Initial Teacher Training

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 18th November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, we are all hugely indebted to my noble friend Lady Donaghy, not just for securing this important debate but for opening it in a manner so comprehensive that frankly she left very little extra to be said. My noble friend mentioned that it took a Written Question to force the DfE to reveal what was going on regarding the future of teacher education. She was typically too modest to say that she was the one who asked that searching Question.

It is much to be regretted that teacher education appears not to be sufficiently valued for its own worth by those whose task it is to shape education in its broadest sense. I use the term “teacher education” advisedly, because that is what has been cast aside here —downgraded to what is now termed “teacher training”.

The Tory manifesto in 2019 had nothing to say on teacher training, though it did say:

“We want to attract the best talent into teaching and recognise the great work they do, so we’re raising teachers’ starting salaries to £30,000”.


I will spare the Minister the embarrassment of having to tell me two years on how many teachers have actually received that starting salary. Of more relevance is why her party’s manifesto contained no mention at all of teacher education, despite the fact that we now know that Conservatives were so concerned about the underperformance of the sector that they believed the only policy response was to rip it up and start again. In passing, it is only fair to say that neither Labour nor the Liberal Democrats mentioned teacher education in our manifestos—but in our defence these two parties did not believe it to be in such a dilapidated state that it required a complete revamp.

The fact that the Government prefer the term “teacher training” is instructive. Teacher education generally includes four elements: improving the general educational background of the trainee teachers; increasing their knowledge and understanding of the subjects they are to teach; pedagogy and an understanding of child development—as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Storey—and learning; and the development of practical skills and competences.

In recent years, the distinctive and long-established role of university teacher education has been weakened to the point where I believe serious questions are raised about the very purpose of teaching. When I take my car to the garage for repairs, I do not want it done by someone who is not qualified; when I go to hospital, I do not want my medical care delivered by somebody who is not qualified; and when I go to a restaurant, I certainly do not want my meal prepared by somebody who is not qualified. So why should any parent at any school be expected to accept their child being taught by a well-meaning amateur? Yet, to this Government, that is perfectly acceptable.

Every parent has the right to expect that those entrusted on a day-to-day basis with ensuring that their child’s development is stretched to the limit of their capabilities have themselves been subject to a rigorous grounding in both the theory and the practice of pedagogy—not just what works, but why it works. Prior to the review, Ofsted had rated all ITE provision as being “good” or “outstanding”—so, to paraphrase my noble friend Lord Knight and his all-party group, “not much was broke there”.

My noble friend Lady Donaghy described the outcome of Ofcom inspections this year, with some in need of improvement, and that is accepted, but it sounds suspiciously as though the headline about the review had been written by the DfE and the storyline then had to be made to fit it. In any case, the review was under way well before the latest Ofsted inspections took place, so they cannot have provided the rationale for it. If we know anything at all about the effect of the past two years on education, it is that the pandemic has rendered the use of any benchmarks from that period next to useless.

The new system would apply to maintained schools, academies and free schools, yet there were no representatives of local authorities or maintained schools on the so-called expert working group. The members of that group may indeed be experts in their own areas but not in regard to maintained schools—although Teach First sends its graduates to both types of school. The suspicion remains that the group was a hand-picked collection of individuals who were left in no doubt what the DfE wanted to emerge from this review, and the DfE’s bias against maintained schools prevented anyone from that sector participating. If that is a wrong interpretation, no doubt the Minister will set the record straight, but why would the group have two people from academy trusts, including the chair, but none from schools that are not academies? At least there was one voice from the university sector, although we hear that she has in part dissented from the report, warning that the reforms could be “hugely risky” to teacher supply and quality. For that reason, she has advocated a year’s delay in implementing the changes to allow the issues to be addressed. At the very least, we very much support that call.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, my noble friend Lady Blower and others have commented on the fact that the proposal’s consultation period covered school holidays. I will not repeat that, but it is a recurring issue and one that I have raised previously with the Minister concerning the skills Bill. We shall shortly have a debate in your Lordships’ House on an SI on teachers’ pay and conditions, which was also issued over the summer. I believe this is a deliberate practice by the DfE designed to limit responses—and it must stop.

The review’s proposals make recommendations on curriculum content, course structure and mentoring, with the central recommendation that all ITT providers implement a new set of quality requirements, and that

“a robust accreditation process should take place”.

That is a worry for many institutions, which are concerned that the DfE will seek to favour larger and, perhaps, compliant institutions. It would be helpful, to echo my noble friend Lady Donaghy, if the Minister could offer reassurance that the accreditation process will be open, transparent and equitable. Can she also say whether all accreditation applications that meet the new quality requirements will be approved, with no contrived rationing taking place? There are fears that the process could be used to ensure that ITE providers deliver only DfE-approved curricula over and above what is already required through the core content framework.

This is one issue of concern to universities, which play a key role in the delivery of ITE, accounting for 40% of all those entering teacher education each year. They, of course, work on long-term planning structures dependent on the stability of provision, so being confronted by a review with the clear objective of changing the very nature of who operates it naturally sets alarm bells ringing in universities.

My noble friend Lady Donaghy clearly enunciated the concerns of universities about the proposals, and I will not repeat them. However, if the number involved in teacher education were to be significantly reduced—particularly by the threatened departure from the scene of Cambridge and Oxford—that would be damaging not just for that sector but for the supply of future generations of teachers.

The reforms risk recruitment and retention by narrowing the ITE curriculum, reducing choice for prospective students and making ITE more onerous for student teachers. There are also worries that the review changes the focus to assessment of trainee teachers against the core content framework, not on how good they are as teachers. Schools are under a duty to support their early career teachers, but not under a duty to take on trainee teachers. Given the onerous duties of the early careers framework, schools will inevitably redirect resources to support early career teachers, thereby exacerbating teacher supply.

Universities and schools have developed strong relationships over many years, becoming exemplars of good practice. Neither the need nor the political imperative to break those links exists, yet the introduction of market forces sees universities competing more directly with each other, as well as with the disproportionate share of resources—and student places—channelled to schools.

Although the substance of the review proposals is largely generic, I had intended to mention the question of music teaching but, following the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, all I need to do is say that I wholeheartedly endorse what he said. He made a very persuasive case for music teaching. I do not expect the Minister to respond on that point today but perhaps she would do so in writing to both him and me.

The strong partnerships that have developed between accredited higher education institutions and schools have been one of the education sector’s great success stories in recent years. Schools should have a choice about how they participate in ITE. It is, as the report itself acknowledges, already difficult for providers to secure a sufficient number of placements, particularly in some key subjects such as physics and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, modern foreign languages. That in turn has led to an artificial cap being placed on recruitment. Should they proceed, the reforms should surely do nothing to make these challenges even more acute.

The Government should acknowledge the opposition that their proposals have generated. They should, as my noble friend Lord Knight said, abandon the review and then facilitate much wider consultation aimed at building a broad base of support for what works, not simply what it might be possible to force the sector to tolerate. We are not saying that the current situation is perfect, but that is no basis for a way forward—certainly not with something so important to the future of this country as teacher education.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, I echo other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, for securing this debate and bringing to the House’s attention the crucial matter of initial teacher training recruitment and the role of universities and other bodies in ensuring the supply and education of new teachers. I am sure she was being harsh on herself when she described her teaching assistant career, and I am sure her pupils would have disagreed with her reflection.

