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

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 21st November 2024 Grand Committee

Debate on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also probe whether Clauses 2 and 3 and Schedules 1 to 3 should stand part of the Bill.

At Second Reading, we heard about the importance of skills development to boost economic growth, the gaps that employers face in finding the skills they need to fill vacancies, the continuing complexity of the skills landscape, and the ambition of the Government to meet these challenges. At this point, I thank particularly the Learning and Work Institute and the Association of Colleges for their advice and their perspectives on the Bill. On these Benches, while we accept that the Government have a real commitment to address these issues, we also believe that they need to give Parliament and employers much greater clarity on their plans. The Bill is clear in the door that it closes—the abolition of IfATE—but is silent on the door it opens; that is, Skills England and its powers and accountability. We are left with an interregnum, with the Secretary of State holding all the powers of IfATE and a few more for good measure.

I will try also to explain the logic of my Amendments 32 and 33. Ideally, we would have liked to be debating a much clearer, more detailed Bill and have all the answers to the concerns expressed across the House at Second Reading. I note that in her closing remarks at Second Reading, the Minister committed to setting out the relationship between the Department for Education and Skills England in a publicly available format which will be updated periodically. Even the phrase “updated periodically” begs questions about the clarity and stability of roles and accountability. No doubt the Minister will give us further details on this today.

My amendments suggest solutions on a sliding scale. At one end, we are proposing to stick with the status quo through the stand part notices for Clauses 1 to 3 and the associated schedules; from there, to different degrees of independence and accountability for a new body called Skills England; to, finally, although not in this group of amendments, accepting the Government’s proposals, but with a clear and rigorous reporting requirement to Parliament. At this stage, these are probing amendments.

As we heard at Second Reading, there are genuine concerns about the transfer of IfATE’s powers to the Secretary of State, in terms of compromising the independence with which apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications, including T-levels, are accredited, and in diluting the voice of employers. These concerns are only amplified by later clauses which extend the powers of the Secretary of State beyond those of IfATE to prepare standards without employer input, and remove requirements for regular reviews of technical qualifications and third-party examination of standards. We will, of course, debate these points later in Committee.

The proposed creation of Skills England as an executive agency within the Department for Education, rather than as an independent statutory body, although not part of the Bill, has raised questions about both its autonomy and its effectiveness. More broadly, our stand part notices seek to elicit from the Minister explanations on the following points.

First, why does the Minister believe that this organisational change will be any more effective than the previous 12 changes in the past 50 years?

Secondly, the impact assessment set out that the Government had considered both keeping IfATE as an organisation separate from Skills England and expanding its powers to take on Skills England’s full set of powers. My Amendment 32 attempts to reintroduce this as an option for the Government to consider. It would create an executive agency of the department, which would be called Skills England, and would focus on wider skills strategy, as well as keeping IfATE as an independent body for the accreditation of technical education qualifications and for its other responsibilities.

That amendment has a lot in common with Amendment 21 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, although Amendment 21 would not retain IfATE, as mine would. One can make the case that it is more coherent to have everything in one place, but one can also argue that Skills England has a huge brief and should focus on some of the more urgent priorities, leaving IfATE to continue its good work in setting up clear lines of communication.

It is hard to avoid the conclusions that the Government are knowingly diluting the voices of employers; that they want to have as much control as possible over these qualifications in future; and, importantly, that they are seeking to reorganise the structures to deliver skills reforms rather than getting on with “doing the doing”, which is much needed on the ground. The impact assessment sets out briefly the advantages of the Government’s chosen approach but says almost nothing about the drawbacks of losing an independent, employer-led organisation that the Government acknowledge does an excellent job. It would be most helpful if the Minister could explain in more detail the barriers to doing this and how His Majesty’s Government evaluated the shortcomings of this approach.

Moving along the sliding scale, I turn to Amendment 33, which aims to commit the Government to introducing a draft Bill that would create an independent arm’s-length body, to be called Skills England. I note that organisations such as the St Martin’s Group, which represents employers, training providers and awarding organisations, have been clear in their briefings that it is

“crucial that Skills England’s independence needs to be exerted in statute”.

Given the independence that this would create from the department, we have assumed that IfATE would no longer need to exist. I hope very much that this is something to which the Minister can respond positively.

In my Amendments 32 and 33, we stipulate that the chief executive of Skills England must report to the board of Skills England. It seems extraordinary to have to make this point but noble Lords may have noticed that the job description for the CEO of Skills England made no reference to the board; rather, they report to the relevant director-general in the department. Given the emphasis that the Minister put at Second Reading on the strength and operational independence of the Skills England board and its members, it seems a major drawback that the chief executive of the organisation, on whose board they sit, does not report to it. Could the Minister undertake to reconsider this?

