factor in the Government being able to deliver on their aim of ensuring that disadvantaged parents are not disproportionately affected by the cost of school uniforms. What assurances will the Minister provide to noble Lords that local authorities and multi-academy trusts will be provided with additional funding, ideally ring-fenced, to accompany the new guidance in this regard? Also, on the subject of single-supplier contracts, can the Minister explain how the draft guidance will guarantee transparency in the operation of such contracts, and in particular that there is genuine competitive tendering?

At Second Reading, the Minister said that she

“would like to be in a position to issue the guidance this autumn”.—[Official Report, 19/3/21; col. 559.]

Can she be more specific today? I have always regarded September as autumn, but with schools usually returning in the first week of that month, that would mean the guidance not taking effect in time for the new school year. Although that would be unfortunate, it may be unavoidable, but can the Minister confirm that it will be possible for the guidance to begin to take effect during 2021-22 school year?

In helpful discussions that I and my noble friend Lady Lister had with the Schoolwear Association, it made it clear that it is seeking a period of 18 to 24 months before the guidance is fully operational. I am not alone in regarding that as excessive. Does the Minister agree that a backstop of September 2022 would be appropriate so as to ensure that families who have been hardest hit financially by the pandemic need not carry the unnecessary burden of excessive school uniform costs beyond that point?

The reason we are here at all today is that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has submitted his amendment, which he moved, typically, in terms as trenchant as those he used at Second Reading. Although, as he explained, he played no part in the committee’s deliberations, his amendment very much encompasses the considered view of the Bill as set out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. At Second Reading the noble Lord sought both the publication of the draft guidance during consideration of the Bill and that it should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The first of those has been met but the second has not—hence his amendment.

At Second Reading the noble Lord said:

“If something is important enough to be made statutory, it is important enough for Parliament to scrutinise it”.—[Official Report, 19/3/21; col. 550.]


In principle, I cannot disagree with that at all, and I would prefer that it were applied in the case of the Bill. However, I am afraid that the noble Lord cannot dismiss concerns that, were his amendment to pass, it would delay the Bill. He has acknowledged that fact, and I was very pleased to hear that. I am afraid that the Government would neither make time available to allow the other place to consider and debate the amendment and return the Bill to your Lordships’ House in the 10 sitting days that remain before Prorogation, nor, perhaps more importantly, include a similar Bill of their own in the Queen’s Speech next month.

The reason I am clear on that last point is that, despite the November 2015 HM Treasury document entitled A Better Deal, which stated that

“The government will ensure that parents and carers get the best value deals on school uniforms in England”,


nothing has happened to bring that about. In the subsequent five and a half years I have seen three Prime Ministers and three Queen’s Speeches, but nothing has been done to bring forward provisions such as those in the Bill we are discussing today. So I have little faith in the Government expending any more effort than they are demonstrating with this Bill—merely giving it a fair wind at a time when they do not have what they regard as more important business to schedule.

However, the focus must be on the Bill and it is important that it becomes law. That is why I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, say that he does not intend to press his amendment. That will allow this important Bill to complete its journey to Royal Assent, and I, together with many young people and families, look forward to it coming fully into effect at the earliest possible date.

The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, first, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for initiating the debate on this statutory instrument. I am afraid that I will probably stray across some of the same ground that he has, but the theme to which I draw attention is one that I raise with monotonous regularity with the Minister’s colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, in the Home Office. It is the need for accurate, timely and informative data, so that one knows what on earth one is doing. You need data to understand the past and present and, above all, to inform decisions you will make about the future.

In that spirit, I have forwarded every single briefing document that I have received to the Minister’s office. I suspect and fear that, in many cases, some of the data and testimonies that come from the front line, from some of the voluntary organisations that have briefed us, are far more incisive, accurate and up to date than the department’s data. That theme tends to recur in this area.

As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, we are indebted to Anne Longfield for her report of last September, a lot of which is shocking. It is shocking partly because she had to go and collect the data to inform her report, because it was not readily available. On page 4, she said that

“The Department for Education commissioned a research report looking at some issues, based on data analysis and interviews with 22 local authorities.”


The point I make is not that that was a bad thing, but that the department did not already know that information, which is why it was done. That is part of the problem. She found that the number of children living in unregulated accommodation has been increasing, year on year, since 2015. That is not a great surprise; the surprise is why the department was not on top of that data and tracking it year by year, or even month by month. I do not understand that.