The Government’s vision is for all children and young people to have access to a world-class education, no matter where they are from or what their background is. At a time when there are more pupils in our schools than ever before, the recruitment and retention of outstanding teachers is a key priority.

The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said that she was a fan of teachers. I think all of us in this House are. I genuinely do not recognise the characterisation that has come from a number of noble Lords that this Government are critical and unsupportive of teachers; quite the reverse. I do not think there is a family in this country that does not value teachers deeply, particularly after the last two years and the critical role they have played in supporting our children. I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Kirkham when he talks, as have many other noble Lords, about the importance of valuing and giving proper status to teachers. We are trying to thread that through everything we do, as I will try to set out in my remarks.

I respectfully refute the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that the department is in any way being deliberate in its practice regarding the timing of consultations. I know he will agree with me that the officials in the department have the highest integrity, as do the Ministers, and there is genuinely no truth in that suggestion.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I accept what the Minister says about integrity, but three over just one summer and all in education—is that just a coincidence?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I cannot speak accurately for what went before but I know the noble Lord will accept that this has been an incredibly disrupted time. I am sure that, had we delayed the consultations further in terms of our response, as we have heard today, there would have been criticism. There is always a risk; we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t.

I will revert to the important subject of the debate. We know that there are no great schools without great teachers, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for the personal experience that he brings to his reflections. I will do my best to answer his and other noble Lords’ questions. We know that the evidence shows that teacher quality is the single most important factor within school in improving outcomes for children and young people, and reforms to teacher training and early-career support are key to the Government’s plans to improve school standards for all.

The noble Baroness, Lady Morris, talked about the time that it takes to qualify. I am sure that she recognises the value in the continued support, for two years now, for early-career teachers. The Government share the ambition of the initial teacher training sector that all people training to be a great teacher get the best possible start to their careers.

We published our Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategy in 2019, working with key stakeholders to set out a shared vision for the teaching workforce. At the heart of this strategy is a golden thread of training and professional development—the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Watson, raised these points—informed by high quality evidence, which will run through each phase of a teacher’s career. As your Lordships may have heard me say in answer to a recent question, there has been an increase of over 20% in applicants to the profession. The noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, had his head in his hands, but I hope that he will share my pleasure to see that increase in applicants.

The starting point of this golden thread is initial teacher training, which is why we developed a new core content framework for this purpose. The new framework was published in November 2019, and, since September 2020, all new teachers have been benefiting from initial teacher training, underpinned by the best independently peer-reviewed evidence.

The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about initial teacher training in relation to pupils with special educational needs and disabilities. ITT providers must design their courses to incorporate the skills and knowledge detailed in the core content framework to support their developing expertise. This clearly includes the requirement, in standards, that all teachers must have a clear understanding of all the needs of their pupils, including, critically, those with special educational needs. That is also carried forward into the early-career framework, which was designed in consultation with the education sector, including specialists on SEND, of course.

School Admissions Code 2021

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 9th November 2021 Grand Committee

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I want to make a number of comments about school admissions, and follow up on some of the points that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made. On the statutory instrument, I do not have any particular issues, although maybe there are a couple of questions. On the issue about catch-up and the code, that will help parents, particularly those of disadvantaged pupils.

The whole business of school admissions is fraught with all sorts of problems. You cannot just wave a magic wand, even with increased data, and expect that everybody will get the school that they want. That just does not happen. What is true is that parents who can afford it will often move house to get into the catchment area of a local school so they can get their child or children into that school, whereas disadvantaged parents and pupils obviously cannot do that.

I remember from my experiences in Liverpool before the advent of academies that it was an absolute nightmare. Often, decisions were made not on what a school was achieving or not achieving; it was often the case that inner-city schools with very successful examination results were disregarded by parents, who wanted to go to the leafy suburbs. So you had the leafy suburbs and aided schools with huge waiting lists, while inner-city schools such as Paddington Comprehensive, which was built in the early 1970s, a 10-form entry school with state-of-the-art equipment, ended up with one and a half forms of entry. As an aside, I remember trying to persuade Shirley Williams, who at the time was Secretary of State for Education, to turn it into a tertiary college—but she was having none of that.

I make these comments just to show how difficult the whole situation is. Yes, it is important to have all the data, and the composite way in which the data is portrayed will help parents. But when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, talks about local authority schools he is, presumably, talking about academies as well. Academies choose their own admission requirements so, if we are going to have a standardised approach, it should be for all schools. He made the point, which I do not disagree with, that from looking at the various websites you realise that the workload of the staff means that it is something that they have not given their full attention to. Equally, when looking at the websites of academies, one might say the same as well.

The school admissions process, especially where it helps disadvantaged children or children in care, is hugely important. It is one way in which we can change life chances. We want to ensure that every child is treated in a fair and accountable manner, with local schools and local authorities working together to make sure that the needs of young people in that community are met. Sadly, we often see that that is not the case where schools almost jealously guard their independence from a local authority, and both sides do not want to collaborate in the way they should. Local authorities should have responsibility for place planning to ensure that academies co-operate in providing places. While it is slightly beyond this SI, we think that schools should be able to set aspects of their own admissions policy in compliance with the national code that allow them to specialise in, for example, music or business if they so wish. However, the local admissions process to administer the policy and allocate individual children to schools should be carried out by the local authority rather than by individual schools.

Where the code refers to the oversubscription criteria, are we talking about the waiting list? Is that what we mean? When I have had parents contact me and say, “Oh, I didn’t get a place, but the school’s put me on the waiting list”, is that what we mean by the oversubscription criteria? Would looked-after children be top of that list of criteria, irrespective of the type of school it is? If not, why not?

We talk about admission for disadvantaged children, but we do not define what we mean by disadvantaged children. Perhaps we ought to. It is a very general term. I presume that we are talking about looked-after children, or are we talking about children with special needs? Can they be in separate categories? The explanatory note just talks about disadvantaged children. Maybe I have missed something.

I welcome the fact that mid-term admissions are more codified—that absolutely makes sense, so I do not have any problem with this SI.

I did not realise that the year 7 catch-up premium had been discontinued, for the reasons stated. I presume that there was an SI to establish it. When we have the arts premium, will there be an SI for that?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, may I start by saying how grand it is to be back in the Grand Committee Room after pretty close to two years? I always enjoy debates in this particular Room.

I should declare an interest of sorts, in that I have a son, aged 10, and we have just made an application for his senior school through the admissions policy applying in our London borough. I have no reason to believe that we will not be successful, but it has sharpened my preparations for this debate.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for tabling this take-note Motion allowing noble Lords to debate these regulations and the wider issues around school admissions that he outlined, with which I would agree. I found the Explanatory Memorandum to the school information regulations very helpful in providing clarity on links with the new admissions code.

I shall not say much today about the removal of the year 7 catch-up premium grant. I challenged the Minister’s predecessor on this on more than one occasion last year, principally concerning fears that the overall amount allocated from the national funding formula would not meet the level of support provided by the year 7 grant. However, I noted that, in July this year, the Government announced that the amount allocated through the secondary low prior attainment factor for the 2020-21 academic year would increase from £924 million to £973 million, so it is only fair that we give the benefit of the doubt and reassess that position in a year’s time.

I think it is fair to say that there have long been concerns about the fairness of in-year admissions. The DfE’s own Review of Children in Need, published in June 2019, found that such children

“were more likely to seek a school place outside the normal admissions round and that delays in securing a school place in-year could lead to children missing education.”

