Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025

Lord Storey Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Grand Committee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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

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

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

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

Schools: Mobile Phones

Lord Storey Excerpts

Thursday 6th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

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

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

Lord Storey Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Grand Committee

[Lord Storey (LD)]

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

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Four.

[Lord Willetts (Con)]

King’s is not yet, but will be.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

It always seemed to me that were almost gloating about this, but what a fine way to show that in the financing of our university sector, or in how we look after our students in many cases.

As I think has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, last year the Minister very bravely said the Government were going to increase tuition fees to get over that difficulty. Then, of course, along came national insurance and all that wonderful extra financial resource is completely lost.

My knowledge of the university sector has increased over the years with my children going to university and I also served on the governing council of Liverpool Hope University, so my interest has grown. I always think that we do not really grapple with some of the issues that face us; we try to push them away. I thought that when loans were introduced, it would put students in the driving seat of a university education. I do not think that has happened. In some universities, the way students are regarded is not as good as it should be.

I also wonder whether Tony Blair saying he wanted 50% of young people to go to university was the right way of deciding how we grow the university sector. I look now, and I see some universities really struggling, offering very low grades to get into university. I see universities almost competing with each other on courses when they are in the same city, for goodness’ sake—I just do not understand that. I look at private universities, which, obviously, get finances from the system. I was heavily involved in the Greenwich School of Management, where the Government were able to say, “We’re taking all these young people from deprived backgrounds and giving them a university education”—but, at the end of the first year, they took the money and ran. What went on in that particular private institution, along with others, was completely wrong. When it was highlighted on “Panorama”, the college was closed down, along with others. In one case, police took action. So we have to look carefully at how we use the money as well. Some of the practices that we currently carry out are, in my mind, just not acceptable.

I want to see students really value their university education. I will give an example of something that is a great pity. When I was at university, I stayed on Merseyside, but I loved the fact that I met people from all over the country, who are some of my best friends—from the north-east and elsewhere. Nowadays, students cannot afford that and, increasingly, they go to the university in their home area or even their home city. The figures for Liverpool John Moores or the University of Liverpool, for example, increasingly show that the students come from that city, that conurbation or that region. We have lost something in losing that opportunity.

I am delighted that the Minister talked to us about how we need to look at this properly and come forward with some proposals in the summer. I am delighted and excited by that, to be quite honest, but I hope those proposals will give us the opportunity to give our ideas and thoughts on what that might be. But, in terms of this SI, I very much support what the Government are doing.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as we have heard, this statutory instrument increases by 3.1% the maximum tuition fees that higher education providers can charge for the majority of courses and, in turn, the amount of tuition fee loans that students can take out. It also reduces the maximum amount of tuition fees that can be charged for foundation year courses in certain classroom-based subjects, such as business studies, humanities and social sciences. These Benches very much welcome the Government’s decision on foundation year courses; we have seen potentially troubling increases in the number of students taking these courses, particularly where franchise providers are used to deliver them.

However, I have three main concerns about the approach that the Government are taking to the tuition fee increases. First, this increase, in line with inflation, sets a precedent for future fee increases. I absolutely hear the points made by the Minister and my noble friends about the importance of giving universities visibility and stability in their financial model. But if we assume, in line with the OBR, that inflation remains at around 3%, it will take only a further two years of this policy before students will have to pay more than £10,000 a year in fees. So, after a typical three-year degree, students will leave with debt of around £59,000, or up to £68,600 if they live in London. Echoing the requests of my noble friends, I ask the Minister to clarify whether the Government plan to increase fees again in this Parliament in line with inflation—taking my noble friend Lord Johnson’s advice and doing that quickly—or is this a one-off decision?

Secondly, the Government have stated that they increased university fees for 2025-26 to

“help cement higher education providers’ roles as engines of growth in the heart of communities”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/1/25; col. 19WS.]

The Secretary of State for Education deemed that this action was necessary to

“secure the future of higher education”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/11/24; col. 47.]

However, as we have heard from all speakers this afternoon, this increase will not result in a net improvement in university budgets; indeed, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee commented in its report on this SI that the increase will “not reduce those difficulties” that higher education providers are facing. Our understanding is that the Government’s choice to increase employers’ national insurance will cost the university sector around £372 million, which will more than offset the increase in fees. So we are left in a situation where the Government have increased costs for all parties—students and taxpayers—without fixing the root of the problem. Indeed, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted that

“the ultimate costs of increases in tuition fee loans (and presumably also of maintenance loans, for the same reason) fall on the public purse to a significantly greater extent than the costs of those loans overall”.

So, although the focus is on students, the committee clearly believes that, ultimately, it will be the taxpayer who picks up the bill.

Thirdly, although, as I noted previously, we very much support the Government’s decision to reduce fees on foundation year courses, again, the SLSC notes that about 12 or so institutions will be most affected by the drop in income, which it estimates—or, perhaps, the Government estimate—as being between £154 million and £239 million annually. What assessment have the Government made of that impact? Can the Minister update the Committee on it?

