Support for Bereaved Children

Andrea Jenkyns Excerpts

Tuesday 21st May 2024 Westminster Hall

[Andy Carter]

I pay tribute to the work the hon. Lady has done with colleagues on her private Member’s Bill. I absolutely support its aims, and I will talk a little more about it in just a second.

This debate is largely down to the experience of a young man called Dan Walsh, who I am pleased to say is able to join us in the Chamber today with his friend Finn and his teacher Alice. Dan is currently studying at Priestly College in my constituency, where I had the pleasure of first meeting him a few months ago during a visit. He gave me a heartwarming account of his experience of loss, how it impacted him and his family and how he not only overcame that terrible and tragic event at such a young age, but was empowered to become involved in campaigning to help others who, sadly, find themselves in the same position.

I would like to share the speech that Dan has written for this debate. He writes:

“Nearly five years to the day, I lost my father to a shock brain aneurysm. He was a fit and healthy man, and we had absolutely no warning of what was to come. At the time I was 12 and in Year 7, and little did I know that when I left school that day, my life was about to change forever in a way that I could never have anticipated.

The journey that followed was rough, my world had been turned upside down. At 12 I struggled to grasp the permanence of death. I let the guilt and anger consume and stop me from being able to properly process his passing.

Throughout that difficult time, I was reminded constantly that I wasn’t alone. My own family and school always made sure that I knew that they would always be there.

Yet it was at that point when I felt most alone.

Mark Lemon, an author, captured this feeling brilliantly when he wrote ‘grief is feeling lonely in a room full of people’. I knew full well that I was supported by loving and caring people, but nothing could ever stop me from feeling so isolated, nothing anyone could do would ever make me feel any different.”

[Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this speech to the House. I also thank his constituent—it is very brave of him to do this. My son, Clifford, was just five years old when he lost his beloved nana, my mum Valerie, who was like a second mum to him. A few months later, he lost his dog as well. We got through that with faith. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Church has an important place in helping with this issue, and that schools need more guidance on how to spot if a child is grieving and on understanding the stages of grief?

[Andy Carter]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising those points, and particularly the role the Church can play in supporting families. I say to anybody going through grief that there are people out there they can reach out to. The challenge is knowing where to reach out, and this debate is about helping people to find places they can go when they need support.

I will return to the speech written by Dan:

“It was a cruel realisation, but necessary. It allowed me to begin the process of healing, because grief is a bittersweet feeling; whilst you’re suffering your own loss, you get to share each other’s love and compassion for the person that you lose.

After months of not being able to cope and agonising over the loss I was finally directed to a charity called Child Bereavement UK.

The months following my dad’s death I experienced a communication breakdown. I was unable to talk about him and felt completely overwhelmed. I sought relief in my own solitude but to no avail. Feeling trapped in this sensation of anguish.

The charity then became a lifeline for me. It was the only place where I could feel safe to express my own feelings and where I was able to begin that complex journey of navigating through emotion.

What counselling did for me was allow me to talk openly and freely about my dad; however, the most helpful aspect of my time at Child Bereavement was the group meetings where I could speak to young people who had also been through what I had. The groups offered a comforting presence and with their guidance I was able to acknowledge my own feelings of grief.

It gave me the opportunity to talk about my own experiences but also to console those who had similar experiences. In doing so it created a sense of solidarity between myself and other grieving young people.

I had one particular issue when first attending Child Bereavement and that was not being able to comfortably talk about my dad openly. For months I had suppressed my own feelings, but now I cherish the moments that I had with him and I’m always keen to listen to the impact that he had on everybody else.

I would go once a month to one-to-one sessions and a group for young people, yet after a few months I felt comfortable talking about the memories that I built with my dad and the struggle that followed his death.

Looking back at this time it gives me great self-pride to be able to talk about my own experience openly and to know that to have been able to do that I overcame the most painful time of my life.

No one should ever face this journey alone.

And, having experienced this first hand, I feel an obligation to make sure that young bereaved people across the country have the accessibility of these services and are able to secure the level of support that I did.”

Dan is only 17 years old, and he tells a story that is all too common for people of his age. Too many young people are unable to access what they need, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said. For those who do lose a loved one, it is imperative that they know they are not alone and that they know where to turn.

Relationships Education: LGBT Content

Andrea Jenkyns Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2024 Westminster Hall

[Dame Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

I have a constituent whose school will not show the materials. It will show a summary, but not the actual materials, so she has taken her child out of that school. I agree that we need complete transparency and that parents have a right to that. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Elliot Colburn]

That is absolutely appropriate. If the school has done that, it is contrary to current Government guidelines. I do not disagree with my hon. Friend at all.

The Government’s own statutory RSE guidance outlines obligations for parents and carers to be consulted on the development and review of schools’ RSE policies. It explicitly states that, as part of that process, parents and carers should be able to see “examples of the resources” that schools will use. Many schools should ask parents and carers to come in, view the materials and have a chat about the context in which they will be used. That is there in black and white, so if that is not happening, it absolutely should be called out. I do not think anyone would disagree that parents have a right to know.

With regard to the accusations of extreme, inappropriate, highly sexual material or similar, there simply is not the data to back up many of those claims, and that includes a lack of statistical data on complaints that have been escalated to the Department for Education. Many teaching organisations and people representing education unions, for example, have said that they have struggled to find any evidence of a widespread problem.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Holloway (Gravesham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. There are impassioned calls for the Government to remove LGBT content from the primary school curriculum and equally impassioned calls that children of 11 and under should be taught about LGBT relationships—the two petitions we are debating today. They reflect real anxiety over this hugely sensitive issue. Feelings run very high, and understandably so. Some worry about exposing young children to age-inappropriate material and foisting adult preoccupations on them, while others feel strongly that some children will not be able to make informed decisions about health, wellbeing and relationships without developing an understanding of LGBT issues at a fairly young age. I will make a few brief points on the issue, which chiefly relate to the teaching of transgender ideology.