Finally, I turn to my Amendment 42, which I tabled, as the French might say, “pour encourager”. I am hopeful that the Minister will take my other amendment seriously as a way of actively demonstrating her commitment to the independence of Skills England but, failing that, this amendment seeks to sunset this legislation and give the Government time to come back with a Bill that addresses the concerns that we heard at Second Reading—and that we will no doubt hear more of in Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I consider myself encouragée. We on these Benches have some sympathy with these wrecking amendments. We have never supported taking decision-making out of the hands of experts and into the hands of a Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be and however informed and enthusiastic he or she may be about colleges, further education, and technical and vocational qualifications. As I said at Second Reading—I do not apologise for repeating it—politicians are almost always university-educated and may have little understanding of or enthusiasm for the world of skills. I exempt our Minister from this because I know that she cares but, of course, there is no guarantee that she will not be replaced—not for some time, I hope—by a “here today, gone tomorrow” Minister with no knowledge of this sector. These posts do not last, as we all know.

I speak with some knowledge. In the coalition Government, I was appointed Minister for the Olympics and Sport, having never had any interest in sport in my life. At school, I was a fat little bespectacled nerd who was always chosen last for any team. But, given the portfolio, I spent days and weeks of my life learning all there was to know about rugby league—thanks to my noble friend Lord Addington—cricket, hockey and other unmentionables in order to give educated answers to questions. But that is not the same as having a lifelong enthusiasm, and, because Ministers have almost always been educated—surprisingly enough—and can display an astonishing academic superiority, they may look down on practical achievement, as I discovered when I worked in Michael Gove’s team.

We are disappointed, as we always thought of Labour as a party supportive of education in all its guises, yet it has brought forward the damaging VAT on independent schools Bill, which would make us the first country in the world, I believe, to tax education—shame on them—and now this damaging Bill to attack practical education. It is a sad day indeed. We are also bemused that this apparently is the skills Bill, yet there is no mention of skills in it. It might as well have been the flying fish Bill because there is no mention of flying fish either. Some of the amendments in this group try to remedy this, including Amendments 32 and 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which we broadly support.

I will speak to Amendment 21 in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey, who much regrets that he cannot be here today, to which I added my name. We are spelling out what is missing from the Bill—namely, the establishment of a new executive agency to be called Skills England. Our amendment sets out the conditions for Skills England to be established and the need for both Houses to agree proposals. Other, linked amendments have been regrouped for some reason—I had some work today to try to work out where the groupings have changed since yesterday; I am not quite sure why they were—but we still have the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to keep some of the duties of IfATE alongside the new body. As IfATE contains many real experts and champions, we feel this is a sensible move and we support it.

We have very strong objections to the power grab by politicians over the experts who really care. We will seek to change this and to convince the Government of the harm that could be done to enhancing the much-needed skills of the country if this goes through unamended. I hope that our listening Minister will appreciate how much is at stake in the Bill and will take note of the very well-intentioned and well-informed amendments that have been tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is because, as with all executive agencies, the process for setting up Skills England as an executive agency does not require legislation, but for it to hold the functions that enable it to operate in the coherent manner I described, the functions currently held by IfATE need to be transferred to and delivered by Skills England as an executive agency of the DfE. It is the route through the Secretary of State that enables that to happen. I reiterate my earlier point: Skills England might not appear in the legislation in this place, but it very much appears on the country’s skills landscape. Notwithstanding the significance of the scrutiny that this place is able to give, as well as the concerns about Skills England’s longevity, that is probably more important than whether it is in a Bill.

The passage of the Bill provides an opportunity for both Houses—as we are doing today, in fact—to consider the approach we are proposing, which is to move away from the current, narrow IfATE model. Creating any further requirement for parliamentary approval before Skills England operates fully would frustrate the intentions of the Bill to enable a smooth transfer and the delegation of functions to Skills England; the efficient and orderly closure of IfATE; and the ongoing work in the service of employers and learners. I assure noble Lords that the practical transition of functions will be designed to ensure that, where standards or apprenticeship assessment plans are in the process of preparation or approval at the point of transition, these will continue. Similarly, approval decisions for technical qualifications that are part-way through the process will also continue. It is our intention that employers and other stakeholders perceive no interruption in that work.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, asked about the progress on the review of level 3 qualifications. Briefly, let me say that we will, as I have said all along, make public our decisions on the review of those qualifications; they are due to be defunded in 2025, before Christmas.

I have talked in the House about this Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement. We will now be introducing it for courses starting from January 2027, precisely to ensure that it has the impact that the noble Lord rightly identified that it can have for lifelong learning.

I hope I have set out the intentions behind Clauses 1 to 3. For these reasons and those that I outlined on the remaining amendments, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will not press her stand part notices and amendments.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and the Minister for her remarks. I hope she heard loud and clear that no one in this Committee is arguing about the Government’s ambition for skills reform; rather, we are all rooting for success in this area. This is not about what the Government are trying to do but more about how they are trying to do it.