More broadly, I hear and respect the comments of my noble friend Lord Johnson but I think it is fair to say that, as the number of degrees has expanded, some degrees have—my noble friend does not want to use the term “value for money”; I am fine with that—resulted in the taxpayer picking up a greater proportion of the costs than was the case in the past. The IFS noted in its 2020 report that total returns from a degree will be negative for about 30% of the men and women undertaking them. I totally understand that a degree is about much more than one’s earnings power, but one’s earnings power, particularly if you come from a disadvantaged community, is not insignificant either.

So I would be interested to know what the Government are doing to try to give students greater transparency about the degree choices that they are making in terms of future employability, career options and earnings power. The Minister will know that even a degree such as maths, depending on where you do it, will end up with very different outcomes in terms of earnings. It is important for students to understand the implications of their degree choices. The latest data showed that the median first-degree graduate earnings five years after graduation were £29,900 as compared to £33,800 for a level 4 apprentice. I appreciate that they are not interchangeable; I just use that as a demonstration of the point I am making.

It has taken a freedom of information request from my honourable friend Neil O’Brien to reveal the wide variations in the share of loans that are being repaid between different higher education institutions. In some cases, we see only very small fractions of what is being loaned out getting paid back, which means that these courses are definitely not great for the taxpayer but are arguably not great for the student either, who may feel that their degree has cost them a lot but not taken them to where they had hoped to get to.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Storey Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Lords Chamber

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

My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that this is National Apprenticeship Week. There is much to celebrate and much to build on. It is therefore fitting that this Bill leaves this House this week. It paves the way for an ambitious new body in the skills landscape, Skills England, to build an apprenticeship and training offer that is fit for the future.

The Bill has benefited significantly from the scrutiny of this House, and I thank all who engaged with and supported it. I am particularly grateful to Peers from across the House who shared their insight into the skills system and underscored the importance of skills to growth and opportunity. I thank my noble friend Lord Blunkett, my first ministerial boss, for his advice and the wealth of experience that he brings to this House. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, for her contributions to debate, but more importantly, for her invaluable work as the chair of IfATE in preparing for the smooth transition of its work and people into Skills England. I thank the Constitution Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

The Government have a strong democratic mandate for reforming the skills system and establishing Skills England. It is heartening that, while we might not have agreed on everything, there is deep support for Skills England and its vital work from across the House, and I am grateful to noble Lords for their engagement in helping us to get the details right. I appreciated the considered amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lords, Lord Storey, Lord Ravensdale and Lord Addington, and our engagement with these Lords, as well as with the noble Baronesses, Lady Wolf and Lady Garden, and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Hampton. I am pleased that this House has recognised that the Bill is a crucial step towards a skills system fit for the future that delivers for our growth and opportunity missions.

As noble Lords are only too aware, significant skills gaps limit business growth and individual opportunity. Skills England must tackle these gaps and develop the skills we need for our future economy too. To do this, it will need to work with industry, employers and other key partners across the economy. I am delighted that the leadership of Skills England has been confirmed today, with Phil Smith appointed as chair alongside Sir David Bell as vice-chair. As the former CEO and chair of Cisco, Phil Smith will ensure that Skills England benefits from his experience and leadership in industry, particularly within a sector—digital and technology—identified as a priority for the Government’s industrial strategy.

Appointing this team shows how serious we are about the full and rapid establishment of Skills England. It has been operating in shadow form since July last year, and preparations for full transition are well advanced. I must be clear that delay, which this House considered on Report, would create additional uncertainty for employers, learners and IfATE staff, undermining the ongoing preparation for their transfer. Crucially, a delay to the full formation of Skills England would limit progress in tackling skills gaps to drive growth and promote opportunity; this is my prime concern.

Finally, I record my thanks to officials at the Department for Education, including the Bill team, policy leads, government lawyers and my private secretary, all of whom have worked incredibly hard to support me through the passage of the Bill. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, it is appropriate that during National Apprenticeship Week we are coming to the end of the first part of this Bill. It was one of those few Bills where it was a pleasure and a joy to be involved. Everybody wants the same thing—we have a few little differences but we all work together. I am particularly grateful to the Minister, who gave of her time enormously, which is much appreciated. Colleagues right across the House have all worked together in the interests of young people and the skills agenda.

On this side, I particularly thank my small but perfectly well-formed education team of my noble friends Lord Addington and Lady Garden, and Adam Bull in our Whips’ Office, who did incredible work. I do not particularly know the Bill team, but I am sure it did fantastic work. I thank everybody. We will come back to this, but I think the work that has been agreed will do a considerable amount to develop the whole skills agenda and the growth agenda in our country.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her engagement throughout the passage of the Bill and her willingness to meet and discuss different aspects of the legislation. I am also grateful to all noble Lords who brought their expertise to our detailed deliberations and to those across the House who supported each other’s amendments in a truly collaborative way. My special thanks go to my noble friend Lord Effingham, who has given me great support throughout the passage of the Bill, and to Beatrice Hughes in our research team.