My points are informed by a very unhappy experience in my constituency, where an academy trust developed a syllabus designed for primary school children promoting transgender ideology. The ideas at the heart of the teaching materials that were proposed and the manner in which the matter was handled caused massive upset among the parent body and a catastrophic breakdown in trust. We all have loads of WhatsApp groups, and the busiest WhatsApp group that I have is the group in my constituency, which the parents have entitled “protect our children”.

Thankfully, there has now been a resolution of sorts, with parents rightly being put back in control of what their primary-age children are taught, but the episode has impressed on me the need to remember that our understanding of transgender theory is by no means settled and that there is not a consensus of opinion.

[Dame Andrea Jenkyns]

As the mother of a primary-age schoolchild, I do not want him or other children, straight or gay, to learn about sex full stop. I also do not want young children in primary school to be taught about changing gender. I have no problem with whatever people want to do when they are older—life is short; be happy—but does my hon. Friend agree that we need to protect the innocence of children and their childhood, especially at primary school age?

[Adam Holloway]

Indeed, as well as respect parents. Because the long-term emotional consequences of transition are not properly understood, we should be careful about teaching contested concepts to young, impressionable children. We would not be doing right by the majority of parents if we failed to acknowledge that the idea that sex is assigned at birth is not a universally held view, but the complexities of explaining that to children aged 11 or under are pretty obvious. I also struggle to see how that issue could be taught honestly and objectively without explaining that there may be other reasons why a person feels uncomfortable about themselves or their body. Teaching that to primary-aged children is clearly hugely problematic. Instinctively, for those reasons, I feel that the complex issue of transgender ideology has no real place on the primary school curriculum.

It is, however, unrealistic to think that issues relating to gender will not crop up—of course they will. Some children will question their gender, and many will meet transgender adults. Where primary schools feel that such education does need to be included—which will not be everywhere—we need to support teachers in navigating the sensitivities, and to ensure that schools are safe places for everybody. Therefore, the Government need urgently to issue clear and prescriptive guidance on content, and as anticipated in the current review, take a firm grip on the materials that schools use.

I would prefer that what was taught reflected the fact that there is a divergence of views on the issue of transgender. However, at primary school level, what is taught about that need not go much further than emphasising that the choices people make should never be the subject of unkindness. The emphasis on parental engagement with the curriculum is welcome. Communication and trust between parents and schools is important, but while it is sensible to let parents see what their children will be taught before lessons are delivered, and while a parental opt-out may be useful, children are bound to discuss the topics among themselves. The focus must be on teachers getting it right and ensuring that the message primary-aged children receive is not confusing, age inappropriate or sexualised.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Dowd—in my case, for the first time—and a pleasure to be here for this well-attended debate in Westminster Hall. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Elliot Colburn) for opening the petition debate on whether lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender content should be included in relationships education in primary schools. I also thank the petitioners involved in the two petitions.

The subjects are, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) said, sensitive. We have heard different perspectives and had a passionate but respectful and reflective debate informed by constituency experiences and, in multiple cases, colleagues’ own personal experiences, which they have shared today. I thank everyone who has taken part: my hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington, for Gravesham, for Darlington (Peter Gibson), and for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher); the hon. Members for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), and for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle); the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw); and the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). I also thank those who took part through interventions.

When we brought in the relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance from September 2020, it was the first update to that guidance for 19 years. In the intervening period, a lot had changed. A lot had changed in our society, and the law had changed in important ways. Technology and new media had changed, and continues to change, both what happens in our society and what our children are exposed to in ways that continue to develop.

It is essential to support all pupils to have the knowledge they need to lead happy, safe and healthy lives, and that they are able to understand and respect difference in others. That is not just my view. It also comes from extensive engagement with teachers, parents and others: we issued a call for evidence and a consultation on RSHE back in 2018. Colleagues across the House have repeated it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington who did so rather powerfully.

High-quality, evidence-based and age-appropriate teaching of RSHE can help to achieve exactly what I have just set out. It can prepare pupils for the opportunities and the responsibilities of adult life, and it can promote pupils’ spiritual, moral, social, cultural, mental and physical development. In that context, we want all children to understand the importance of respect for relationships and the different types of loving and healthy relationships that exist in our society.

In primary schools, age-appropriate relationships education involves supporting children to learn about what healthy relationships are; about mutual respect, trustworthiness, loyalty, kindness, and generosity; as well as, crucially, keeping safe both online and offline. That then provides the basis for relationships and sex education at secondary school, where pupils are taught the facts around sex, sexual health and sexuality, set firmly within the context of relationships.

We do need to strike the right balance. We do not want teaching inadvertently to fast-track children into engaging in, or exploring, adult activities, rather than enjoying childhood and being children. To teach young people about same-sex relationships does not mean teaching children in primary schools about sex.

It should focus on teaching children that society consists of a diverse range of people, that families come in many shapes and sizes, and that it is all right to be different. Some children in the classroom may, of course, have lesbian, gay or transgender family members and will rightly want to feel included in lessons about positive, healthy and trusting relationships.

Crucially, if this content is not covered in the classroom, it does not mean that children are not going to come into contact with it. Most frequently, they will either turn to their peers—in fact, they do not even have to turn to their peers; they will get it from them anyway—or to the internet. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington reiterated the fact that, as we all know, that can be a dangerous and distorted place. The RSHE statutory guidance is clear that it is for schools to decide at what point in their pupils’ education it is appropriate to cover content related to LGBT—

[Dame Andrea Jenkyns]

Eighteen months ago, when I was very briefly in the DFE, I raised with civil servants my concern over constituents not being able to see the actual materials and being shown a summary only. I was reassured then that all schools would be emailed to say that materials must be shown to parents if requested. It was not done while I was there. Can the Minister confirm whether it has been done since?