I was struck by the almost unanimity of view about the importance of greater independence from the department for Skills England. It was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight of Weymouth. He triggered what I think is the ex-ministerial version of PTSD—I call it PLSD, or post-legislative stress disorder—by talking about the Schools Bill, but I will forgive him this once. Importantly, it was also raised by my noble friend Lord Johnson, who talked about the importance of credibility with employers, which need stability in our system, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, who rightly mentioned the importance of bringing students, families and others on this journey.

I was also struck by the constructive tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the aspiration to make this the best it can be to deliver for our country. However, as the noble Baroness went on to say, there is a lack of confidence that this approach will deliver without that independence. Ironically, it is almost the fact that, as the Minister says, Skills England is already operating when the Bill has not even passed. It is just kind of happening within the department. There will be a framework published, but without any potential to input to it. It feels like DfE marking its own homework, which is not a healthy place to be.

I did not feel a lot of movement in the Minister’s remarks. I am sure that, when she looks at Hansard, she will note the strength of feeling across the Committee but, for the moment, I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part.

Clause 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope my noble friend may be able to come back on Report with the idea of putting the framework document that has been referred to this afternoon in the Bill, because in that way, at least Parliament might have some foothold, some purchase on what we are doing. A Skills England that has no legislative backing and no parliamentary references but is down merely to the changing face of ministerial and departmental appointments is in danger of losing its birthright before it has got off the ground. I hope that we can have this debate this afternoon in the spirit of wanting to get this right. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3, 4 and 7 in my name, and to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—who I am delighted to see is well enough to join us today—and to which I have added my support.

As we have already heard, the Bill moves the powers from IfATE and transfers them to the Secretary of State while removing the requirement for external stakeholders to be consulted in all circumstances. The effect of this is to reduce independence regarding both the powers transferred and the examination processes—perhaps I should say “scrutiny processes” for the avoidance of doubt—as well as removing the requirement to work with those outside stakeholders which best understand the needs of their respective areas.

As also noted earlier in the debate, the Bill does not specify who will be consulted in reference to a group of persons. This lack of detail is concerning, and my amendments seek to rectify that. Amendment 3 in my name would include a list of relevant stakeholders which must be consulted before the creation of standards, which includes employers, mayoral combined authorities and sector representative bodies.

The spirit of the amendment is to retain the focus that IfATE had on employers and those with a strategic interest in technical education, whether that be regionally or by sector. They are all important to provide knowledge across a range of issues. Employers employ and train those who are undertaking apprenticeships and other qualifications and so can provide a perspective as to what business and the economy are in need of in relation to these qualifications. Mayoral combined authorities will be able to provide information as to what skills a particular region is lacking and advocate for a change in qualifications when necessary, and the local skills improvement partnerships will be able to provide their data as to what current, future and priority skills are in certain areas and expertise in how to increase collaboration between employers and regional authorities.

As noted by the Association of Colleges, there is a real opportunity here to bring together local plans, which sometimes exist in a vacuum, and a national plan, to encourage alignment and avoid duplication or gaps. Given that the Minister explicitly referred to this point at Second Reading, I hope that she will see the merit of my amendments.

The sector representative bodies will be able to provide knowledge on what skills and qualifications are relevant to the sector, both now and in the future, to ensure that these qualifications remain up to date and relevant to their economic needs. One of the central pillars of IfATE was its focus on employer and business needs to create and maintain suitable qualifications to equip people for the world of work. As such, we want to recognise the importance of keeping that focus to ensure that businesses can still trust the qualifications so that they continue to invest in the future generation of employees.

As mentioned at Second Reading, the Bill gives wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State without maintaining those clear external links and the accountability that they help to provide. This is potentially damaging to the status of these qualifications. When in government, we delivered an increase in the value of skills-based qualifications, with a relentless focus on quality and developing a range of apprenticeships in particular that aim to reflect the breadth of our economy.

As such, we on these Benches want an effective approach to developing our apprenticeship and technical education system—I am sure that sentiment is echoed across the Committee—but I am concerned that the reduction in accountability and scrutiny in the creation of standards will not do that. That is why my Amendment 4 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s power to act alone when creating standards. If the Government do not accept my Amendment 4, my Amendment 7 at least seeks to increase the transparency about when and how these powers will be used.

At Second Reading, the Minister was careful to set out some of the circumstances in which these powers to act alone would be used. She talked about making “small and fast adjustments” and allowing

“greater flexibility in scenarios where preparation by a group can be unnecessary or restrictive”.—[Official Report, 22/10/24; col. 581.]

Although it is unnecessary to have these powers, if the Government are so clear about these circumstances then surely it would be responsible to put them in the Bill so that the power of any future Government is constrained by the same things. I hope that, when she responds, the Minister will give the Committee some encouragement on this point. I also hope that she will reiterate the Government’s commitment to publishing standards in draft for stakeholder comment before they are finalised, and how the Government will respond if stakeholders have concerns.