Children in care are among the most vulnerable in society, of course. Surely it is of paramount importance that a school place that is in the child’s best interests is found as quickly as possible. We therefore welcome the DfE’s decision to reform the admissions code to give priority to children in care, or those who have previously been in care, in its oversubscription criteria. It is hoped that this will improve the clarity, timeliness and transparency of the in-year admissions process to ensure that all vulnerable children can access a school place without delay.

We also welcome the additions to the fair access protocol outlined in chapter 3 of the code. There are, it is fair to say, more serious deficiencies in the admissions code, which raise questions about social inequality. That is why Labour believes that local authorities should have responsibility for school places, with oversight and control of all admissions within their boundaries. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Storey, support that change. Surely it is nonsense that, at present, councils have legal responsibility for finding a school place for any child arriving in their area, yet they cannot force an academy to accept a child even if the academy is not at capacity. Surely that is not an efficient way to operate school admissions.

All too often, the current system results in school segregation by family income, which has implications for social mobility—or social justice, as I prefer to call it. The point here is the extent to which a child’s family background determines their success. If a child’s chance of attending a high-performing school is effectively determined by their family income, that will clearly act as a major brake on social improvement. There is also a further issue around the social and political implications of young people from different socioeconomic backgrounds being educated separately. That hardly seems likely to assist in building a fair and cohesive society—something that, it might be assumed, is a key component of the Government’s much-vaunted levelling-up agenda.

The Minister will know that many education specialists, commentators and school leaders have called on the department to make further changes to the admission code to close the disadvantage gap, which has spiralled due to the impact of the coronavirus pandemic. The leaked presentation on the needs of schools and pupils following the pandemic from the Government’s sadly short-lived recovery tsar, Sir Kevan Collins, revealed:

“Children from poorer households, who have often struggled most to learn from home, have lost most learning with the attainment gap expected to widen by 10-24%”.


Labour has committed to an education recovery premium, which would support every child to reach their potential by investing in the children who faced the greatest disruption during the pandemic, from early years to further education. We also advocate doubling the pupil premium for children in key transition years, delivering additional support for the children who need it most.

The former Chief Schools Adjudicator, Sir Philip Hunter, has warned that, although the admissions code requires schools

“to adopt, publish and administer admission criteria which are objective and reasonable”,

the very criteria that allow schools to

“give priority to children who live closest to the school, live in a defined catchment area, have siblings already at the school or, in the case of aided schools, are members of a particular church or religion … will, if unregulated over time, result in priority being given to children from privileged backgrounds”

at the expense of their disadvantaged counterparts,

“so the criteria will need to be even more rigorously applied”

as this will lead to schools becoming “yet more selective” and “more elitist”.

On disadvantage, the Minister may have had drawn to her attention by her officials what I regard as a worrying report, published three months ago by Humanists UK. Entitled Careless or Uncaring? How Faith Schools Turn Away Children Who Are or Were in Care, the report found that, in their admissions policies,

“41% of all state secondary schools of a religious character discriminate against children who are or were in care not of their faith … In Kensington and Chelsea, 50% of all state secondaries (religious or otherwise) discriminate against children who are or were in care not of their faith.”

Education: Teacher Departures

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd November 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I am sure my noble friend is being modest about his exam results. The retention figures are relatively stable across public sector professions. Retention of primary school teachers is somewhat above the average, and retention of secondary school teachers is marginally below the average. We are committed to making sure teachers get support at every point in their career, and we have committed the funding to deliver this.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has just referred to a suggestion by the organisation Teach First about disadvantaged schools. That came from a report published by the organisation last year, which also showed that, when teachers were asked why they would resign from the profession, workload was the reason most often cited. The Minister will know that, in 2018, the Department for Education introduced the teacher workload reduction toolkit, developed in conjunction with teaching unions and Ofsted, to try to identify unnecessary and burdensome practices in a teacher’s day-to-day workload. Yet the latest figures on attrition among early career teachers show that the figures have hardly changed at all. Do the Government retain faith in that workload reduction toolkit? If so, what do they propose to do to make it more effective?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord is right that the figures have been stubbornly stable. The school workload reduction toolkit supports schools to review and manage workload. It remains widely used; there were a thousand downloads of the toolkit in September of this year. The noble Lord will also be aware that, in 2019, we announced the teacher recruitment and retention strategy. We have talked about the early career framework and the national professional qualifications. One of the encouraging signs we are seeing is that applications for initial teacher training are up by more than 20% this year, so that bodes well for the future.

Education: Music and the Arts

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 25th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Baroness will understand that I cannot prejudge the announcements from the Chancellor on Wednesday. When my noble friend Lady Berridge was in this role, she was clear that choices had to be made as a result of the pandemic—hence the delay.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister needs to go back to her officials at the DfE if the figures she has been given suggest that the number of pupils sitting GCSEs and A-levels in arts subjects has not dropped in the last decade, because that is very definitely not the case; it is not what schools report. The English baccalaureate is definitely to blame, because it has narrowed the curriculum and does not include creative subjects.

The 2019 Tory manifesto said that

“we will offer an ‘arts premium’ to secondary schools”

to allow them to offer

“enriching activities for all pupils.”

It has not happened, and Covid cannot be blamed because last year the Chancellor said in his Budget that a £90 million arts premium would be introduced. That has not happened either. While I know the Minister cannot predict what will happen on Wednesday, if the spending review were to announce spending on an arts premium, should we believe it this time?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I apologise to the noble Lord if I was not clear. I hoped I had acknowledged that A-level numbers have dropped but that GCSE figures have been broadly stable with around 45% of children in state-funded schools, both academies and maintained schools, doing an arts subject.

I cannot add to my earlier answer on the arts premium, but I remind the noble Lord that we committed £79 million during 2021-22 for music education hubs and during the pandemic emphasised the importance of continuing with a culturally rich curriculum.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 25th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, briefly, it has been a great pleasure for me to participate from the Cross Benches in these debates, along with so many much more distinguished experts and a wisdom of former Education Ministers, if that is the correct collective term. This is a very important Bill and I very much echo what the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Storey, have said. I hope that the Government will listen to the issues raised in our debates and think about them carefully as the Bill progresses. I add my thanks to the Minister, to her predecessor and to the Bill team, not least to the current Minister for going beyond her normal duties to help me with my maths abilities, which clearly need some improvement. I very much hope that this will be the Bill that delivers the skills and post-16 education system we need, unlike so many of its unfortunate predecessors.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I have prepared a few words that I intended to say on the Motion that the Bill Do Now Pass. I thought that the Minister would have moved that but we seem to have got there anyway, by whatever route. I am sure noble Lords will not be too unhappy about that, although perhaps the clerk may be.

As noble Lords have demonstrated over four days in Committee and two on Report, the Bill as drafted was not fit for purpose and required considerable improvement. In addition the Minister herself has introduced three concessions, not the least of which concerns net-zero emissions targets, which of course we welcome. Noble Lords have supported eight amendments; what was most remarkable was the extent to which they were the product of effective cross-party planning and execution. Of course, as noble Lords know, no win in your Lordships’ House can be achieved without some cross-party co-operation. But we believe that the number of noble Lords from the government Benches who made clear their dissatisfaction with various parts of the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has just suggested, ought to give the Minister and her Government pause for thought.