[Damian Hinds]

It has, and later in my remarks I will come on to this very matter. As I was saying, the statutory guidance is clear that it is for schools to decide the point in their pupils’ education at which it is appropriate to cover matters related to LGBT.

Home Education

Andrea Jenkyns Excerpts

Monday 27th March 2023 Westminster Hall

[Nick Fletcher]

That is what we are here to discuss. I will look at both sides of the argument, as I do when I lead petitions debates.

As a member of the Education Committee, I spoke to the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, when she kindly attended an evidence session on this subject. Only last week, we met again through the Petitions Committee. In her role as Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel wrote to all local authorities on this subject. The feedback was patchy in many areas. Dame Rachel was concerned that no one really knows how many children are not in school.

The Centre for Social Justice recently published a report entitled “Lost and Not Found”, written by Alice Wilcock. The foreword was written by my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) and spells out the problem: 140,000 children were severely absent from school in summer 2022. That is a staggering number considering the fact that “severely absent” means they are missing more than 50% of the time. My fear is that many of those children will be off-rolled from school by parents simply to stop the letters and fines. The Centre for Social Justice made seven recommendations to tackle the problem; although the Government have put additional protections in place, I hope they will read the report and take note.

We can see that there is obviously a problem with school attendance, but would a register help? The children who are severely absent are already on a register. The biggest problem comes when they off-roll from school: when a parent informs the school that they are going to home educate their child, that is it. When the child falls off the register, the letters and fines stop and the school no longer has any obligations to the child. There is no more register. As Dame Rachel de Souza has stated, there is an ongoing duty of care on local authorities, but the data is patchy. Herein lies the problem: a child can be taken out of school for many reasons that are not necessarily in their best interests.

[Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)]

In recent months I have heard from parents across my constituency who feel they have no choice but to home educate their children due to age-inappropriate sex education that exposes infant children to information about adult sexual acts. Does my hon. Friend agree that, as legislators and as parents, we have a duty to protect the innocence of our children, and that this debate should reflect the reasons why parents are choosing to home school their children?

[Nick Fletcher]

I could not agree more with my hon. Friend and will address that issue later in my speech.

I am sure that many of us believe that the situation is simply not acceptable. There will be some children who have never attended school at all. A child’s last engagement with anyone in authority could quite possibly be the midwife when the child is two, but many fail to attend that appointment. Are these the real lost children? I am told that 1.1% of children are home schooled, but in the Traveller community it is 6%; for children of young offenders it is 6%; and for children with a social worker it is 3%. We can agree that complex backgrounds have a bearing on the numbers, and that is what many professionals would like to tackle.

There is another cohort of home-schooled children. They have dedicated parents who make huge sacrifices to educate their child at home and do an excellent job. I spoke to the petitioners Kilby and Laura last week, and both appear to be very dedicated. I have also spoken to other parents who home school, and they speak of the joy it brings to them and their children. These days, there are huge resources available on the internet, and many home-schooling communities have joined together for some lessons, such as sport, music and art, so the children have opportunity to mix but also have the benefit of one-to-one tuition at home.

Done properly, home schooling has many benefits, and it saves the taxpayer money, too. It gives parent the opportunity to educate their child as they wish. It also enables a parent to teach the subjects that they feel are most beneficial to their child. More importantly to many, it enables them not to teach the subjects that they do not think are beneficial. We have all heard recently of some of the totally unacceptable topics being taught to our children. Although the Minister is meeting me to discuss the issue and the Prime Minister has ordered a review, unacceptable material and politically contentious issues are being taught as we speak. I would seriously consider home schooling my children if they were of that age.

Why are Kilby and Laura so against a register? Kilby feels it would fundamentally change the opt-in process for schooling. The law puts responsibility to educate children on the parents, and they can choose to opt into schooling if they wish. She believes that a register would be more like an opt-out system and could end up making school attendance mandatory. Laura believes that the implementation of a register would be the first step to more oversight of parents who home educate. I can see their point: it would be a fundamental change in the relationship between the state, parents and children.

One reason why many home schoolers do not want to register is the overreach of some local authorities with the powers that they already have. Some are far too overbearing when, quite simply, an experienced officer could see that a home-schooled child is happy in a good home and is being educated well. Some home-educating parents have children with special educational needs and disabilities, and they have removed their children from state education because their needs were not being met. Some of the parents have had particular difficulty with local authority officers not being equipped to assess the complex situation. That begs the question: is a register necessary? Or should local authorities just do a better job with the resources and powers that they have?

Section 437 of the Education Act 1996 states that “if it appears” to the authority that a child is not receiving a suitable education, it can apply for a school attendance order to send the child to school. Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 states that local authorities

“have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm”,

they can make inquiries and, if need be, make an emergency protection order for the safety of the child. Therefore, if a child who is persistently or severely absent is off-rolled, the local authority already has the power to deal with the situation.

When we investigate further than a headline, we see yet again that good people who are doing a good job are threatened with more state overreach because of the poor behaviour of the few.

Colleges Week 2022

Andrea Jenkyns Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2022 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

It is, as always, a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this important debate. I am well aware that further education colleges are an important part of education in his constituency. There are some great colleges doing some good work in his area, such as East Coast College, Suffolk New College and West Suffolk College. He mentioned our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister’s commitment to technical and vocational qualifications. I have been saying for some time that I want to see parity of esteem whereby technical and vocational qualifications are held in the same high esteem as academic qualifications, so it is music to my ears to hear our new Prime Minister talk of this. I definitely think that is the right direction and I fully support him in this.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney also touched on the importance of apprenticeships, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) did, and how important it is that they are future-proofing our economy. We are also looking at working with emerging industries to ensure that we can future-proof our economy. This is certainly something that I have been working on. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned how colleges reach across all sections of society; I think every Member in this room agrees with that. They really reach out to the hard-to-reach places.