As we heard, Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to which I added my name, also seeks to bring the perspective of, and give greater responsibility to, sector representative bodies in the development of standards in future. This has much in common with my Amendment 3. The Minister will have views on the relative merits of “must” and “may”, but the spirit of the amendments is similar and aims to link the Government’s decisions as closely as possible to the real world. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, put it so eloquently, it aims to ensure that we do not lose that focus on delivery.

We recognise the merits of Amendments 2, 5, 6 and 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. All of them drive broadly in the same direction—namely, to urge the Secretary of State to bring as much clarity as possible to the people she chooses to include in the group of persons referred to in Clauses 4 and 5, and to the circumstances in which she would exercise her powers in new subsection (3A) in Clause 4. The noble Lord’s Amendment 6 would give the Secretary of State more time to do so than my Amendment 7, but the aim of the amendments is similar.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, which the noble Baroness kindly just introduced for me. Most of them are based on concerns expressed by employers that they should remain genuinely at the heart of the new system and that it will continue to meet their real needs. I have heard concerns from employers in the construction industry, CITB, the engineering services sector and the energy and utilities sector, for example, that the changes will possibly lead to less engagement of employers. To succeed in its aims, Skills England will need to foster close collaboration with employers of all types and sizes across all key sectors, including the eight growth-driving sectors identified in the industrial strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 9, 12, 13 and 15 in this group and have added my name to Amendments 10, 11 and 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with the same reservations about Amendment 10 as I expressed about Amendment 3. Your Lordships will be glad to know that I have failed to think of additional points that I have not already made in speaking to identical amendments to Clause 4, so I will content myself with saying that I beg to move Amendment 9, on the same grounds as set out previously.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, that is quite a challenge to follow, and it is tempting to take the same approach—I think my popularity with the Committee might improve—but, in all seriousness, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, my Amendments 10, 11 and 14 are based on a very similar argument to that debated in the previous group about the concerning lack of detail regarding what we mean by “a group of persons” and the potential dilution of employer focus. With that, I commend the amendments.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I rise just to give my much wiser noble friend a break. The assessment plan for any qualification is of the essence. If you get that wrong, you might as well not bother doing it. When you have a group of people looking at this, you stand a better chance than you get from one centre. There are a series of clichés about Secretaries of State, and I will try not to kick and wring every one of them, but the basic one is that if the Secretary of State has spoken to somebody who just does not understand or gets it wrong, the whole thing can go wrong. If you have a group, you stand a better chance of getting a correct result. Nothing is guaranteed either way, but that is what it is about.

I hope that we can get some response from the Minister on where we are going to get this expertise in to check on what is happening. That is it, in essence, because we have had Secretaries of State who know exactly what they want and will talk to a certain group that agrees with them. That is very easy to do, and we have all done it. I hope that we will get some assurance that the Secretary of State will talk to a divergence of opinion to go through these things to make sure that they work. If we do not and start to get them wrong, the price will be huge and we will have nothing useful. Being a little slower and a bit more certain is infinitely better than taking the chance of getting it horribly wrong. I hope the Minister can give us a reassuring answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, there is no mention of awarding bodies in the Bill but, when I worked for City & Guilds, it was part of our role to review qualifications at regular intervals. I wonder why that does not feature anywhere in the Bill and why the Secretary of State is apparently taking over a function that was done very effectively in those days by awarding bodies.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I was delighted to add my name to the Clause 6 stand part notice in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Like him and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I am baffled about why the Government do not want to review the approvals of technical education qualifications, published standards and assessment plans at regular intervals. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, intimated, it seems that the closer one is to the department and any Secretary of State, the more one will need independent scrutiny to retain the confidence of employers, learners and providers. Obviously, there is a risk that, without that independent oversight, standards of technical qualifications could be eroded or become less relevant than they should be.

Does the Minister agree that Clause 6 potentially introduces conflicts of interest? By removing the requirement for independent oversight, are the Government not placing an undue burden on those directly involved in the design and delivery of standards to act as their own assessors, where they end up marking their own homework? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee why the Government do not believe that this level of scrutiny is needed. I absolutely appreciate that, in some areas, the review might be very light-touch—for example, because of the suitability of a set of qualifications—but we have seen how qualifications rise and fall in popularity and relevance over time. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords this afternoon, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, there are clear calls from the sector for greater simplification of qualifications.

At Second Reading, the Minister committed to publishing information about the intervals for reviews of different qualifications. I wonder whether she could update the Committee on when that will happen.

Similarly, my Amendment 16 to Clause 7 seeks just to restore the status quo; namely, that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, make arrangements for an independent third party to carry out an examination of a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan. As the Committee knows, independent reviews are there to provide feedback to policymakers and training providers by, for example, identifying areas for improvement and best practice. I very much hope that the Minister will consider this amendment and stand part notice positively.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this group. I feel confident in thanking noble Lords, because I am confident that I am on strong ground on this one. I hope nobody proves me wrong.