With three of their defeats involving amendments in the names of former Conservative Secretaries of State for Education, the Government need to accept that with regard to the Bill they do not possess a monopoly of wisdom on matters as diverse as universal credit conditionality and the withdrawal of BTECs. My noble friend Lady Sherlock has a unique ability: she can explain universal credit in an understandable manner. I have never found anyone else who can achieve that feat.

It would be unkind to press the Minister any further on the mystical missing amendments on the lifelong loan entitlement, because I suspect that in her private moments, she asks herself the same questions as noble Lords: do they really exist? Will they ever appear? We have been promised them so often that on these Benches the suspense is now killing us. We also await details of sharia student finance for both higher education and further education to be announced as part of the spending review, as well as an announcement on fees, which the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, the then Minister, promised in Committee.

However, I would like to record my admiration for the Minister’s ability to pick up the baton on the Bill after it was, I think I can say, thrust at her midway through its consideration in your Lordships’ House. I should say that the change of Minister caught us on these Benches by surprise, because we thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, had coped admirably up until then—although it would appear that was not the view shared by the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip. On my behalf and that of my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lady Wilcox, I say for the record that we want to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her work on the Bill and for her openness and willingness to engage with us. I also say on our joint behalf that that is not to suggest that the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Barran—is any less so in that regard.

I also add my thanks to the Bill team for the briefings it facilitated and its willingness to discuss with us, openly and in detail, aspects of the Bill that were unclear or about which we had concerns. It certainly helped to put us more in tune with the thinking on the Bill, even if we were not always convinced by the arguments.

I thank all noble Lords who have been involved with the Bill at various stages. Of course, the Public Bill Office has, as ever, been extremely helpful. All Ministers, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Berridge, Lady Chisholm and Lady Penn, have been most helpful and always pleasant to deal with. Given that my team has also contained two noble Baronesses and a female legislative and political adviser, I have clearly been the token male in all this.

I thank my colleagues, my noble friends Lady Sherlock and Lady Wilcox, for their support and advice, particularly last week, when the change of date for the second day of Report made it impossible for me to participate. They achieved five wins out of five on that occasion, which perhaps suggests that I should have absented myself more often.

As noble Lords are aware, Ministers have a vast array of officials behind them at times like this, and rightly so, but, as the Opposition, we have just one person: Rhian Copple, the legislative and political adviser for our team. She has been an endless source of ideas and support in so many ways, not least in drafting amendments and negotiating with the Public Bill Office, representatives of other parties and Cross-Benchers. We all owe her a huge debt of gratitude.

I wish the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill good luck in another place. It will need it.

Schools: Examination Assessments

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware that we are planning a White Paper on many of these areas, but our priority in the short term—I am sure the House would support this—is on recovery and catch-up for all children, particularly those who have been most impacted in their learning by the pandemic.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I welcome the Minister to her new post. I could say she is at big school now. I also identify myself with the remarks of my colleague and noble friend Lord Hunt regarding the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge. The lack of standardisation in this year’s exams meant that some pupils sat more than 20 exams while others sat fewer than five. Ofqual stats reveal that children on free school meals were less than half as likely to get a grade 7 or above in their GCSEs than their peers. The attainment gap between those on free school meals and those not has increased by one-third since 2019. Does the Minister expect the new Secretary of State for Education to be any more successful than his predecessor in securing the amount of funding identified by the Government’s recovery tsar?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

We were pleased to see that at both A-level and GCSE all groups have seen an improvement in their outcomes at top grades compared with 2020 and 2019. The noble Lord is of course right that we need to redouble our efforts to close the attainment gap after the disruption caused by the pandemic. A crucial part of that is getting pupils back in the classroom. The Government have committed to an ambitious and long-term education recovery plan, including investment to date of over £3 billion.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 12th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 11, which I have put my name to, and regret that the rules on Report do not allow the noble Lord, Lord Watson, to launch into his exposition of it before the end, unless he wants to rise now.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord. I did intend to speak before the end of the debate.

I will speak to Amendment 11, which has cross-party support and has also been endorsed by the Local Government Association and the Association of Colleges. We support the Government’s ambition to give local employers a strong role in the skills system through local skills improvement plans, but we believe that it should be done as part of an integrated place-based approach to deliver sustained outcomes for local people and local businesses.

I cannot understand the Government’s determination to exclude major players in the localities where the employer representative bodies are based. There needs to be a much more clearly defined and significant role for local and mayoral combined authorities, as well as colleges and other training providers. There has to be an appreciation of differing labour markets, and the way they have developed and are likely to develop. Surely that is best understood at local and regional level. I suggest, as I did in Committee, that it is impossible to prescribe the skills needed for the whole of England from DfE headquarters, yet that is what the Bill’s measures effectively currently propose.

There has been a change since then because we now have a new Secretary of State, who, we are led to believe, has less centralising tendencies than his predecessor. Making the role of local authorities, MCAs, colleges and training providers clear and more effective would be a positive sign by the new Minister to that effect.

To achieve the best outcomes in every area, local authorities and providers should be named as a core and strategic partner in the LSIP process alongside employer representative bodies. To that end, Amendment 11 would provide for ERBs to develop LSIPs—sorry about all these contractions—in partnership with local authorities, mayoral combined authorities and further education providers to ensure that they reflect the needs of learners, employers and, as I said, the local community. Adults and young people have the right to expect access to quality education and training opportunities provided by a joined-up, place-based employment, skills and careers system. Integration at the local level will be vital to support the skills talent pipeline and to join up those skills and occupational pathways of progression.

Amendment 11 would also require local skills improvement plans to consider social and economic development strategies in the local area and long-term national needs that may not apply to local employers. Unless local authorities have a meaningful role in the development and approval of LSIPs there is a risk that these reforms could create further fragmentation within the skills system, which may result in further education providers being subject to different skills plans, disruption of progression pathways for learners and a lack of local democratic accountability, which I do not think we should lose sight of.

I can tell the Minister that local and combined authorities are ambitious to do more to join up local provision to create integrated skills and employment offers tailored to the needs of local economies and residents. This amendment would make use of local government’s expertise to deliver the best outcomes for every community.

Finally, Amendment 11 would require LSIPs to identify actions that relevant providers and other local bodies can take regarding any post-16 technical education or training that they provide. This is drafted to avoid being too prescriptive but would allow LSIPs to work closely with other agencies, including Jobcentre Plus and careers advisory services. As Amendment 12 from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, says, bodies providing careers information, advice and guidance, and independent training are also crucial to the development and success of a local skills improvement plan.

I want to mention the LSIP trailblazers. Less than 24 hours ago, the Minister circulated to noble Lords a 20-page draft guide for employers on LSIP trailblazers. This was promised by her predecessor in Committee 12 weeks ago, so I have to ask why we received it quite literally at the 11th hour, which was not helpful. I do not claim to have gone through it in depth, partly because I was still trying to digest the 69 pages of additional policy notes I found on the DfE website last week that had not been drawn to our attention—yes, I do sometimes have trouble sleeping. There are ways in which communication of some of these papers could be improved, not least in their timing.

Colleges and employer representative bodies in the recently announced successful LSIP trailblazers and strategic development fund pilots will be considering how best they can work in partnership and how they can work with other key partners. There is considerable scope for the sector to lead the way in building new linkages between colleges, universities, schools and other providers; strengthening relationships with mayoral combined authorities and local government; and embedding the voice of students, staff and the wider community in all of this, in so doing demonstrating and strengthening the new environment that they want to operate in. The Government should do everything that they can to facilitate that. It would be to everybody’s benefit.