I thought that, before beginning my main speech, I would just touch on some of the things that hon. Members brought up. The right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) proudly highlighted the excellent work of his local college. I am also pleased to hear how he is championing T-levels. I know his principal, John Laramy, is a strong advocate for T-levels, so please pass on my regards. The right hon. Member for Exeter discussed the challenges of space, which I know from some of the colleges in our local areas can be a challenge. I will happily meet with the right hon. Member and his college principal to look at options. As your principal is an advocate for T-levels, they have already received £2.5 million, which is half the cost of refurbishment. The great news is that they are successful in securing the approval for wave 4 of T-levels; that is testament to the great work that they are doing in that area.

I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin): you have been an amazing advocate for your college. When I got this position three months ago, yours was one of the first letters I received. I want to pay tribute to the great work that you do in championing this. Obviously, if legal wranglings are going on I cannot comment on that, but I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and stakeholders to discuss things further in person. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the amazing work that you do as chair of the APPG—

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister is speaking through the Chair. Just a gentle reminder.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Thank you, Mrs Murray.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire for the great work she does on the APPG on global education. I also thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for the great work she has done in the sector. My sister worked in FE for quite a number of years and I know the challenges, but at the same time I know how you pull out all the stops for your students. Thank you for the work that you do.

[Mrs Sheryll Murray (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister really should not be referring to me.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Sorry. I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw for discussing how important it is for us to build up strong relationships with our devolved nations. I will work on doing that with my counterparts. It was wonderful to hear the story of how FE has helped one of the hon. Member’s constituents. On T-level results day this summer, I went to a college in the north-west. It was amazing—I wish I could bottle that enthusiasm and spread it across the whole country. Students told me how the T-level and being at college actually changed their lives. That shows the great stuff that colleges do.

Colleges do fantastic work up and down the country, every single day. I have already mentioned some of the colleges I have visited. Darlington College had a fabulous robotics department; Leeds College had engineering and construction. They are amazing learning environments enabling students to flourish, get on in life and land the jobs they have always dreamed of.

FE colleges have a role like no other education provider; they reach parts that other education providers cannot reach. They deliver the skills a nation needs to support growth. That could be at level 1 or level 7. They support those who need a second chance and those who need to reskill and retrain. They support those who need higher-level technical skills, and they work with schools, other providers, universities and employers. They are a jack of all trades, and, importantly, also masters of them all.

All that is happening in colleges up and down our country, helping to level up the nation and support social mobility. That is why I see colleges as engines of social mobility, encouraging students to reach beyond what they thought was possible and smash expectations. Colleges focus on what can be achieved by every student who comes through the doors. As a former BTEC girl, I get that. I will touch briefly on what the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) said about BTECs. We need to get on the record that we are not doing away with BTECs; we are reforming the whole landscape to ensure that every qualification that anybody takes leads to good outcomes for the students. That is so important; outcome is everything for students because they invest so much time in their education.

[Helen Hayes]

Can I get some clarity from the Minister on her plans for level 2 and 3 BTECs?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I will cover those points later in my speech.

My BTEC experience—I studied for a BTEC national in business and finance—helped me on my way; importantly, I gained transferable skills. I fully recognise that others like me—and indeed not like me, which is a real beauty of the FE sector—will benefit from the provision that colleges deliver, as they offer so much in our communities, to our students and to our economy.

With the recognition of the value and worth of colleges comes the need to ensure that they are properly funded, which is why throughout this Parliament we have sought to substantially increase investment in post-16 education. We are investing: £3.8 billion more in FE and skills over this Parliament, including an extra £1.6 billion for 16-to-19 education in 2024-25; an extra £500 million for T-levels, when they are fully rolled out; £1.34 billion in adult education and skills through the adult education budget in 2022-23; and £2.5 billion over the course of the Parliament for the national skills fund to support eligible adults to upskill and reskill. We are also increasing apprenticeship funding to £2.7 billion by 2024-25.

We are also investing in facilities, as I mentioned earlier, with £2.8 billion in capital investment to improve the college estates, and over £400 million to ensure that they have the facilities and equipment needed for T-levels. We have big ambitions for colleges and the whole further education sector, but we cannot shy away from the challenges, which I know some hon. Members have mentioned.

Rising costs and the energy crisis are hitting everyone. Colleges are certainly no exception. The investments that I have outlined will help to support the sector to deliver on its ambitions against this backdrop. The energy relief scheme that the Government announced only last month will be a much needed help for colleges. We are working continually with the sector, and I have asked colleges to let us know about their cost pressures, so we can consider that in determining the next steps. I will listen carefully in order to fully understand the challenges and opportunities that the sector faces, and to understand the challenges that colleges face. We ask a lot of them, but we know that they can deliver what learners, businesses and the country needs. The whole nation needs to be thankful for what colleges do.

Regarding skills reforms, colleges play an important role in our ambition to develop one of the best technical education systems in the world. I am pleased to hear that the Opposition are on the same page as us. We value the importance of technical education, so it is great that we are in government and delivering on this. We are investing in the skills system so that colleges have the means and support to offer learners the chance to retrain, upskill and reskill anywhere in the country, so that they can get good jobs wherever they live.

Since the publication of the “Skills for jobs” White Paper in 2021, we have been working closely with colleges to improve courses and qualifications to ensure we are focused on giving people the skills they need to get into great jobs. Colleges have been pivotal in the delivery of new, high-quality provision, and we thank them for all their hard work these past few years in rolling out this significant reform programme.

Successive reviews, including the Wolf review and the Sainsbury review, have found that the current qualifications system is overly complex and does not serve students or employers well. This is why we have undertaken a series of reviews of academic and technical qualifications at level 3, level 2 and below. As I said earlier, this is about outcomes for students. The reviews will ensure that every funded qualification has a clear purpose, is high-quality and will lead to good outcomes for students. We have already removed funding approval for over 5,000 qualifications that have low, or no, publicly funded enrolments at level 3. That is the right move. Although we want momentum, we want to introduce these reforms at a manageable pace, given the extent of change in the wider qualification landscape, including at level 3.