In preparing to transfer functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State, an assessment of the current operation of the system was undertaken to identify any functions that should be amended rather than simply being transferred in their current form. In that consideration, the proposal for a relatively small change to Clause 6 came forward. Clause 6 amends the requirement to review technical education qualifications and standards, and apprenticeship assessment plans, at regular and published intervals, by removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted.

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, argued, rightly, that there is a need for review. The point about this clause is that there is no change to the broader review requirement. The Secretary of State and Skills England will still be required to maintain arrangements to review approved technical education qualifications and standards, and apprenticeship assessment plans, with a view to determining whether they should be revised, be withdrawn or continue to be approved. I wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords who have said that that is an important function, and it is absolutely right that that duty should remain.

Removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted will allow Skills England to determine when reviews of technical education qualifications and more than 700 high-quality occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans should be carried out, based on need rather than a fixed review point, as is currently the case. Originally, IfATE expected to carry out reviews every three years but, with the proliferation of standards, assessment plans and technical education qualifications to review, it has been unable to do so; nor was it able to do this by undertaking reviews on a route-by-route basis. It has since adopted a more risk-based approach. The current approach, which fixes review points, has been too rigid and fails to recognise the differences in starts and achievement rates and rapid changes in skills needs; for example, where occupations evolve quickly.

Clause 6 will ensure that standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept up to date, coherent and relevant, and are reviewed appropriately. The amendment would remove a statutory obligation and provide the Secretary of State flexibility that is in line with the current risk-based approach taken by IfATE to determine whether a review should be prioritised; in other words, we believe that IfATE has arrived at the right, flexible position, but that would not be reflected without this legislative change. It recognises that flexibility is needed to take a targeted approach to administering the significant volume of reviews based on whether there are specific issues with the performance of the standard and how widely used it is, rather than on meeting an arbitrary timetable.

Without this clause, standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans would need to be reviewed at published intervals, rather than based on need, preventing resources being deployed effectively to ensure that standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept relevant and up to date as required.

Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the flexibility that we intend to create, and it would mean that the Secretary of State would be required to arrange for an independent third-party assessment for every new standard and assessment plan. Clause 7 amends the 2009 Act to substitute a requirement for independent third-party examination of all new standards and assessment plans with a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make arrangements to do so. The default position will remain that the Secretary of State will make arrangements for independent third-party examination of new standards and assessment plans prior to their approval.

The clause will provide an alternative approach in certain circumstances where obtaining third-party examination is duplicative or not necessary. For example, the option not to arrange an independent third-party review might be deployed where employers place unequivocal high value in a professional body’s mandated qualification or key skills and behaviour learning outcomes, and where the occupational standard adopts that very closely, such as the CIPD and HR standards. In these cases, an external review would be nugatory.

In highly regulated occupations, such as the health sector, the regulatory requirements for occupational competence must be reflected in the occupational standard and assessment plan, and deviation from this is simply not possible. Again, the need for third-party review would be redundant.

Without Clause 7, examinations that do not improve standards and assessment plans but take time and resource to deliver would continue to be required. That would continue to place unnecessary burdens on those involved, slow down the process and make it excessively onerous.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw his opposition to Clause 6 standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks greater clarity from the Government about how the different bodies involved in the regulation of technical education will work with the Secretary of State, given her new powers under the Bill, and, in turn, whether that impacts on the responsibilities and relationships between them. I was trying to think of what the collective noun might be for a group of regulators, and I could come up only with a “regime”. There are certainly several involved in this area, including, of course, IfATE currently, as well as the department itself, Ofqual and the Office for Students.

It will help to hear from the Minister her reflections on how the Government will set the strategic direction in this area and then bring clarity to the different—that word again—roles of each regulator and how they can contribute to that goal. Despite their best efforts, and with apologies to those drafting the Explanatory Notes, I am still not entirely clear about the impact of Clause 8 on Ofqual’s powers in this area. I have already raised this with the Minister and made absolutely clear that this is a probing amendment by which I merely seek to understand whether there would be any change in Ofqual’s powers as a result of these amendments to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. Although I have reread her comments at Second Reading, I very much hope she can set out for the Grand Committee the impact of Clause 8 in practice—ideally with a couple of examples—so that at least I, if I am the only one left standing, am completely clear on this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, in responding to this part of the debate, I am confident that I will be able to explain to noble Lords the intention of Clause 8; however, given the broader questions about the roles of a range of regulators in this field, I may well write to noble Lords to set that out, because it goes broader than Clause 8.

The amendments in this group relate to proposals regarding quality assurance and the accreditation of apprenticeships and technical qualifications. Section 138 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 allows Ofqual to set an accreditation requirement for individual qualifications or descriptions of qualifications. If it does that, any such qualification must be accredited before it is awarded.