I am very sympathetic to Amendments 10 and 66 in the name of my noble friend Lady Whitaker, who is yet to speak to them, which aim to ensure that the DfE has a plan for closing the attainment gap and that employer representative bodies have regard to it. The latest annual report from the Education Policy Institute found that the gap between what poorer pupils and their richer peers achieve at school had stopped closing even before the disruption of the pandemic. Disadvantaged pupils in England are now 18 months of learning behind their peers by the time they finish their GCSEs—a huge gap, but the same as five years ago. Disparities at primary school age are also widening for the first time since 2007.

However, a plan will not be worth the paper it is written on unless it includes substantive proposals backed by funding. Noble Lords will be well aware that the Government’s education recovery plan has been roundly criticised as insufficient, including by Tory Members of Parliament and the Government’s own, now departed, Education Recovery Commissioner, Sir Kevan Collins, who said that it did not come close to what was needed. I do not expect the Minister to answer me on that point now, but it is an issue that had an impact on Oral Questions earlier today and which must be taken forward and dealt with if the full effects of the pandemic are to be dealt with. I like to think that we might see a much-needed policy change shortly in the spending review, although, like other noble Lords, I obviously will not hold my breath.

Finally, the development of local skills improvement plans must be inclusive by demonstrating an awareness of and commitment to equality and diversity. It is crucial that those with learning and other disabilities can benefit from the measures in the Bill and that support for schemes that help, especially supported internships, are on the face of the Bill. It requires a focus on making all the so-called three ships—traineeships, supported internships and apprenticeships—more accessible and widely available, opening up pathways into long-term employment for people with a learning disability. Apprenticeships need to be made more flexible; this should be included as part of reforms to the post-16 education offer. Additionally, we want to see more of a commitment to people with education, health and care plans, as well as those who have disabilities but do not qualify for such care plans. Leaving these groups out will only further entrench the current barriers that people with learning disabilities face in finding sustainable paid employment.

There is much for the Minister to respond to in this group of amendments. I do not expect her to respond to all of it in detail but it would helpful if she could follow up on some of my points by letter after the debate. However, let me be clear: we want both employer representative bodies and local skills improvement plans to be successful but we believe that, as it stands, the Bill will limit what can be achieved. There are so many people and organisations with much to offer. They should be encouraged to play their part fully in developing skills for the future.

[Baroness Whitaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I want to go back to Amendment 10. I assumed that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was going to speak to Amendment 9—my apologies. I will speak to Amendments 10 and 66. In doing so, I declare my interests as chair of the Department for Education’s stakeholder group for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma and a former chair and current fellow of the Working Men’s College for men and women.

I am grateful for the advice and support of the Association of Colleges. I was also grateful for the sympathetic response to my amendment from the Minister’s predecessor—the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge —in Committee, and even more so for her positive letter to me and others last month. However, we must look at the facts, not just the aspirations.

All the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 19 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, are worth pursuing. I turn to Amendments 10 and 66. Again, they are aimed at enabling the missing third to gain the skills to earn a good and useful living. They respect the decision of the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, not to proceed immediately with a national plan for those who have not achieved grade 4 or above in GCSE maths or English. However, they would oblige the Government to find out what is actually happening.

In her letter, the noble Baroness again promised the publication of the long-overdue national strategy for Gypsies, Travellers and Roma, which will inter alia address the widely acknowledged educational attainment deficit. Can the Minister give us the date of publication and specify what consultation has taken place? The noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, also said that tuition for 16 to 19 year-olds has been expanded for those who need help to catch up in English, maths and other vocational subjects. How many Gypsies, Travellers and Roma have been given this tuition, and with what results? Similarly, what has happened with the additional funding of small group tuition?

Finally, on the assurances in the letter, how will the department make the new centres for excellence in mathematics accessible to disadvantaged minorities? As I said in Committee, there is no evidence that such minorities lack the requisite ability—– something else is at play.

Most importantly, in what terms have the Government made it

“clear to employers that we will fund apprentices without English and maths to achieve Functional Skills qualifications during their apprenticeship”?

Frankly, without the review that my amendment proposes, we shall, as usual, not know what is happening to the missing third. This would enable something to be done about the plight of thousands of our young people who should be entering the world of work.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

11: Clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) A “local skills improvement plan”, in relation to a specified area, means a plan which—(a) is developed by an employer representative body in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers for the specified area, (b) draws on the views of—(i) employers operating within the specified area,(ii) regional and local authorities , including the Mayoral Combined Authorities, within the specified area with specific reference to published plans and strategies which have been developed by these authorities to inform the distribution of funding and prioritisation of resources,(iii) post-16 education providers active in the specified area, including schools, further education institutions, community learning providers, specialist designated institutions and universities,such sources of information on long-term national skills needs as the Secretary of State may specify, and any other evidence, to summarise the skills, capabilities or expertise that are, or may in the future be, required by people resident in the specified area, and(c) identifies actions that relevant providers and other local bodies can take regarding any post-16 technical education or training that they provide so as to address the requirements mentioned in paragraph (b).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for employer representative boards to develop local skills improvement plans in partnership with local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities, and local further education providers to ensure that they reflect the needs of learners, residents and employers. LSIPs must also consider social and economic development strategies in the local area and long-term national needs which may not apply to local employers.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I beg to move.

Amendment 12 (to Amendment 11) not moved.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive responses. It is clear that she has quickly got up to speed on the Bill. However, she said—I think I am quoting her accurately—that local skills improvement plans will not be effective without the involvement of local authorities and mayoral combined authorities, which is essentially what Amendment 11 is about. She went on to say that it can be covered by guidance, which is of course more flexible than primary legislation. I get that point, but in this case I do not really think that it applies.

Proposed new paragraph (a) in the amendment specifically mentions

“local authorities, including the Mayoral Combined Authorities and further education providers”.

It is not likely that any of them will change: there will always be local authorities and FE providers. I do not know about mayoral combined authorities. They have been invented, so they can be dis-invented, but I do not think that is going to happen any time soon. That argument does not serve the Minister well on this occasion.

This is the third time—at Second Reading, in Committee and now on Report—that we have discussed this issue. A lot of noble Lords have indicated their support at each stage. We have a new Minister but I am afraid that we still have the old argument. For that reason, it is time that noble Lords have a chance to express an opinion. I therefore wish to test the opinion of the House on this matter.

--- Later in debate ---

For all those reasons, we should tell the Government, by making an amendment to this Bill, that we ought to keep BTECs for a good long time.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 28, 29 and 30 in my name plus, very briefly, Amendments 32 and 33, to which I have added my name.

The Government are undertaking significant reform to level 3 qualifications and that is an aim that we certainly support in principle. For too long, there have been far too many qualifications. These have not only confused young people but have not been recognised by employers, who often have no means of gauging their worth.

The Government’s vision is for A-levels and T-levels to form the main further education level 3 qualifications in England and to sit alongside apprenticeships. Funding for other current post-GCSE options, including most BTECs, which are characterised by the Government as “low-quality qualifications”, will be removed from the system by 2025. The move to introduce T-levels, a recommendation of the 2016 review led by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury—I think I am allowed to refer to him as such, even though he has now retired from your Lordships’ House—is one that we welcome and very much want to see succeed.