Let me turn to higher level technical education. Many colleges are already delivering excellent higher technical education, yet uptake of these courses is low compared to other levels of study internationally and previous figures in England, despite strong employer demand for higher technical skills. We are therefore delivering supply and demand-style reforms to grow uptake of high-quality higher technical education. Our reforms are focused on quality, to lay foundations for the long-term sustainable growth of higher technical qualifications.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney mentioned local skills improvement plans. Employer representative bodies have been appointed to lead on the development of local skills improvement plans in all areas of the country. That includes the Norfolk chamber of commerce, which is leading on the LSIPs across Norfolk and Suffolk, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

We have moved quickly since launching LSIPs in the “Skills for jobs” White Paper in January 2021. We piloted the plans and the development fund to see what worked well, legislated to put LSIPs on a statutory footing, and ran competitions to find the strongest employer bodies to lead on developing each employer-led plan. LSIPs place employers at the heart of our local skills, facilitating more dynamic working arrangements between employers, colleges and other training providers. Together with the strategic development fund, which supports providers to make changes to their curriculum, LSIPs make technical education more responsive to employers’ needs.

I know that the sector is facing challenges with the recruitment and retention of teachers; that is one of the main things that colleges around the country tell me. I recognise that great teachers are fundamental to the success of our skills system, which is why our “Skills for jobs” White Paper sets out our continuing support for the FE sector to recruit and train great teachers. We will support the sector through the national recruitment campaign programmes to recruit industry professionals into FE teaching roles, and upskill FE teachers to deliver new T-levels by improving the quality of FE initial teacher training education.

Let me turn to the Office for National Statistics reclassification. I appreciate that there are some concerns in the sector about this work, but we are continuing to work closely with the sector, and will provide information and guidance for providers in the event of a reclassification. We will ensure that any changes are managed smoothly, and that all in the sector are kept fully up to date at all stages so that providers can continue to deliver the best provision for learners. It is important to recognise that this is the moment that the FE sector remains classified as part of the private sector, and colleges should continue to operate as usual.

Most providers are doing a brilliant job of transforming the lives of people in their community, but our funding system does not always help them to do so. We want to change this and ensure that the system actively supports FE providers to work collaboratively with local providers, employers and other key stakeholders. Our reforms to funding and accountability for colleges will help us to ensure that colleges are better supported to focus on helping their students into good jobs. We have reduced the complexity of funding so that colleges can focus on their core role of education and training, and define clearer roles and responsibilities for the key players in the systems.

We want to build a world-class further education system that delivers for the whole nation. A key part of this is ensuring that colleges are fit for the future, with better facilities and great buildings. That is why, through the FE capital transformation programme, we are investing £1.5 billion over six years between 2020 and 2026 to upgrade and transform the FE college estate.

I am particularly proud of our skills bootcamps, and I pay tribute to colleges for the way in which they have embraced them, as one of the newest programmes. I visited a skills bootcamp on heavy goods vehicle driving, and I got to drive one of the big trucks myself. I saw a few people looking scared when I got behind the wheel, but I managed not to crash it, thankfully; it was amazing. I met a young chap with severe mental health problems, who was a real champion for a men’s mental health charity that helps with suicide prevention. He said that retraining through the skills bootcamp gave him a new lease of life.

Skills bootcamps have the potential to transform the skills landscape by helping local regions and employers to fill in-demand vacancies, and are an important block in the foundations of our skills reforms. I am therefore delighted that colleges are playing an integral part in supporting their delivery in local areas. They are helping to fulfil the aims of the programme by providing opportunities to adults and plugging the skills gaps. Funding for skills bootcamps from the last spending review will enable us to continue to grow that offer significantly with support from colleges. That will help tens of thousands of adults across the country to gain new skills.

We touched briefly on T-levels. We got off to a great start: our first cohort of T-levels achieved an impressive overall rate of 92.2%. I am a real advocate of them, because they are great for social mobility. Middle-class families can get work experience, internships and so on through their connections, but those from disadvantaged areas find it much more difficult to get work experience. It is excellent for young students to get that on their CV, as it helps them to climb the ladder and go on to a great career.

It is clear that the great work of providers such as colleges is setting students up for successful careers and equipping them with the skills the country needs. The numbers of T-level providers and students are increasing quickly, and we are confident that that will continue. In 2021 alone, 5,450 people took up T-levels. Students tell us that they favour these courses, especially when they have industry placements.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for securing this debate, and for supporting and promoting the sector. I also thank other Members for their equally valuable input. The debate has made it clear that FE colleges are held in high regard throughout the land. The Government and I believe colleges are important, and that is backed up by serious investment. This debate has not changed my position; I am even more convinced of it after hearing the great things that hon. Members have said about the FE sector.

I was impressed and moved by the points that hon. Members made about the colleges in their constituencies and the great work that their constituents do. I have already said that the Government value the importance, impact and value of the FE sector, and our policies and investment back that up. I am honoured to be the Minister with responsibility for further education colleges. Hon. Members can rest assured that I will continue to be their champion.

Oral Answers to Questions

Andrea Jenkyns Excerpts

Monday 24th October 2022 Commons Chamber

[Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)]

5. What steps he is taking to ensure that students have access to high-quality vocational alternatives to A-levels.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

We are reforming technical education to ensure that all post-16 students have access to technical options that support progression and meet employers’ needs. We have introduced T-levels, a new high-quality programme designed with employers that will give learners the knowledge and experience needed for skilled employment and further study, including higher education or higher apprenticeships. We are also reviewing existing qualifications that sit alongside A-levels and T-levels to ensure they are high quality and lead to good outcomes for students.