Ofqual accredits a qualification submitted by an awarding organisation, first, if the awarding organisation has been recognised in respect of that qualification or type of qualification; and, secondly, if the qualification submitted meets the relevant criteria. This is a rigorous process that gives confidence in qualifications—our A-levels and GCSEs. However, since 2022, Ofqual has been prevented from making determinations on accreditation for technical qualifications. This means that, in respect of accreditation, technical qualifications are treated differently from academic qualifications and are prevented in all instances from benefiting from an important tool for ensuring quality.

Clause 8 will change that by enabling the Secretary of State to forge a route to technical qualifications being accredited. The clause provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to determine, should it be deemed appropriate, that an exception could be granted to the general prohibition on Ofqual being able to accredit both approved technical education qualifications and technical education qualifications that the Secretary of State is considering approving. This will mean that, where it is directed to do so by the Secretary of State, Ofqual could exercise its power to determine whether an accreditation requirement should apply to certain technical education qualifications, subject to appropriate consultation.

In some instances, the Secretary of State may deem it appropriate to ask Ofqual to consider whether imposing an accreditation requirement on the qualifications in question could help maintain their quality and signal to the wider system that they are broadly commensurate with other accredited qualifications in terms of rigour. For example, the Secretary of State could use this power in instances where it is important to ensure that students who opt into and successfully complete high-quality technical education qualifications are in no way disadvantaged as compared to their peers who pursue academic qualifications. They may consider, for example, whether a category of technical qualification provides a particularly important springboard for onward progression but where those who successfully complete the qualification may be competing with those who have studied other qualifications that have been accredited, such as GCSEs or A-levels.

It may also be the case that the Secretary of State therefore considers using this power where they are persuaded that a particular category of technical qualification is not subject to any broader review or has reached a certain level of maturity in delivery, and/or is being taken by a sizeable number of students. It is important that the potential for the accreditation of technical qualifications is reintroduced in the managed and considered way the clause allows. Here I come to the questions about why Ofqual does not have a complete permission and ability to consider technical qualifications.

The clause provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to determine, should it be deemed appropriate, that an exception could be granted to the general prohibition on Ofqual being able to accredit. This is because of the relative newness of many technical qualifications and is in order to consider carefully the interactions with the ongoing and vital reviews both of post-16 qualifications and of curriculum and assessment. These considerations are more significant for technical than non-technical qualifications. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we are doing this not because we necessarily have specific examples in mind but to enable them to be considered in response to some of the reviews, where it would seem appropriate.

Amendment 34, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to lay before Parliament a report on the effect of this Act on the powers exercised by regulators, including the Office for Students and Ofqual. We are committed to ensuring transparency in the way that the Bill’s powers are discharged and the effects that their transfer and execution will have on regulators, other public bodies and parts of government. We intend to follow the usual methods for agreeing and making this information available publicly and to Parliament, and therefore consider the amendment to be unnecessary, notwithstanding my commitment to write to noble Lords with some more detail about the way that different regulators work.

Specifically, Skills England’s published framework document will govern the relationship between the body, the department and the rest of government. There is a further and pre-existing published framework document already governing the relationship between the Department for Education and the Office for Students, and an equivalent document is being developed between the department and Ofqual to support effective working arrangements.

IfATE currently has memorandums of understanding with Ofqual and the Office for Students, and we anticipate that equivalent documents will be developed and published in respect of Skills England in due course. These documents will set out the nature of the relationship between Skills England and the regulators it will work with, in line with their respective framework documents.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, feels able not to press her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank noble Lords—or noble Baronesses—for their contributions to this short debate, and the Minister for her response and explanation of what Clause 8 intends to do, which, at least for the moment, I think I understand. What I heard her say is that the intent is to improve the rigour in the system and send a message to the system about rigour in relation to technical education qualifications, but that there are no current plans to use that power. That raised the question: if some qualifications are then accredited by Ofqual that have a particular status, what impact will that have on all the others? That is a little policy joy for her to consider. I very much look forward to her letter explaining the network of regulators and how this legislation will impact them, as I am sure other noble Lords do.

I very much support the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on the importance of moving on as quickly as possible with the lifelong learning entitlement. I hear loud and clear my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith’s comments about the need for speed. The slight concern many of us might feel is that agility and speed are not always the first words that come to mind when thinking about central government.

Clause 8 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I think that this amendment is worth very serious consideration. When I was Science Minister, I saw up close—as the whole country did during the pandemic—the value of the Chief Scientific Adviser and the network of scientific advisers across government departments. They play a really useful role in ensuring that policy is informed by the strongest possible understanding of science and in bringing the scientific method to policy-making. They have had a huge impact and made a huge contribution.