During the Bill’s passage we secured several important concessions from the Government, including a commitment to include wording that focuses on quality, value for money, efficiency and effectiveness in the framework document, mirroring the original IfATE legislation. We very much welcomed the amendments the Government brought forward on transparency and reporting.

Our concerns remain about the practical implementation of Skills England. We very much welcome the appointment of Phil Smith as chair of the agency and wish him every success. He clearly brings enormous experience and expertise to the board, but across the House we have flagged concerns about ensuring that the voice of employers remains central to the work of Skills England. I know the Minister has sought to reassure us on that point. We have also had very constructive conversations about the regional coherence of the proposed plans and, of course, the scale of the task that faces Skills England in co-ordinating work across Whitehall.

We very much hope that the Government will think hard about our amendment to delay the abolition of IfATE to give Skills England the time to set itself up for success. We also hope that the Bill will be accepted in its current form in the other place so that, in the nicest possible way, we do not see it again in your Lordships’ House.

School Accountability and Intervention

Lord Storey Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, no one in this House will disagree with the Government’s aspirations for every child in this country to receive a great education and to leave school with the qualifications and confidence they need to go on to the next stage, whether that is education or work, and to realise their potential. No one would disagree that this needs to be done as quickly as possible.

Indeed, under the previous Government, one of the top priorities of the Secretary of State was to reduce the number of children studying in schools that, at that time, were judged to be “Inadequate”—or “2RI+”, as we called them in the jargon; everyone has their secret language—or those that had had multiple Ofsted judgments below “Good”. In the past two years in office, we reduced that figure by over 200,000 children to around 500,000. I am glad that the Government are continuing with that focus, but I suggest that the figure is not the 300,000 that the Government are talking about; it is around 500,000. Just the redefinition that the Government have brought means that 200,000 fewer children risk not getting the intervention that their school needs.

Where we part ways on the ambition is on how we get there. One of the first actions that this Government took was to stop intervention in schools that were judged to be “2RI+”. These are literally the schools where the Government are now saying that they need to see change and will potentially intervene. Some of these schools were “2RI+”, but many had had four, five or more judgments and had had never been “Good” in their history. That is two full cohorts of children going through a school that is judged not to be “Good”.

While the Statement talks about earlier intervention, fostering a self-improving system and putting in support from the RISE teams, in reality, last year’s decision to stop intervention into “2RI+” schools will slow things down, and it will be the children in those schools who pay the price. It will be interesting to see whether the new Government can maintain the pace of the previous Government in reducing the number of children in stuck schools: not by taking action in those schools, but by actually moving them to “Good”—or “Secure”, in the new Ofsted language.

When the Minister responds, could she confirm what the Government’s target is for the number of children in these schools over the next 12 months? What reduction does she expect from the Government’s activity? Can she also comment on Ofsted’s proposals for multiple monitoring visits if a school is in special measures? I think I have understood correctly that six visits are proposed in two years or, if a school requires significant improvement, five visits in 18 months. We were talking earlier in your Lordships’ House about teacher recruitment. How does she think teachers will feel about having so many follow-up visits?

Ofsted has said that it plans to look at nine different areas of school performance, including explicitly looking at attendance, which, of course, we warmly welcome, but nine areas and five possible grades for each mean 45 potential outcomes for schools. Even the most resilient teachers and leaders describe this as stressful. I fear it could end up being almost meaningless, and that is not what Ofsted, the Government or schools want or need. What consideration did the Government or Ofsted give to rethinking the inspection process and having a much more risk-led approach to inspection, rather than the universal blanket approach that we followed in the past?

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risks making things worse, with the proposal to replace the duty on the Secretary of State to intervene in a school that is judged to be in special measures with just a power. We have already seen the Secretary of State reverse a decision to intervene in a school when threatened with a judicial review. The whole system risks being paralysed by JRs and, again, it will be the children who suffer.

The guidance the Government have put out so far makes it clear that the department will not intervene based on academic performance. The noble Baroness and all her colleagues in the department, and those on this side of the House, all care passionately about the disadvantage attainment gap. I urge the Minister to talk to her colleagues about this. She has heard me say—probably more than once—that there are schools in the same local authority, with the same profiles of deprivation, which have radically different levels of attainment for their pupils. Those attainment gaps are not one-offs: they are sustained over time. It would be really helpful if the Government could set out what they propose to do about this.