[Jack Brereton]

We have some fantastic creative and manufacturing industries in Stoke-on-Trent, but many of these industries say to me that they often struggle to fill certain vacancies. Will my hon. Friend look at what more we can do to help to incentivise vocational skills to get our economy growing?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I know this is of great importance to my hon. Friend. Many different sectors face skills needs and challenges, which is why we are investing in skills through T-levels, apprenticeships, skills boot camps and free courses for jobs, giving people of all ages the opportunity to obtain the skills that industries like and that support economic growth.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

There is potentially a huge number of good green jobs for young people to go into, such as retrofitting homes, installing heat pumps and restoring wetlands, but many young people do not know these jobs exist, let alone the pathways to get into them. What are the Government doing to open their eyes to these opportunities?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I thank the hon. Lady for her important question. I am proud of the Government’s record of investing in green jobs through T-levels, apprenticeships, higher technical qualifications and boot camps. Never before have there been so many opportunities to engage with green industries. We are also working closely with these industries to make sure they are at the heart of what we do.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Toby Perkins.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The most popular high-quality vocational qualifications currently offered at level 3 are BTECs. Last week, the Education Committee heard evidence about the 6,500 level 3 students and 7,500 level 2 students whose results were delayed this year. The right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) rightly criticised the failure to reveal the number of students affected at the time and all the uncertainty that caused. When did the Minister first know how many students had not received their results? Why did she not insist that the number be made public?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am a strong proponent of BTECs, having been a BTEC girl myself. The Department informed us, and we acted on that straightaway. I will have to get back to him with the exact date. Looking at the whole landscape, I assure him that it has been simplified and that, most importantly, these courses lead to good outcomes for students, ensuring they have a bright future.

[Mr Speaker]

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)]

8. What recent discussions he has had with his counterparts in the devolved Administrations on the potential merits of providing additional support for school pupils and higher education students in the context of increases in the cost of living.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

In September 2022, the Secretary of State for Education held introductory meetings with his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That produced wide-ranging discussions, including on cost of living issues. Education is devolved, so additional support in this regard would be the responsibility of the devolved Governments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

[Deidre Brock]

The Government’s lead adviser on food issues, Henry Dimbleby, has condemned the Minister’s response to the national food strategy, warning that it could mean more children go hungry. Just yesterday, the headteacher of a multi-academy trust reported that children are breaking down and crying because of hunger. In Scotland, all children in primary 1 to 5 receive free school meals and from 14 November all eligible children up to the age of 16 will be receiving the Scottish child payment of £25 per week. As this cost of living crisis deepens, when will this Government match the actions of the Scottish Government to support children in most need?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

We have provided £1.9 million of funding in free school meals and more than £2 billion in pupil premium. We are there to support disadvantaged students, which is why we are reforming education to give them a good start in life. Perhaps the hon. Lady and her counterparts in the devolved nations could learn from what we are doing here in England.

--- Later in debate ---

[Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)]

That was our idea.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

As the former Education Secretary rightly says, it was our idea.

Let us look at the funding that we are giving Scotland. The devolved Administrations are well funded to deliver their devolved responsibilities. They have had block grant funding of an average of £41 billion a year. The Government have also extended free school meals to more children than any other Government over the past half a century. We remain committed to supporting the most disadvantaged children.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

9. If he will take steps to encourage the take up of EBacc subjects and modern foreign languages at GCSE level.

--- Later in debate ---

[James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)]

12. What steps his Department is taking to facilitate collaboration between colleges and employers.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

Local skills improvement plans place employers at the heart of local school systems, facilitating more dynamic working arrangements between employers and training providers to make technical education more responsive to employers’ needs in the area. All areas in England now have a designated employer representative body in place to lead on devising their plans.

[James Grundy]

Does my hon. Friend agree that institutions such as Wigan and Leigh College which work with employers to create bespoke qualifications that lead directly into in-demand work are an excellent blueprint for other educational institutions to follow?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I know that my hon. Friend is a real advocate for colleges in his area and I thank him for his question. Local skills improvement plans will forge stronger and more dynamic partnerships between employers and providers that will enable training to be more responsive to local skills needs. The relationship between Wigan and Leigh College and local employers aligns closely with the aims of this improved collaboration. It is a great example of how stakeholders can work together to meet local skills needs and help people to get good jobs. I would be delighted to visit my hon. Friend’s constituency to see its great work in progress.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I do not know whether the Minister was able to go to the Association of Colleges reception recently, but it was a very good way of meeting all the college leaders. Does she agree that there must be more joined-up thinking and activity between colleges, schools and universities? We were talking about green skills. There seems to be no curriculum at 16 that meshes with that at 18 and 21. I ask her please to talk to colleges and get something moving.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I was at a reception for our Love Our Colleges campaign. I am a true advocate on this matter and one thing I am passionate about is the parity of esteem between vocational and technical qualifications and academic qualifications. I ask Members please to put their trust in us as a Government, because we are fully behind all sectors and we are continuing a dialogue between colleges, schools and universities. As I have said, there have never been more options open to young people, and I am completely proud of our record in government.

[Mr Speaker]

Questions 13 and 14 have been withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

16. Whether he is taking steps with Cabinet colleagues to ensure greater access in education to training in computer numerical control operation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

We are investing in programmes that support science, technology and digital skills so that learners of all ages—including my young son, who is up in the Public Gallery supporting mummy today—are equipped to fulfil careers in the likes of computer numerical control operation. We are delivering on that objective through our skills reform programme, which is putting employers at the heart of our skills system.

[Andrew Selous]

We need around 1 million more engineers in this country, and among those we need computer numerical control operators, who can earn around £50,000 on the shopfloor. I have engineering businesses in my constituency that are desperate for them. Can we please get on top of ensuring that we have a talent pipeline so that people are well paid and those engineering businesses can flourish?

[Andrea Jenkyns]

I understand that things are uncertain, as my hon. Friend’s two colleges are merging at the moment, but the level 3 engineering technician apprenticeships provide CNC content and there are more than 140 providers of that training, including three with national coverage. I would also like to look at our T-levels to ensure that we have some of that content in there too.