Anne Longfield’s report lifts the lid on the unregulated accommodation sector, estimated to be worth about £1.6 billion per annum. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, almost three-quarters of it is privately owned, up from two-thirds in 2013. So it has gone up from 66% to 73% privately owned in just six years, and the possible profit margins are extraordinary. There were some cases listed where local authorities were being charged £9,000 a week for a 16 or 17 year-old child.

I do not know whether the Minister was watching television on Saturday evening, but Sky had a documentary called “Lost in Care”, about what we are discussing. It is totally congruent with Anne Longfield’s findings. As I was watching the documentary, which in particular has the detailed testimony of three young people who went through unregulated care—it is quite shocking—I thought of my naive 16 or 17 year-old self and how I would have coped an awful lot worse than those three children did at the time. It was rather shocking. Towards the end of the documentary, the new Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, was shown the evidence by the reporter and asked what she thought about it. She was clearly genuinely shocked and basically said that this is unacceptable; something has to be done. That is what we are discussing here.

As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, has done, I want to recollect the five very clear recommendations that Anne Longfield made in her report. I have given notice that I would do that, and I am hoping and expecting that we will have a comprehensive answer from the Minister to each of them. After all, the report did come out six months ago.

The first recommendation is that no child under the age of 18 should be placed in any setting not regulated to children’s home standards, whether they are in care, homeless or unaccompanied asylum seekers. The second recommendation is to increase capacity in the care system, which is a key problem that local authorities are constantly faced with. One of the unintended consequences of this statutory instrument is that it has effectively—quite unintentionally, I am sure—sabotaged the Children’s Commissioner’s attempts to work with a variety of the major children’s charities, such as Barnardo’s, and with some of the more enlightened best-practice local authorities, which are very keen to get into the market themselves and to supply really good accommodation to the best possible standards.

Unfortunately, that work has ground to a halt. Why? First, local authorities and charities cannot compete with the private sector on the basis that it is currently unregulated and because of the fairly minimal regulations that the Government are proposing to put on to the statute book. Quite frankly, unless the Government come up with higher minimum standards—namely, ones that those local authorities and charities such as Barnardo’s could live with, with a clear conscience—they are not going to be able to compete with the private sector on cost. Secondly, as I said, under the current regulatory framework they will not in all conscience set up these homes that they would like to, because they cannot do it and would fail their own standards of care. Lastly, because of those two interlinking points, it is impossible to go to the market to raise finance to try to build expansion in this sector, because of the uncertainty created by what the Government have decided in the statutory instrument.

The third recommendation is:

“Clarification of what care looks like for children”.


Anne Longfield recommended that the Department for Education shape a comprehensive illustration—a description—of what care should look like right the way through to age 18. I would like to know whether that is in hand, about to be in hand, or if it is on the back burner, and when and if we can expect any action.

The fourth recommendation is to do with the “Regulation of unregulated settings”. The worry is that if the statutory instrument is carried out and its standards applied, they will become de facto the norm for many local authorities that are strapped for cash—that will be the automatic decision taken when they are trying to place a child, which they have a statutory duty to do. I do not think that this is what the Government intend, but that is what the sector fears will happen.

The fifth recommendation is to strengthen the role of independent reviewing officers. These individuals are between a rock and hard place: they work for the local authority—they are employed by it—but they are there to act in the best interests of each and every child in a situation such as being in care and needing to be placed. You have a cash-strapped employer basically saying, “Go for the easiest and cheapest option that ticks the box in terms of our statutory requirements, and don’t get prissy about it”, which puts any independent reviewing officer who has a conscience, and is putting the interests of the child first, in a really impossible situation. The recommendation from Anne Longfield was to look at this and what the Government can do to strengthen the autonomy and independence of these vital people to act in the best interests of the child.

What is common across all those five recommendations is that a lot of this is informed by insufficient data; a lot of it is unknown. We know there is a problem but we do not know the real nitty-gritty and detail because we do not have the data. The department is about to navigate its way through the spending review, it has the CMA investigation into children’s residential care, as well as the social care review, so there is a huge temptation to say, “There is lots to be done; let’s wait and see what comes out of it and then we’ll decide”—remarkably like the Domestic Abuse Bill which we have just been through. Please can we not use that excuse, and try to plan strategically what we can do? I am coming to an end. What are the options to increase supply of accommodation? How can we develop new commissioning models, present targeted capital funding applications, and identify and disseminate best practice models?