I really do not doubt the Government’s commitment to raising standards for every child, but I hope that they will use the consultation period to rethink this approach, which risks ending up with confusion, delay and poorer outcomes for the children in stuck schools. I am reminded of a sponsored academy that I visited in Sefton, one year to the day after it had become an academy and joined a strong multi-academy trust, in this case the Dixons Academies Trust. I asked the pupil who was showing me round what it would have been like if I had visited a year ago. She looked at me in horror and said, “You wouldn’t have been safe in the corridors, miss”. That is the reality for children if we delay intervention, and this Government need to think again.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, not having been a Minister, I am not sure of these terms such as 2RI+, but perhaps I will learn.

In Oral Questions this morning, the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised the question of teachers—a very important topic. Not only do we need good teachers, but we also need good schools. It is important that we retain a robust inspection system. Inspections should remain a vital part of the accountability process for schools and councils, and we should extend inspections to multi-academy trusts. However, their purpose needs to be thought through carefully. Where a school is struggling, poor inspection results should lead to greater support. We very much welcome the new regional teams to turn around the so-called stuck schools in England, which have received back-to-back negative judgments from Ofsted.

We would abandon the idea that a school’s performance should be reduced to a single grade. Instead, inspections should identify how a school is performing across a wide range of issues, such as curriculum breadth, provision for SEND pupils, teacher workload and pupil well-being, so that parents can decide for themselves whether a school suits their child’s needs. We should lower the stakes of a school inspection so that deciding to intervene in a school or change its governance arrangements does not depend on a single grade. Instead, inspectors should work alongside schools, councils and academy trusts as critical friends, providing the evidence that a school needs to identify its strengths and weaknesses and how it needs to improve.

Does the Minister think that the proposals outlined by her Government can really change the culture around Ofsted inspections? The framework does not include SEND provision or SEND inclusivity as a stand-alone assessment area. As we try to fix the SEND crisis, should this not form a key part of any assessment of schools?

Safeguarding will be assessed separately from other elements of the Ofsted report. How will this be organised and who will carry it out? Can the Minister reassure the House that safeguarding will remain a key area being assessed?

We must remember that Ruth Perry took her own life after an Ofsted inspection. Given everything that has been said following that heartbreaking tragedy, it is important that, after the 12-week consultation, we get this right.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords—

Lifelong Learning

Lord Storey Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for securing this debate; I felt that I was honoured to be listening to a first-class university lecture. Like the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I have been inspired by many of the contributions today; it makes me quite worried about what I am going to say. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Curran, on her inspiring maiden speech; I look forward to her future contributions.

We already know that education does not stop at 16, 18 or 21; it cannot be packaged into a few years and then set aside. We are all constantly doing it—every day is a school day, after all. Lifelong learning is just that: learning for life. I applaud any attempt to encourage this pursuit. Plenty of evidence suggests that lifelong learning positively impacts our communities. The Social Mobility Commission has emphasised that learning leads to better employment prospects. The Learning and Work Institute has demonstrated that lifelong learning has personal benefits, increasing individuals’ life satisfaction and, in many cases, improving mental health—an important consideration given the current mental health crisis.

As we have heard today, there are many personal, social and economic values that lifelong learning offers. Proposals to increase the access to funding for adult learning are an important step in the right direction, and it is clear that there is a push for increasing access to improving skills-based learning opportunities. After all, we are faced with a skills shortage across the country. The nation needs teachers, nurses, construction workers and many more. Lifelong learning may provide an opportunity to fill those gaps, to give those out of work, or those looking for a shift in a career, an opportunity to excel in a new environment.

As the Open University has informed me, older workers are the key to tackling skills gaps, especially in the public sector; yet currently, older members of society are the group least likely to participate in lifelong learning. More broadly, the number of those accessing lifelong learning is dwindling. Although there was a 0.7% increase in the number of learners in 2023-24 compared with 2022, this is still less than a third of the figures from the early 2010s, when over 3 million adults participated in adult education. If we are making funding available, and recognising the multiple benefits of lifelong learning, why do the numbers of those accessing adult learning remain so low?

Perhaps the answer is one that I raised before on this issue several years ago: the issue of physical access to learning environments. Many councils have explained that a key reason for declining numbers of adult learners is the lack of access that adults have to learning centres. They are too far away for people to attend. Adults might be inspired to retrain for a new skill, but if the classes are over an hour away, no amount of government funding is going to make learning more feasible or appealing to adults balancing everyday life.

Distance learning is a plausible solution to this issue and one that the Open University has modelled in its successful online degree programmes. There is also the changing landscape of how people want to learn. The trend towards online learning is undeniable. More and more people are looking for flexible, digital-first options that fit around their jobs, families and daily lives. We can look to Birbeck University here in London as a champion of this endeavour, with its promotion of short-term courses and evening classes—a key example of arranging lifelong learning around the needs of the learner.