However, the Government seem intent on introducing a binary system of academic and technical pathways, where students progress to employment, or further study, only via A-levels or the newly created T-levels. The reforms include the defunding of the vast majority of applied general qualifications, including BTECs. They do not appear to have considered the impact of defunding these qualifications on widening access to higher education and on social mobility—or social justice as we in Labour prefer to call it. We have just seen a new social mobility tsar appointed and it would certainly be interesting to know her views on this issue, particularly given her experience as a headteacher.

Yesterday, again at the 11th hour—Minister, please note—we received from the DfE an additional briefing on BTECs and applied general qualifications. In it, the DfE conceded that responses to the consultation highlighted that A-levels and T-levels alone would not meet the needs of all students, and it went on to explain:

“We will give funding approval to qualifications supporting progression to specialist HE courses in areas which are not covered by T Levels and not well-served by A levels as alternative programmes of study to A levels, such as those in performing and creative arts.”


Evidence around BTECs suggests that, while they generally provide positive impacts for students in terms of progression to higher education, wage returns and employment, those benefits are generally exceeded by those with A-levels. I suppose that that was to be expected, but it is not a reason to close down that route for those who did not find A-levels an appropriate option, for whatever reason. We would argue that it is the destination that matters, not the mode of travel to it. Accessing higher education will always have a value, and the greater the number of young people who do so, the better, surely.

Ofqual has also stated its concerns about the proposed new system. In its response to the 2020 review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 in England, it said, in relation to the risks to progression to higher education:

“We recognise the potential benefits for all learners at level 3 from the proposed reforms … in recognising the benefits, we must also remain alert to the potential adverse impacts that these reforms may risk.”


The DfE’s own consultation impact assessment estimated that the qualifications that may no longer be funded could account for around 62% of current non-A-level 16 to 19 year-old enrolments at level 3, yet we know that the number of learners using qualifications other than A-levels to access higher education is in fact growing.

The DfE document referred to earlier—the one that appeared yesterday—contained six evidence sources, but that list did not include the National Education Opportunities Network at the University of West London, which has an unrivalled reputation for supporting widening access to HE. It published a report in February this year that contained a raft of evidence from universities, many of them in the Russell group, with 70% of respondents saying that BTECs prepared students for higher education study as well as, or better than, A-levels. The teaching and assessment style of the BTEC was seen to be particularly good at preparing students to enter more vocationally oriented HE courses.

The conclusion was that BTECs are essential to widening access to higher education, although it is only fair to say that this view is not universally accepted. But, until T-levels become fully established, which, I repeat, we very much want to see, more BTECs than the Government currently plan for need to be retained.

I accept that it is not helpful if BTECs overlap with T-levels and that that could delay their becoming fully entrenched. But while there is a risk, as highlighted by the NEON survey to which I referred, that a substantial proportion of students from the neighbourhoods with the lowest participation rate may not enter higher education under the proposed new system, that is a risk that the Government should weigh very carefully.

The most likely outcome is that around five years’ progress in increasing the numbers of students entering higher education from the neighbourhoods with the lowest participation rate will be lost by the defunding of BTECs. It is almost certain that the proportion of students entering higher education who are from black and Asian backgrounds will decrease.

The DfE document also did not refer to research published by the Social Market Foundation in 2018 showing that students accepted to university from working-class backgrounds and/or minority-ethnic backgrounds are more likely to hold a BTEC qualification than their peers. The foundation’s report said that a quarter of Asian students and 37% of black students were accepted to university after completing only BTEC qualifications at level 3.

On the basis of the evidence in these reports, the Government are strongly urged to reconsider the timescale of their plans to defund applied general qualifications. If the Minister can explain how doing so will not have a negative impact on widening access to higher education and social mobility, I am sure that noble Lords would be most interested to hear that argument.

I turn to the amendments in my name. Amendment 28 requires the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, hitherto referred to as IfATE, to consult and gain the consent of the relevant employer representative bodies before withdrawing course approval. The Government are intent on making the employer representative bodies all-powerful in their areas, which suggests that they, as organisations, would not want decisions taken that cut across their ability to pursue local priorities for qualifications. I accept that there is a danger that a BTEC defunded in one area could remain available in another. That is certainly not ideal, but if local characteristics are to hold sway, it is an issue that can be accommodated, provided that these BTECs do not overlap with T-levels.

Amendment 29 calls for a four-year moratorium on IfATE withdrawing approval and thus defunding BTECs and other level 3 courses. This would prevent removal before 2025, rather than the Government’s ambition of achieving this by 2025. This is a reflection of concerns that it will take some time, as I have said, for T-levels to become embedded and more widely understood and accepted by students, universities, colleges and employers. This is a real issue in the current economic climate, as T-level students are required to complete 315 hours or 45 days of work placements. Many employers have warned that they may not be able to commit to that, given the challenges they are facing, as evidenced by their ability to provide the necessary current work experience placements for T-levels in the health and social care, digital and construction sectors.

There is no mechanism in the Bill for a provider, or a student or prospective student for that matter, to challenge an IfATE decision to withdraw course approval. This is all the more concerning, given that we do not yet know how IfATE will make the decision on which courses to withdrawal approval for. The DfE has referred to course duplication between T-levels and BTECs, and some courses have been labelled “low value” without reference to an objective established measure of quality, applied across the board.

Amendment 30 would therefore allow someone to challenge the lawfulness of the decision to withdraw approval through a judicial review. For example, IfATE’s decision could be overturned on the grounds of procedural unfairness if the process leading up to the decision were improper—perhaps simply biased in favour of T-levels over BTECs—or incompatible with human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998, which could come into play, given the issue of BTECs widening participation and/or ethnic minority entry. This links with Amendment 32, which would make it much less likely that a judicial review would be necessary.

Finally, Amendment 33, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, has our support because we believe that it would put in place a safety net to guard against the issue surrounding the defunding of some BTECs that I have outlined.

If the Government really do want to level up, they need to slow down this major reform and recognise the risks posed to thousands of young people. We are big supporters of T-levels because they have the potential to improve the reputation and standing of technical education, if they are implemented properly, alongside other qualifications.

As the Association of Colleges has said:

“We don’t need a strong-armed approach to force change, that change will happen.”


The Government’s approach risks leaving thousands of disadvantaged students with limited or no routes to progress into work or continuing education when they need them most, and that is an outcome the Government will surely want to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

29: Clause 7, page 9, line 41, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply to the withdrawal of level three courses for the period of four years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents IfATE from withdrawing approval of established level 3 courses including BTECs for four years to ensure that T levels are fully embedded and acceptable to students, employers and universities.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a really compelling debate, with some powerful speeches from education big hitters on all sides. I will not rehearse any of the arguments; they have been well made. I just want to pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett. He said that, on this issue, we need to help the Government help themselves. I want to do that by testing the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank the noble Baroness. The time rumblings in certain areas are making us act a little less rationally. I will be very brief. I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and I am pleasantly surprised that the Public Bill Office accepted it and regarded it as within the scope of Bill. The levy does not merit a mention in the Bill, despite the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, which develops and approves the apprenticeships and technical qualifications of employers, being prominent in several clauses. However, here we are.