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

17. What plans he has to help support schools with rising costs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

At the end of the first full T-levels cycle, can I commend colleges, including Alton College in my constituency, for their work with employers? What more can be done by Ministers across Government to encourage more employers to come forward and offer industry placements to invest in the talent pipeline, both for their own good and for the good of our entire economy and society?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his question, and I also thank his college. Colleges and sixth forms have been doing amazing work in rolling out T-levels. It is amazing, and I will just give an example before I go on to his question—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is topicals.

[Andrea Jenkyns]

Topicals—all right. On results day, I visited a local college, and it was amazing—I wish I could bottle that enthusiasm—but my right hon. Friend is right that the key is working with local businesses and industries, which is why the whole programme was designed with them in mind.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

T5. One school leader told me last week that one of his schools is preparing to offer evening meals to children whose families are struggling to put one on the table every evening, yet with nine out of 10 schools predicting a deficit by next September, few can afford to be so generous. The Chancellor of the Exchequer—assuming it is the same person next week—warns of efficiency savings to come, so will the Education Secretary be advising staff cuts, turning off the heating or letting pupils go hungry?

Post-16 Level 2 and below qualifications update

Andrea Jenkyns Excerpts

Tuesday 18th October 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

Today, I am pleased to announce the next stage in the Government’s review of post-16 qualifications at level 2 and below¹ in England—the publication of the response to our consultation on the review of qualifications that are approved for public funding at these levels. After confirming our reforms to level 3 qualifications last year, we are now confirming our policy on qualifications at level 2 and below following our consultation which ran from 2 March to 27 April 2022.

This is a vital next step towards reforming and revitalising technical education. Streamlining and improving post-16 education and skills is at the heart of our plan to strengthen the economy and create jobs. Students and employers will benefit from a joined-up, dynamic education system that can adapt to rapidly changing priorities.

The current qualification landscape at level 2 and below is complex, and while many of the qualifications are likely to be excellent, it is not a consistent picture. Qualifications that are funded in future should be necessary, high quality and have a distinct purpose. Crucially, these qualifications should also support progression to successful outcomes for the students who take them, whether this is into a higher level of study, or directly into skilled employment. In a fast-moving and modern economy, it is vital that we bridge the gap between what people study and the needs of employers.

To mirror the approach we have taken at level 3, we have grouped qualifications at level 2 and below according to their primary purpose. By clarifying the purpose of each qualification, we will enable students to see how their choice of qualification will lead to a positive outcome, whether this is to further study or directly into employment. Further education colleges, schools, other providers and careers advisers will play a key role in delivering information, advice and guidance to prospective students to ensure they are directed towards a qualification that will meet their needs.

I would like to thank those who took the time to respond to our consultation.² Among the 410 responses, there was strong support for the aim of simplifying the qualification landscape and improving the quality of provision, and for the groups of qualifications we proposed to fund in future. Other themes from the consultation responses included: the importance of flexibility for students studying at these levels; the potential impact of reducing qualification choice on students from disadvantaged backgrounds and with special educational needs and/or disabilities (SEND); and the need for a phased approach to the timing and sequencing of the reforms.

The response we are publishing today confirms that we will fund all of the qualification groups proposed, proceed with setting national standards for personal, social and employability (PSE) qualifications and consulting on these, and consider updating the national standards for adult literacy and numeracy. We have made changes to allow greater flexibility, for example allowing providers to offer level 2 qualifications leading to employment to 16 to 19-year-olds in less than two years, depending on the size of the reformed qualification and how it fits alongside the other essential elements of the study programme.

As the aim of this reform is to improve qualification provision at level 2 and below, we expect students over-represented at this level such as those from disadvantaged backgrounds or with SEND to be the biggest recipients of the benefits of these changes. We will work with the sector to explore how best to support students to progress by having flexibilities in place to ensure students with SEND can access our proposed qualification groups. We will also regularly review the mix and balance of qualifications approved to ensure we are meeting the needs of all learners.

We have reviewed the implementation timeline and, while we want momentum, we also want to introduce these reforms at a manageable pace for schools and colleges, given the extent of change to the wider qualifications landscape, including at level 3. That is why we are making sure first reformed qualifications at level 2 and below will be available for teaching from September 2025 rather than 2024. Further reformed qualifications will be phased in for 2026, with final reforms in 2027.

I look forward to engaging with the sector as we implement these important reforms.

¹ For definitions of levels, see https://www.gov.uk/what-different-qualification-levels-mean/list-of-qualification-levels

² As previously set out, GCSEs, Functional Skills Qualifications (FSQs) and Essential Digital Skills Qualifications (EDSQs) were not in scope of this consultation.

[HCWS326]

T-level Overlap List

Andrea Jenkyns Excerpts

Monday 17th October 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

Today I am notifying Parliament of the next stage of the Government’s reforms to post-16 qualifications at level 3 in England—the publication of the final list of qualifications that overlap with the T-levels in Education and Childcare, Digital, and Construction and the Built Environment.

In our response to the second stage consultation of the review of post-16 qualifications at level 3 and below, we set out our aims to streamline the qualifications landscape at level 3. The review aims to ensure that only qualifications that are necessary and lead to good outcomes are approved for public funding, delivering greater value for money for the taxpayer. It is important to ensure that all qualifications serve a clear and distinct purpose and lead to good progression and good outcomes for students. Supporting students to make a choice at 16 between an excellent academic or an excellent technical route will prepare students better for the next phase of their lives.

We have already removed funding approval from over 5,000 qualifications at level 3 and below that had no or low enrolments.

On 11 May Parliament was notified of the commencement of the next stage of our review—to remove funding approval for qualifications that overlap with T-levels. The rigour of T-levels, combined with the meaningful industry placement of at least 45 days, will equip more young people with the skills, knowledge and experience necessary to access skilled employment or further technical study. The results for the first three T-levels awarded in summer 2022 were fantastic, with a 92% pass rate—and feedback from this first group of students indicates that they have progressed to a variety of destinations, including higher education, apprenticeships or skilled employment. The removal of overlapping qualifications will give T-levels the space needed to flourish and maximise the number of learners on these important qualifications.