The importance of the learner when advocating for lifelong learning is maybe something we have overlooked. I commend the noble Lord, Lord Knight, for referencing the personal value that lifelong learning may offer. The Government seem keen to align lifelong learning with the needs of the economy, which is commendable: we do, of course, want a workforce prepared for the challenges ahead. However, let us not lose sight of the individual learners themselves. Yes, lifelong learning should equip people with the skills that businesses and industries need, but it must also empower individuals, giving them the tools to grow, adapt, and fulfil their own hopes and dreams.

Truly effective lifelong learning serves not just the economy but the people who make up that economy. Learning, therefore, may encompass a broad range of skills, from woodwork to flower arranging or creative writing to drawing. Of course, in the past, universities have played an important part in supporting this through their extramural departments, many of which have now been replaced by skills-based short courses. We should actively encourage these endeavours and think more broadly about the benefits of fostering an environment that supports personal development alongside economic growth.

There is a lifelong learning issue which has irritated me for quite a while. I was recently elected a city councillor in Liverpool and, to my shock, everything for local residents is done online, to save money. Poor, elderly people, often in their late 80s, struggle to report issues or contact the council because they do not even know how to access the internet; yet the council, for very good reasons—it does not have the money—is not able to provide the training opportunities in the public libraries, which would actually serve and provide lifelong learning for those elderly people.

Finally, what about those who miss out on education —those who decide to enter the workforce at 16 and never receive their two years of free universal education? Could we look towards providing this later in life through grants covering the cost of further education, rather than loans for those who missed this opportunity for learning? Loans often stand as a barrier to learning, with prospective students worried about the burden of rising debt. Instead, let us think bigger and bolder. Let us not stop at funding, but also address access through digital innovation and support flexibility by embracing learning in all its forms, regardless of subject or interest. Investing in lifelong learning means investing in people, and that is something I am sure we are all keen to support.

Recruitment of Teachers

Lord Storey Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I strongly agree with my noble friend. The curriculum and assessment review is important to ensure that teachers have a curriculum that promotes high standards in reading, writing and maths and is strong and knowledge-rich. It also provides the opportunity for innovation, expertise and, as she said, the agency of teachers to provide the absolutely best, broadest and richest experience for our children. That is a clear objective of the curriculum and assessment review.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has inherited a situation where we have the highest number of teachers leaving the profession and the fewest people wanting to go into teaching. As she rightly pointed out, we have a shortage of teachers of specialist subjects. Is it not time that we no longer look at sticking-plaster solutions but at the whole picture? If we are to make teaching a profession that people want to go into, we have to deal with workload problems, the salary and some of the problems that teachers face in terms of their role increasingly becoming one of social workers. If we do that, more and more people will want to become teachers.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I completely agree with the noble Lord about the challenges, not just that individual teachers have in the classroom, but that we have in attracting people to and keeping them in the profession. He has identified a range of areas that we need to make progress on as a Government and on which we are already taking action. I have mentioned some of the proposals around retention. The noble Lord is right about teacher workload and well-being. Our improved workload and well-being for school staff service, developed alongside school leaders, contains a whole range of resources to enable schools to review and reduce workload and improve staff well-being. On the other pressures that happen outside school but which children bring into school, we will have the opportunity during the forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to consider the other initiatives that the Government are taking to support the most vulnerable children, strengthen our children’s social care services and, through a whole range of other provisions, make sure that children are able to arrive at school appropriately supported and ready to learn.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Lord Storey Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

I trust that these amendments, together with the information I have provided, have reassured noble Lords of Skills England’s independence and accountability. I beg to move the government amendment.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister makes very strongly the case for skills, in terms of the Government’s agenda for growth, which is something we all support. As a nation, we have been slow on the uptake in realising that we owe it not just to our nation but to our young people in particular to ensure that they have the skills and the opportunities to contribute, including to their own well-being.

At the beginning, people were disappointed when this much-heralded Bill arrived. We all thought it was going to be a skills Bill, as the name on the jar suggested, so we were quite shocked. I think that the best description of the Bill came from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett— I cannot possibly repeat it, so I will leave Members to look at Hansard to see what he said. My view was that if we want to provide what the Government want, we have to be open and flexible. We cannot just leave it all to the department to get it right or wrong. It was very difficult to look at ways to contribute, to be quite honest. You would go to the Legislation Office, which would say, “Oh, this is not in scope; that is not in scope”, so you had to look for mechanisms to actually make a positive contribution and to hopefully make a success of this. My amendment was to say that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament within 12 months of the passage of the Act to address the skills gaps, et cetera. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for reaching out and having a number of conversations about the Bill. I have to say that it is not perfect—we are not in a perfect world—but she did that and I am very grateful to her for it.