As the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, apprenticeships are key to ensuring that Britain is equipped with a well-skilled workforce in the years ahead. It is a bit of a disappointment to some of us—certainly to me—that the scheme, which is a good idea, and the levy, which is an important way of ensuring that employers contribute to the costs of training, have yet to produce anything like the effects hoped for and, indeed, required. The number of young people taking apprenticeships is now down to something like 60,000—I am not quite sure. It has declined dramatically, and that is to be regretted.

When we debated this in Committee, I said to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that I was happy to support the amendment but remained a bit unsure about using levy funds for any purpose other than apprenticeships. In his opening remarks, he said that it could perhaps be used to pay apprenticeship wages, and I am not sure whether that is different. I want to avoid a situation where the money goes back to the Treasury and disappears. As long as the unspent part of the levy was kept within apprenticeships, as it were, we would not be unhappy if it involved some support for wages. On that basis, I am happy to support the amendment. I hope that when we talk about apprenticeships again we will see an upturn in their fortunes. They have a very important contribution to make to the development of skills going ahead.

[Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)]

I offer many apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Watson. It was so rude of me. I am afraid my tummy overtook my brain, not for the first time.

Apprenticeships are at the heart of the Government’s skills ambition. Given Covid-19’s impact on our economy, apprenticeships are as important as ever in helping businesses to recruit the right people and develop the skills they need.

I want to take a few minutes to outline the principles of the apprenticeship levy and funding as I think that will help to respond to some of the points made. The apprenticeship levy has put apprenticeship funding on a sustainable footing and means that this year £2.5 billion is available to support apprenticeships. The levy has been set at a level to fund apprenticeship training and assessment in all employers—both those who pay the levy and those who do not.

As my noble friend Lady Penn explained in Committee, the funds available to levy- paying employers through their apprenticeship service accounts

“are not the same … as the Department for Education’s … apprenticeships budget.”—[Official Report, 15/7/21; col. 2025.]

This budget also funds additional payments made to employers and providers with apprentices aged 16 to 18. It funds the £3,000 incentive that can be claimed by employers hiring new apprentices. I should like to highlight to noble Lords that these incentives were recently extended by the Chancellor of the Exchequer until the end of January 2022, helping more employers to invest in apprenticeships as we recover from the pandemic.

This is one example showing that the apprenticeships programme is dynamic and responsive to both employers and the wider economic context. In addition, we are delivering a set of improvements and flexibilities that will make apprenticeships work better for employers in all sectors and give employers greater opportunities to make full use of their levy funds. Importantly, we also continue to listen to employers and adapt apprenticeships to better meet their needs. Work is under way to deliver a package of improvements which responds directly to employer feedback so that they can make greater use of the apprenticeship funds.

I think the noble Lord, Lord Storey, will be pleased to hear that, first, we are introducing a new service to make it easier for employers who pay the apprenticeship levy to transfer funds in their accounts to other employers. Large employers are able to pledge funds for transfers and other employers will be able to apply to receive these funds, helping both to benefit from transfers. Secondly, we are helping employers choose more innovative training models, such as front-loaded training and accelerated apprenticeships, which will help apprentices with relevant skills and experience to complete their training more quickly. Finally, we are supporting sectors of the economy which have more flexible working patterns, such as the creative industries. We will shortly launch a £7 million fund to help organisations in England set up and expand new flexi-job apprenticeship schemes.

I should also like to say a little about how we are supporting individuals into apprenticeships. We have introduced accelerated apprenticeships, which will reduce the duration of an apprenticeship for individuals coming from certain T-levels, skills boot camps and occupational traineeships where they have acquired substantial prior learning. This will join up skills opportunities and make them more appealing to both employers and individuals. We are undertaking the largest ever expansion of the traineeship programme for 16 to 24 year-olds, supporting more young people to move into apprenticeships and work. As over 30% of all traineeship starts are by learners from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds, and over 20% of traineeship starts are from learners with learning difficulties or disabilities, our investment will also help to broaden diversity and inclusion. I hope the noble Lord will agree that there are some positive steps we are taking.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked if the programme has shifted from older people. More than half—53%—of all apprenticeship starts continue to be by young people under the age of 25. This compares to 56% in 2015-16, prior to our reforms. As well as supporting young people into employment, it is important to recognise the role apprenticeships play in upskilling and reskilling people throughout their lifetimes. I hope I have made the noble Lord, Lord Storey, happy with what I have said and that he will therefore feel comfortable withdrawing his amendment.

Adoption Support Fund

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Russell, not just for securing this debate three times but for his tireless efforts on behalf of children and families engaged in adoption and other forms of permanence. We are also indebted to all those who contributed to the APPG’s inquiry and to those who prepared the report that followed. It stands as an example of the very best work of which our all-party groups are capable.

We are now approaching the conclusion of the adoption support fund’s first five years. I use that terminology advisedly, because I believe it is simply inconceivable that the Government would, in 14 months’ time, when the current funding runs out, choose to bring it to an end. Such has been its impact on around 40,000 families with adopted children that denying them the vital therapeutic services that the fund enables would be an act of vandalism and an abdication of responsibility that I simply cannot imagine any Government contemplating, not even one as unpredictable as this.

Adoption plays a crucial role in providing support for some of our most vulnerable children, alongside special guardianship, foster care and residential care. It is much to be welcomed that special guardianship families were added to those able to access the fund. Those of us who have never had any direct experience of what it means either to be adopted or to adopt a child cannot readily appreciate the day-to-day existence of families who have taken on that onerous but important responsibility, so it is extremely valuable to have access to the adoption barometer, a comprehensive stocktake of the experiences of adoptive families in the UK during a single year undertaken by Adoption UK.

The most recent barometer reflected experiences in 2018 and was published in July last year. It was based on detailed feedback from 3,500 adoptive parents representing all stages of the process, from approvals and matching to families with adopted young adults. Their views, concerns and experiences are placed firmly in the context of adoption policy and practice in each of the four nations of the UK, with the aim of learning what is working well and what needs to be improved. The data revealed that the majority of families are facing significant challenges and, for too many, the support that would enhance their ability to provide for their adopted children is often difficult to access, with potentially damaging consequences.

The barometer’s conclusions are divided into five categories and one in particular is germane to this debate. It concerns established adoptive families, who were asked to give their assessment both of national policy for established families and of adopter experiences. As regards England, in the first category the assessment was “fair” and in the second it was “poor”. That lays bare the extent of the stress, the strain and, indeed, the frustration that adoptive families feel as a result of the patchy overall support that they receive. My noble friend Lord Triesman—I refuse to address him in any other way despite the fact that he now sits on the Cross Benches—spoke with great authority born of personal family experience of such difficulties. I also pay tribute to his campaign for children adopted from abroad, on whose behalf he has achieved equality of treatment, which is much to be welcomed.

One of the few things that make adoptive families want to carry on—indeed, make it possible for them to carry on—is the adoption support fund, which provides the therapeutic services that have now become a major part of the support available to families. At the same time as the adoption barometer was published, so too was the report of the APPG for Adoption and Permanence. It is a substantial body of work and it is fitting that it should be the subject of debate in your Lordships’ House. The inquiry explored how the fund might be improved so that it better meets the needs of families who benefit from it. I was privileged to attend both the hearings that formed the major part of the inquiry and heard some powerful evidence from both practitioners and parents. The view was very clearly articulated that the fund simply must receive sufficient resources to ensure its long-term future. Those giving evidence to the all-party group warned of catastrophic effects if that were not the case.