Electronic Commerce Directive (Education, Adoption and Children) (Amendment etc.) Regulations 2021

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Grand Committee

Motion agreed.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

That completes the business before the Grand Committee this afternoon. I remind Members to sanitise their desks and chairs before leaving the Room.

Committee adjourned at 5.55 pm.

Free School Meals: Food Parcels

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 14th January 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to the work of Marcus Rashford, which was recognised in the latest honours that he was given. In relation to the flexibility that we have given to schools here, it is important to remember that schools know their children best; they know whether food parcels are best. Obviously, receipt of a food parcel can be vital if the parent at home at the moment is extremely clinically vulnerable, so a voucher perhaps would not be best. Schools generally do not want to deal in cash. Yet we have also seen the use of food parcels that are not necessarily synonymous with a lack of dignity in terms of the clinically vulnerable people in the first stage of the pandemic—and also businesses have sprung up during the pandemic using food that was potentially to supply restaurants and delivering it door to door. So although there needs to be sensitivity in each situation, it is not synonymous with a lack of dignity to offer actual food to people.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

I call the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The noble Lord is muted.

[Lord Greaves (LD) [V]]

Well, I unmuted myself, as agreed, and somebody muted me again, so I have unmuted again. It needs sorting out.

My Lords, there does not appear to be a major problem in Lancashire, because Lancashire County Council—and I congratulate it on this—set up a county-wide voucher scheme for schools when the schools closed again, after the first day. If Lancashire could do this on a county-wide basis, why could the Government not do it straightaway nationally?

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, the value of the voucher has actually been raised from the normal £11.50—a free school meal—to £15, recognising that schools and catering suppliers have economies of scale that a family would not have. I asked about this just this morning and, in terms of food supplied through a food parcel, we would expect schools to deliver appropriate food. A primary school food parcel would look very different from a secondary school one.

[The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has elapsed.

Covid-19: Childcare Sector

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Tuesday 21st July 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, we have seen a welcome increase in the standard of early years provision over recent years, particularly in disadvantaged areas. Some 96% are good or outstanding. As I outlined in my Answer, we are monitoring the situation closely to look at what support the sector needs, but many grants have been available. If an early years provider was in receipt of small business rate relief or rural rate relief, they were entitled to a £10,000 business grant. We recognise that we need to respond to each part of the education sector differently, but we are monitoring the situation to make sure that we have the latest information on the viability of this sector.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

The Minister might possibly be aware of a view given by Caroline Nokes MP, who I think spoke for a lot of people. She said that the Government’s reaction to Covid

“is a recovery designed by men, for men, and it’s not giving the answers families need.”

I feel, as a male of the species, that I am allowed to say that. I point to a recent report by a very distinguished prominent woman, Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner for England, and her “Best Beginnings” strategy, which has just been produced. What is the Government’s initial reaction to it? When do they expect to give a comprehensive response to it?

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I do not recognise the outline of the response that the noble Lord gave. The Government’s response to the pandemic has been comprehensive and they are responding sector by sector to the various needs. The department works closely with the Children’s Commissioner. I am sure that the Secretary of State will respond to her report in due course.

Children in Care

Lord Russell of Liverpool Excerpts

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge]

My Lords, I assure noble Lords that the recent £100 million computer and access to wi-fi provision that has been offered by the Government includes provision of laptops and tablets to vulnerable children who are included in the Children Act need group. They will have access to online facilities to ensure that they do not miss out on their education.

[Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)]

I declare my interest as a governor of Coram. Has the department issued clear guidance to local authorities as to how they should interpret and apply this new lessening of the regulations, or will each local authority be allowed to interpret and apply them as it sees fit? Does the Minister acknowledge that there are substantial areas of best practice in the way local authorities are applying these regulations? Will she make sure that those are identified and notified to those authorities that are not following best practice, to ensure that what the sector is best at is being applied as widely as possible?

[Baroness Berridge]

I assure noble Lords that these regulations were made in close consultation with local authorities about the situation they face. We have a partnership of 17 local authorities—Partners in Practice —which we use to ensure that best practice is spread across the country.