Much has been made of the draft framework for Skills England. I ask noble Lords to put their hands up if they have read it from cover to cover—I am sorry; that is teacher mode. Well, I found it quite depressing at times. Let me just read some, on a very minor point. By the way, this wins the “Yes Minister” prize:

“Any disputes between the department and Skills England will be resolved in as timely a manner as possible. The department and Skills England will seek to resolve any disputes through an informal process in the first instance. If this is not possible, then a formal process, overseen by the senior sponsor, will be used to resolve the issue. Failing this, the senior sponsor will ask the relevant policy director-general to oversee the dispute. They may then choose to ask the Permanent Secretary to nominate a non-executive member of the department’s board to review the dispute, mediate with both sides and reach an outcome, in consultation with the Secretary of State”.


My goodness me. If that is how we operate, I really worry about our ability to develop the skills we need.

Joking apart, I think the draft skills document needs to reflect a few other things, which I could not see in it. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me. Wearing my local government hat, I am conscious that our 34 combined authorities have responsibilities in terms of developing skills and have put together skills programmes. I wonder how that will be addressed by the Minister. When she responds, perhaps she can home in on that for me. I will deal with the other issues when we come to them.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

I am not sure whether this is an appropriate moment for me to join in but, as I have been mentioned twice this evening, I thought I had better put on record where I stand. First, I thank my noble friend for the substantial consultation and listening exercise, which has already been mentioned on all the Benches opposite. I think we are all extremely grateful that she has been prepared to do that and to reflect those representations, including those made in Committee. Committee was not entertaining, because I do not think the Bill is entertaining in any way, shape or form, but it was thorough. There is nobody taking part tonight, or who took part in Committee or at that very brief Second Reading at about this time of night, who has not got a real commitment, interest and dedication to getting this right. I commend my noble friend because she is totally committed to making this work.

I have not changed my mind: I think this is a mouse of a Bill. We have to elevate Skills England into a lion of an organisation, and I look forward very shortly to the announcement of the substantive chair of Skills England and to the framework document that my noble friend has published in draft becoming a substantive document, taking into account the comments that have been made by Members on all sides this evening. The review that my noble friend referred to will be important and I think that the amendments she has agreed to and moved tonight will make a difference.

I may have said it before, but I am going to say it again: it is not just my dog that has had to get used to being on the other side of the Chamber—the government side. I am adjusting, as well as the dog, to making my way up these Benches. One of the consequences is to cut your own Government a bit of slack and, when they have listened to you, to take that on board and to ride with their assurances. That is what I intend to do tonight, and I ask Members opposite not to push anything to a vote because we need to move on rapidly from this transfer of IfATE.

We need to be very wary that that transfer does not swamp the work of Skills England and its much broader task, as exemplified by the somewhat belated publication of Mark Farmer’s review of construction and engineering and the substantial challenge that it outlines. The Government responded, and I was tickled a bit because it took me back all those years to when the Government declined to comment on or to endorse recommendations that were “not in scope”. Honestly, we have to try to govern in a way that relates to what is happening in the world outside, not by going through the processes that, I am afraid, Ministers are so often presented with. We have a massive challenge in this country to get it right, and we have to use the growth and skills levy—all of it—effectively and in tune with, but not completely run by, the business community, which, frankly, also needs to step up to the mark. If we had the same number of training days that we had 15 years ago then 20 million more training days would be delivered in this country. It is a combined effort between employers, big and small, and those of us, in Parliament and outside, who are committed to making it work, in conjunction with government and now with Skills England.

I hope we can go forward from tonight with the kind of ambition that I know my noble friend and the Secretary of State have to make this work. I am sorry that Skills England is not going to be a statutory body, but it is not make or break and it is not an issue over which I would want the House to divide. I hope, with the review that has been mentioned already, that we will be able to accelerate progress in making this work for the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 15, to which I have put my name, and in support of Amendment 9.

Everybody here is agreed that apprenticeship is hugely important for productivity and growth, and in offering young people a valuable and valued route into skilled employment and adult life. When IfATE—it started off as the IfA—was created, it was seen as a major step in the ongoing recreation and revalidation of apprenticeship and was praised as such by all major parties. It was thought that it could be an independent structure with the convening power that is critical to that mission.

I certainly hope that we might be creating something like the BIBB—the German Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training—which is a wonderful institution that convenes employers, unions, government officials at all levels and researchers, all of whom have an established and major role, and one which everyone in Germany knows about. That did not happen overnight; it was built up over the years. None the less, it has been absolutely critical to the huge role that apprenticeship has played in German life and in the German economy, in its ability to change and develop when economic circumstances change, and, most dramatically, to recreate and revitalise apprenticeship in what was East Germany.

I know that the Government agree about the importance of apprenticeship and that Skills England is designed to support apprenticeship as well as to signal the importance of skills more generally. But there is a cost associated with the reassertion of a habitual and deeply ingrained pattern in this country of constantly reinventing institutions and public and quasi-public bodies, especially in the skills area. It is a real problem because, although skills professionals can just about keep up, most of the people who are actually involved in delivering skills—employers and people on the shop floor, in local government, in colleges and in unions: people who are not professionally engaged in following skills policy—find this very difficult.