However, I would just flag that this raises an interesting question about what exactly the role of Skills England is. My understanding, from what the Government have said so far about Skills England, is that it was meant to be a body working across government and doing the difficult job of ensuring that all the different interests of different government departments in the skills agenda are given appropriate balance and focus. To my mind, that may be somewhat duplicative of what Skills England is itself seeking to do. In that sense, it may be a perfectly good alternative to Skills England if you have a chief skills adviser, informed by skills advisers in the various departments, feeding into the DfE; then, you may not need the horizon-scanning, policy-making function that Skills England is proposing to offer. I suggest that you have either one or the other; you probably do not need both.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for setting out so clearly the case for the appointment of a chief skills adviser and a network across government departments. However, I also have a lot of sympathy with the remarks from my noble friend Lord Johnson about the risk of duplication. In a way, this debate has made me feel like we are coming back to Clause 1 of the Bill, which I promised not to do, and to the appetite for understanding the Government’s thinking about how Skills England will work in practice. Clearly, this is a kind of alternative model.

I will make just a couple of brief points. In the previous Government, we benefited from the advice of Sir Michael Barber in his role as an adviser on skills policy delivery. My first point on that concerns the importance of the word “delivery”. His focus was on the delivery of skills policy. We all know that writing a great policy document is about 10% of the task while about 90% is effective delivery of that policy at scale, in real life. On behalf of my former colleagues in the department, I thank Sir Michael for his excellent advice in this regard; I had only one conversation with him but I have thought about it and used his advice many times since.

My second point is that Sir Michael reported not only to the Secretary of State for Education but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wonder whether that is something that the Minister might consider.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 17, which makes up this sixth group, was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As he outlined, it points us towards considering the case for a new and separate chief skills adviser—or, as I think the noble Lord described it, a network of chief skills advisers across government. I certainly agree that we need champions of skills in this country in a broad sense. Earlier, my noble friend Lord Blunkett made the case for having to make that argument across government and the challenges in doing so over the years. I do not dispute that need. Harnessing the skills of all our people is crucial to unlocking growth and spreading opportunity.

As it stands, our skills system is fragmented and not meeting the skills needs of either the economy or our people, so I have some sympathy with the idea that we need a unifying force that can also have an impact across government. However, that unifying force, as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said, is Skills England. As this legislation paves the way for us to establish Skills England, it is not necessary, I would argue, to include consideration of a chief skills adviser in parallel; doing so would only add a further layer of complexity and, arguably, make it less clear where the accountability for delivering a step change in skills provision sits.

Children’s Social Care

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Tuesday 19th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I very much welcome the Government’s announcement on their focus on children’s social care and on a number of reforms that have been announced. We recognise that there has been a significant rise not only in the number of children in care in recent years, but in older children and children with more complex needs. My questions to the Minister are really in an effort to make sure that we understand what His Majesty’s Government are aiming to do.

It felt, reading yesterday’s Statement and then the policy paper afterwards, a bit like an early-intervention sandwich. In her Statement, the Secretary of State rightly spoke about the importance of

“breaking the cycle of crisis intervention”

and the need for early intervention. Obviously, that was front and centre in the MacAlister review, which called for targeted early help delivered by multidisciplinary teams. In the list of actions at the end of the Government’s document, it is clear that they have longer-term plans to create teams that look very much like those when the fiscal situation allows. However, in the middle of the sandwich, in the substance of the policy document, it is less clear what the Government’s plans are in relation to early intervention.

Can the noble Baroness give the House some sense of the risk of what has already been announced, in the absence of an early intervention strategy? Can she give the House some sense of the timing? When does she expect targeted early help teams to be introduced and how will the staff be recruited? It would be interesting to have an estimate of costs. There was an estimate in the MacAlister review, but that is now somewhat out of date. Will she comment on the future of family hubs, which also play an important role in relation to early intervention?

More broadly, it would be helpful if the Minister could explain why the Government are removing the payment-by-results aspect of the Supporting Families programme. In my own professional experience prior to being in your Lordships’ House, I saw that some of the most effective multi-agency work undertaken was underpinned by a financial model that really drove a focus on outcomes for the child rather than for any particular agency, so it would be helpful to understand that decision.

I also notice that the Government are proposing to include £400 million of social care funding in the wider local government settlement. Does the noble Baroness agree that there is a risk that, if this funding is no longer ring-fenced, it will end up being used for crisis intervention rather than the early intervention which we all, across this House, recognise is so important?

As the Secretary of State set out yesterday, there are huge pressures both within and on the social care workforce. I note the Government’s plans to reduce dependency on agency staff, which is understandable, but I know that the noble Baroness also understands quite how challenging that is to achieve. Can she say anything more about the Government’s plans to retain the existing workforce and grow it? Do the Government have targets and timings to deliver on those plans?

We also really welcome the work on kinship carers, which obviously builds on the work that we started in government. As has often been said across the House, kinship carers do the most extraordinary job, often in terribly difficult and delicate circumstances. We very much look forward to seeing how the pilot of a kinship carer’s allowance works out.

We also recognise the challenges in the children’s home market, which is why we set up an advisory panel to look at that earlier this year. I wonder to what extent the Government’s announcements in this area reflect the recommendations of that panel, and whether there are plans to publish them.