We published the provisional list of qualifications that overlap with waves 1 and 2 T-levels in May, and awarding organisations had eight weeks to appeal their qualifications’ inclusion on the list.

I can now confirm the final list of qualifications that will have funding approval removed at 16-19 because they overlap with the T-levels in Education and Childcare, Digital, and Construction and the Built Environment. These qualifications will have funding approval removed in August 2024.

As the outline content of the T-levels in the Health and Science route is currently being reviewed by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, this list does not include qualifications that overlap with these T-levels. Once the review has concluded, expected later this calendar year, we will confirm the final list of qualifications that overlap with these T-levels. Qualifications overlapping with these T-levels will have funding approval removed in 2024, at the same time as those overlapping with the other waves 1 and 2 T-levels.

This review has been led by evidence. We commissioned independent assessors to conduct in-depth reviews of the qualifications. All qualifications placed on the final overlap list were rigorously assessed and considered against three tests:

That they are technical qualifications;

That they have demonstrable overlap of content and outcomes with waves 1 and 2 T-levels already on offer; and

That they are aimed at supporting entry to the same occupation(s) as those T-levels.

We will run another process to identify qualifications that overlap with T-levels in the remaining T-level routes in 2023, and qualifications that overlap with these T-levels will have funding approval removed in 2025.

The next phase of the qualifications review will approve the qualifications that will sit alongside A-levels and T-levels in the new landscape. We are clear that other qualifications, including BTECs and similar qualifications, will continue to play an important role and we will fund these qualifications where they are high quality and where there is a clear need for them. We expect to publish details shortly of the process by which academic and technical qualifications at level 3 will be approved, and I will update Parliament on this.

[HCWS324]

Further Education Funding and Accountability System Consultation

Andrea Jenkyns Excerpts

Thursday 22nd September 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

Following an initial consultation in July 2021, the Government published a second consultation into implementing a new further education funding and accountability system in July 2022.

This consultation sets out further detail on our reforms to deliver a fairer FE system across the country that effectively supports learners to develop the skills they need to secure high-value jobs and support growth of the economy, and seeks views on how these can best be implemented. We believe our reforms will enable providers to ensure that they are meeting the needs of their learners, employers and the wider area, putting taxpayer investment to the best effect.

The consultation was due to close for responses on 21 September 2022. After listening to the feedback of the sector over the summer, with some stakeholders asking to extend the length of the consultation period, I am announcing that we have extended the consultation’s closing date by three weeks. This means the consultation will now remain open for responses until 12 October 2022.

We will consider the feedback we receive through our consultation and publish a response in due course.

[HCWS299]

Student Loan Interest Rates

Andrea Jenkyns Excerpts

Monday 5th September 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

I am announcing today a temporary reduction in student loan interest rates effective as of 1 September 2022.

The Government announced on 13 June 2022 that the student loan interest rate would be set at 7.3% between 1 September 2022 and 31 August 2023, in line with the forecast prevailing market rates. The Government confirmed that should the actual prevailing market rate turn out to be lower than forecast, a further cap would be implemented to reduce student loan interest rates accordingly.

I am announcing today a temporary cap to the post-2012 income contingent repayment undergraduate and postgraduate loan interest rates in line with the latest actual prevailing market rate. Subject to parliamentary approval, the cap will come into effect on 1 September 2022 and last for a period of three months.

The post-2012 undergraduate and postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rates will be 6.3% between 1 September 2022 and 30 November 2022.

From 1 December 2022, the post-2012 and postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rates will be 7.3%, as announced on 13 June 2022, to align with the forecast prevailing market rate. As before, should the actual prevailing market rate turn out to be lower than forecast, the post-2012 undergraduate and postgraduate income contingent repayment student loan interest rates will be reduced accordingly.

[HCWS286]

Further Education Funding and Accountability: Consultation

Andrea Jenkyns Excerpts

Thursday 21st July 2022 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Andrea Jenkyns)]

Today, as the Government continue to build back better from the pandemic and begin the critical work of levelling up the UK, I am announcing further steps towards delivering the ambitious reforms set out in the Skills for Jobs White Paper. Skills for Jobs set out our vision for a skills system that supports people to access the skills required and to get the jobs our economy needs, increasing productivity, supporting growth industries, and giving people opportunity.

We are launching a second consultation today, containing proposals for implementing a new further education funding and accountability system in England to help deliver on this vision. The consultation is open from 21 July 2022 until 21 September 2022.

In this consultation, we want to hear from all interested stakeholders and welcome responses to the consultation from individual learners, providers (especially colleges), employers, representative bodies, local government partners and MCAs.

Our reforms are about changing the incentives in the further education (FE) system by focusing on employment outcomes and simplifying the funding system so we can best support learners into high-value jobs. These reforms will:

Deliver a simpler and more effective funding system, to make it easier for providers to invest in the best way possible to achieve good outcomes for their learners.

Deliver a fairer system by moving towards a more equitable approach to funding areas in the next spending review, and in the meantime, exploring how our available resources can support those areas most in need to support levelling up and spread opportunity across England.

Finally, we want to create and deliver a system that is focused on outcomes. We will use the funding system to encourage providers to offer courses that lead to better outcomes for the local and national economy and society, while holding providers accountable for delivering for their learners.

This will enable providers to ensure that they are meeting the needs of their learners, employers, and the wider area, putting taxpayer investment to the best effect.

Subject to the responses to the consultation, we intend to introduce our reforms from the academic year 2023-24, with further reforms coming in the next spending review.

This is a key milestone in the delivery of our Skills for Jobs reform programme, which will transform the whole skills system so that we can train the dynamic and flexible workforce our economy needs.

[HCWS268]