Although I hanker after a statutory body, because it has the visibility and the power to convene people in a way that something inside the Department for Education never can, what worries me most is the fact that we have reintroduced instability and uncertainty into the skills world at a time when we are also really aware of the huge importance of developing our skills policy and continuing to grow apprenticeships. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I am very concerned by the fact that we have this drop-off in level 2 and 3 and with young people. So I feel that Amendment 15 offers a clear signal to people about when change is coming, which could be extraordinarily helpful to those who are actually involved in developing, amending and delivering standards, and in planning apprenticeships.

Obviously, I was reassured to hear from the Minister that it was unlikely that IfATE powers would be moved immediately, but I have to say that, although that and the direction that Skills England is going in may be clear to her, out there it really is not clear. People are in a complete fog. They are going, “Yes, I’m sure it’s a great idea. What is it? What is happening?” If it could be made really clear to people that there will be a year’s delay before IfATE powers are transferred, at which point Skills England will be in much better shape, everything will be much clearer, and lots of the other things that have to be done will be done, I think that would be really helpful to everybody concerned.

This is not about having something that you put on the statute book but it never happens—which does occur: quite a major clause in the last piece of skills legislation has never been activated. It is not about that. The transfer of functions will be on the statute book, and it will be very clear that this is going to happen, but it will also be clear to people when it is going to happen, and I think that would be enormously helpful.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

It always concerns me that when new Governments come in, they invariably get rid of particular bodies and create their own. For example, the previous Labour Government set up the regional development agencies, which were hugely successful and built up expertise, et cetera. The coalition Government came in, abolished them and set up a different type of organisation, which took literally years to get going and to be as successful as the regional development agencies.

I do not like the phrase “to delay”; I much prefer “to hand over”. When you hand over, the organisation you are handing over to needs time to embed itself, to understand the situation and to work properly. I am not particularly happy about it, but I will live with Skills England being in the department. We are where we are, and if the Government want to do that, they will.

What is important is that, wherever Skills England is, it is successful and works, because we all want that. It will be successful, to my mind, for three reasons: first, its direction, which the Government set; secondly, who is appointed as chair, and the quality of the board; and—probably—thirdly, the opportunity for the various bodies, be they trade unions, the employers or the combined authorities, to give their information, views and thoughts. To use a strange word, I am quite smitten with this proposal, because it works and helps to enhance the Bill, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister says.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I support both the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. Lady Barran. I will try to keep my remarks brief about Skills England, the aims of which I think we all support, and which are crucial to the Government’s growth strategy and missions, the industrial strategy and all the things we would like to happen. Above all, it must pull together. The Government have talked about a post-16 education and skills strategy, and I assume that Skills England will be at the heart of that.

In order for that to work, Skills England will need to be co-ordinating skills policies and activities across government departments, because every government department needs skills and has shortages; across regions, local areas and nationally, including the devolved nations; across industry sectors; and across policy priorities. The “state of the nation” was probably the wrong phrase: what I am really looking for is, “What difference have we actually made at Skills England in tackling the very real problems that we all recognise in the skills area?” That will happen only if someone is ensuring consistency and synergy between all the complex elements involved—no doubt with a strong need for consensus-building, if not actual knocking of heads together. This lion needs not just to roar, but to have a few teeth. Whether or not it is a statutory body, it should at least have the right authority and powers, and the right chair and CEO. It is disappointing that we do not know who the chair is going to be, although I know the Minister was hoping to be able to let us know before Report.

The Minister mentioned some of the other executive agencies, and it seems to me that none of those—the Met Office or the DVLA—has the breadth of roles, responsibilities and relationships that this body needs to have. Of course, while it is doing that, it has to undertake the practical functions, transferred from IfATE, of preparing standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. It would help if the Government had some time to concentrate on getting Skills England up to speed in all those areas, so that it can build on its encouraging first report and get on with sorting those things out before the IfATE transfer completely overwhelms its capacity. For those reasons, I support Amendment 15, in particular, and will support the noble Baroness if she decides to push it to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

Building on that, as the Minister knows, we currently have pan-regional partnerships, which are set up to take that regional view. They do a lot of good work on skills, but there is an ongoing consultation on government proposals to remove funding from those organisations. As I have explained, my concern is that this will leave us without that regional view, which will detract from skills provision and many other areas. I urge the Government to think through the impact of these proposals to remove funding from pan-regional partnerships on skills and on similar areas where a regional view is needed. Also, I urge them to ensure that regional bodies continue in some form and do that knitting together that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, talked about. I beg to move.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I support and echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said, particularly on local and regional skills. It is important that our growth strategy is linked to the skills that we need in that growth and to existing provision.