As the noble Lord, Lord Russell, said, the Department for Education gave evidence in the form of a senior member of staff, who said that in the department’s view, the fund has been “a real success”. I quote that with confidence because it appears in my contemporaneous notes of the hearing. That was most encouraging to hear at that time and I am sure the Minister has been made aware of it.

The inquiry report outlined six recommendations, all well-reasoned and eminently reasonable. I will not repeat them because other noble Lords have already done so, but I encourage the Minister to ensure that they are acted upon by the Government. The first called for the fund to be continued until 2030 at least, and that should be the minimum to which the Minister commits the Government today. As others have said, we know that we are going to hear that the spending review —whenever that may be—will reveal all and no promises can be made until then. That argument might have been plausible under the previous Government, but the current regime frankly has such a robust majority that it could legislate for an eighth day of the week should it so desire and there would be nothing that Parliament could do to stop it. Therefore, the Minister should at the very least tell the House—as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith—what he will personally be arguing for with Treasury Ministers in relation to the fund in the meetings that will take place in preparation for spending review decisions. Is he sufficiently convinced of the vital need for the services provided by the fund to argue for its permanence? If not, why not?

Of course, we do not know whether the Minister will retain his position in the reshuffle. I personally hope that he does, and we understand that the Secretary of State has held on to his place. In the four and a half years that I have been in my post, there have been four Secretaries of State for Education. For the sake of the sector as a whole, some stability is certainly welcome. There have also been four Ministers of State with responsibility for adoption in that period—five if you include the one currently providing maternity cover for Kemi Badenoch. Today the Universities Minister changed for the fifth time within that period, even though the incumbent was an academic, so stability is not a word that echoes in the corridors of the Department for Education.

As the APPG report demonstrates, the adoption support fund has provided life-changing therapeutic support for thousands of families. Indeed, as others have said, nearly 80% of parents said that the fund met needs which, crucially, could not be met elsewhere. Perhaps even more importantly, as parents told the inquiry, the support accessed via the fund has helped them avoid a potential family breakdown or disruption. That view was echoed in many of the 1,600 responses to the inquiry—a remarkable number—and it is perhaps the fund’s greatest strength that it has proved to be a lifeline for so many families, delivering specialist therapeutic support that is not otherwise accessible.

But the report makes it clear that, as my noble friend Lady Massey highlighted, the bureaucracy involved in applying can be daunting for some parents. Despite positivity about the benefits of the fund, and modest, sustained improvements in outcomes, the level of difficulties faced within the families of survey respondents remains very high, reflecting the ongoing need for support in most cases. Suggested improvements included broadening the scope of the fund to include additional types of support, improving co-ordination with education services—a vital aspect—and loosening financial restrictions to permit greater quantities of support to be accessed. I hope the Minister will feel able to comment on these, given the authority which the report carries.

The Government should acknowledge the fact that the fund has prevented or reduced the risk of adoption breakdown, because that underlines how it saves the taxpayer much greater costs further down the line. Last year, a report by the University of Kent—which I think the noble Lord, Lord Russell, mentioned—found that the cost to the state of having a child in care is approximately £34,000 per year. If just 10% of the 40,000 children with families who accessed the adoption support fund had been unable to sustain the adoption without that support, the consequent cost to the taxpayer of those children returning to care would have been in excess of £125 million—each year.

The fund’s budget for the year 2020-21 will be £45 million, which is the highest it will have been in its by then six-year existence. So I say to the Minister: please do not let us hear of financial considerations regarding the future of the fund, because it provides astoundingly good value for money. Indeed, the Government would be guilty of gross profligacy with public resources were they to decide to end the fund—or even underfund it—and revert to the status quo as it was in 2015. Of course, not all families would return their adopted children to care, but I have already quoted the cost of just one in 10 doing so, and the figure could be much higher on an annual basis than has been paid out by the fund since 2015. Quite simply, then, guaranteeing the fund’s long-term future is a no-brainer. What possible argument can there be for failing to do so, short of an equivalent alternative scheme? Answers to that should be sent on a postcard to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Sajid J—oh, wait a minute, Mr Javid stood up to the Prime Minister, so he is now history. Clearly, his successor, Rishi Sunak, is much more pliable.

As I said, the case for making the adoption support fund permanent is unanswerable. I will conclude by quoting one of the adoptive children who benefit so much from the support that the fund provides. The APPG inquiry asked children and young people what they would like to say to the Minister for Children and Families about the adoption support fund. I found the most telling response to be this one:

“Good support is when someone understands and listens to you—all the different bits of you, not just the bits showing on the outside.”


That voice speaks eloquently but with great power, and must be listened to.

Children in Care

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, the mental health of these children is extremely important. One recent initiative we have introduced is the role of virtual school heads, who become the overseeing official for a child who is looked after in his or her school setting. We are seeing that that is starting to work. They have control over the enhanced pupil premium, which allows funds to be spent on such things as additional tutoring and mentoring, summer and weekend schools and additional support to schools for these vulnerable children.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am not sure that the Minister has grasped the seriousness of this issue. He referred euphemistically to independent or semi-independent homes. These are homes that are unregistered, in some cases illegal, and beyond the purview of Ofsted. It cannot be right that thousands of children are sent there each year, with minimal checks on who is providing the accommodation. Ofsted reported two weeks ago that it had discovered organisations that were, in its words, “gaming the system” by setting up short-term arrangements to avoid registering as a children’s home. That cannot be right. I have a simple question that the Minister will not have to refer to his trusty ring-binder for: how can it ever be acceptable for a vulnerable child to be placed in an unregistered home?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, I am afraid it is not quite as simple as the noble Lord would like to suggest. He is quite correct that Ofsted has carried out 150 investigations in the last year, and alongside this it has tightened up requirements under its inspection regime for local authorities to share how they monitor children in unregulated provision. However, the reality is that we have an increasing number of older children in the care system who do not want to be in a traditional fostering situation and want semi-independent living. That is one of the reasons for the increase in this category.

Looked-after and Adopted Children

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

My Lords, the right reverend Prelate is right that an increasing number of older children are going into care, and their preference is often to go into less-regulated accommodation. County lines is a phenomenon that has arisen over the last five years and we are now acting strongly to deal with it. In October we announced £20 million of targeted investment to increase our efforts against county lines, and £5 million of that is already in operational use.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, almost three-quarters of children in care live with a foster family. Those families are the unsung heroes of the system, providing a vital service at minimal cost while saving the Treasury countless millions, something that the Minister might care to acknowledge. Ofsted recently reported that 60% of children in children’s homes are placed there from outwith their local authority area, and research by the Children’s Society highlighted the fact that children in out-of-area homes are much more likely to go missing from care. Surely the interests of the child should be at the centre of all decision-making when it comes to placements, but that seems to be lacking. Can the Minister offer an assurance that when the review to which he has referred takes place, it will take an in-depth look at placement policy?

[Lord Agnew of Oulton]

The noble Lord is right that 73% of children in care are with foster families and that such families are indeed heroes of the system; in most cases they provide stable, loving homes. We have also learned that the longer that a child spends in one home in continuity, the better his or her life chances are in future. We are concerned about children being placed out of area, but there are often legitimate reasons for it, such as taking a child out of exposure to a local gang or a difficult family environment that he or she needs space from.