I was quite worried about the Chancellor’s recent announcement about growth, and it makes my point. It very much centred on the south-east. Merseyside has a thriving pharmaceutical industry, and some of our focus on skills is directed towards that industry. We also have the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, which is funded quite considerably by Bill Gates. Suddenly, we hear that AstraZeneca, on which we have an Urgent Question tomorrow, is pulling out because there is insufficient money. The Government need to be sensitive to requirements not just for growth across the whole nation but for how we can use the importance of particular sectors in our regions and localities.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I very much support Amendments 11 and 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and welcome the approach that he has taken. It feels so practical and so grounded in his own experience, with that focus on planning and implementation, as he mentioned. It also highlights the sophisticated choices that need to be made in skills policy between what is needed locally, regionally and nationally. It sounds as though the Minister has already been listening, but I hope that she can give the House further reassurance that she will take these amendments very seriously.

Primary Schools: Mental Health Problems

Lord Storey Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Storey]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to deal with mental health problems in primary schools.

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

My Lords, this is a particularly pertinent Question as it is Children’s Mental Health Week. The Government are committed to setting every child up for the best start in life and, as part of our ambition for high and rising standards in schools, helping every child to achieve and thrive. We will provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, so that every young person has access to early support to address problems before they escalate.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. It is important that children and young people have access to mental health support, but of course the reasons that cause mental health and well-being problems need to be carefully considered, whether it is bullying or online problems. Every school needs to know how well children are doing, but I would suggest to the Minister that maybe the pressures that key stage SATs put on 10 and 11 year-olds can at times be very harmful indeed. Would the Minister consider looking at how we might alleviate those pressures, by perhaps considering having standardised teacher assessments or ways that make it much more enjoyable rather than a frightening experience for them?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am afraid that I think it is important that we maintain both the check on students’ progress and the accountability for our schools that key stage tests enable us to have. So, no, I will not be taking the noble Lord up on his suggestion of fundamentally changing those any time in the near future.

Free Schools and Academies

Lord Storey Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I start by thanking the Minister, and my noble friend Lord Addington for allowing me to speak now and so be able to catch the last train to Liverpool. I will have to depart a little earlier.

I want to recognise all our schools and teachers. All our children should have the right education for them. Some wonderful things happen in academies, which the noble Baroness mentioned. Some wonderful things also happen in maintained schools, which I do not think the noble Baroness mentioned.

[Noble Lords]

She did.

[Lord Storey]

Oh, did she? I apologise.

We want the best for all our children. Let us be very clear at the beginning: empirically, there appears to be very little difference between the education attainment achieved by local maintained schools and academy schools. Figures from the House of Lords Library suggest that, performance wise, there is very little difference. Interestingly, the Institute of Education recognised that, while multi-academy trusts accounted for some of the highest performing schools, they also had far more lower performing schools.

It is right to be looking now at the situation of academies. We have a new Government, we are having a curriculum review, and we will soon have the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill before us. There are some differences with academies, so let us understand those. First, on qualified teachers, there is a need across the country for expert teachers who follow a transparent curriculum so that parents can be assured that their children are receiving a good education. A legal teaching qualification would ensure a certain standard of teaching. I would not want my children to be taught by an unqualified teacher. Parents should have that right as well.

Let us look at the national curriculum. We call it national but it is not, because it is not taught in Scotland or Northern Ireland, and, as we have heard, academies do not have to teach it. I want a curriculum that is paramount in ensuring that children all receive a certain standard of education. It was never the intention for academies to have freedom around the national curriculum. Imposing these controls would ensure that a base is covered but would not necessarily restrict how far academies can go with their teaching. I hope the curriculum review, when it is published, will recognise that all schools need space to develop particular aspects and units of the curriculum. For example, in Liverpool, I would like schools to be able to develop further teaching on the slave trade. I would like schools to be able to develop creative subjects, which currently they are not always able to deal with.

We should be increasing local authority powers over who can be admitted to academies. Giving them powers to restrict certain actions by academies would enable them to function as a monitoring body to hold the actions of academies accountable to government standards.

I have only to mention off-rolling as an example, where academies have almost ridden a coach and horses through admission policies by deciding that they will not have certain children in their school. When it comes to special educational needs, they say, “Oh, we haven’t got the the facilities; we haven’t got the teachers, so we won’t be admitting those children”. That is totally wrong.

Let us look at salaries. In 2023-24, the median salary for a classroom teacher in an academy was £44,870, while in an LA secondary school, it was £44,677. There is a case for paying more where there are shortage subjects; that is important. It is a scandal—and the last Government should take responsibility for this—that 400 schools in England do not have a qualified physics teacher at sixth-form level. You have only to look at shortages of specialist teachers in other subjects as well. I hope that the new Government, never mind getting to grips with the salary scales for all teachers, will make a push to get those posts filled in shortage subjects but also give an opportunity for teachers to be paid a little bit more to make sure that they are interested in teaching that subject.