The noble Baroness is aware that both the Competition and Markets Authority and the MacAlister review did not think that price capping would actually work in practice, for slightly different reasons, but both underlined that the key issue in the market is capacity. I note that the Government have announced £90 million of funding. Can she confirm that this is new funding and how many places it will fund in children’s homes? Do the Government have a plan for where those places will be?

In closing, I would like to recognise the invaluable insights that all of us who have worked in this area have received from those who have been in the care system, but also from those young people who did not get into it and were left at home, living with abuse. I hope very much that the Government will proceed in lockstep with those young people and always listen to their perspectives.

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I also welcome the Government’s Statement on the reform of children’s social care. Such reform is long overdue. For far too long, children’s social care has been the Cinderella of the Cinderella that is social care, so let us hope that this bodes well for a long overdue reform of adult social care.

With almost half of children in care now living out of area, and children still being placed in unregistered accommodation—even caravans and tents sometimes, I am told—coupled with the egregious levels of profiteering by some children’s residential home providers, this clearly demonstrates a system in crisis, if not broken. I am glad the Government are taking steps to address this, particularly requiring placement providers to share their finances transparently with the Government. The whole system needs fundamental overhaul.

First, could the Minister tell me what level of profit the department will deem appropriate? If profit levels do not reduce, how quickly would the Secretary of State introduce a profit cap? For Ofsted to effectively exercise its new powers, the regulator must have the necessary capacity and expertise. Addressing profiteering and ensuring financial transparency requires a sophisticated understanding of the sometimes opaque ownership structures used by the big corporate groups behind care provision. What assurances can the Minister give me that Ofsted will have both the staff numbers, and critically, the expertise to do this work effectively?

On the sufficiency of placements, national data published last week shows that 45% of all children in care in England are now living out of area, and 22% are living far from home. What steps is the department taking to ensure accurate data about the sufficiency of places, at both a national and a local level, and what assessment has it made of the impact of its proposed measures in preventing children in care being moved out of area?

I strongly welcome the renewed focus on early intervention and family care, keeping children out of care in the first place, and I look forward to hearing more about this in the coming period.

As we have already heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, kinship carers are unsung heroes who often step up at a moment’s notice to look after family members. So, can the Minister say whether the Government will now commit to moving beyond the limited pilots that have been proposed to a universal allowance for kinship carers, on a par with those received by foster carers?

No young person should leave care having had support just stripped away when they turn 18, so I welcome the steps announced to end that care cliff edge so that young people are better supported into adulthood. The Government’s plans to legislate for Staying Close to support all care leavers up to 25 is a good first step. However, do the Government plan to extend the Staying Put scheme to the age of 25, as well as Staying Close, to provide more continuity of care for children whose final placement is in foster care?

Care-experienced children and young people have a much harder start in life and experience much worse outcomes. Liberal Democrats have called for care experience to be made a protected characteristic under the Equality Act to strengthen the rights of people who have been or are in care. Can the Minister say whether the Government are considering this proposal?

I welcome the commitment in the paper to a single unique identifier, which I have long advocated for, along with others in this Chamber. I look forward to seeing the details, and I very much hope that the NHS number will be used, as suggested in the policy paper.

Finally, it is crucial that the detail behind these reforms and the funding underpinning them backs up the ambition that has been set out. Can the Minister say when the overall package of funding will be announced, and can she clarify how the £400 million funding for local government referred to in the Statement relates to the £600 million for social care that was announced in the Budget, which was not broken down between adult and social care?

I finish with a couple of wider questions. Can the Minister say when the Government plan to publish the children’s well-being Bill? What is the overall timescale for introducing the measures that have just been announced? Given the scale of recruitment and retention problems in social care, with many jobs vacant, what will the Minister do to tackle the workforce crisis in the sector to reduce the dependency on agency staff?

Curriculum and Assessment Review

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I make no judgment about the digital skills of Members of this House, but the noble Baroness makes an important point about the need to ensure that adults can also access digital skills. In referring to libraries, she is also talking, I think, about the importance of being able to access the hardware as well to do that. We continue to fund the essential skills legal entitlement through the adult skills fund, which will enable an opportunity for fully funded study for eligible adults who are 19 years and over and who do not have either essential English and maths skills up to level 2 or digital skills up to level 1. This will ensure that, alongside what is happening in schools, adults have the crucial basic digital skills that they need to access the modern world.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, one of the early themes coming out of the curriculum review is that teachers feel that there has been overstipulation about the content that they have been required to teach. The Government having a review after 10 years is entirely appropriate. We are encouraged by Professor Francis’s remarks about her concern that,

“by alleviating accountability and prescription, we risk facilitating poor practices that further marginalise disadvantaged young people”.

Can the noble Baroness be clear with the House that there will be no slippage in the academic rigour in the curriculum, particularly focusing on closing the attainment gap in school and post 16?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I can, I hope, reassure the noble Baroness that this Government are absolutely committed to ensuring higher standards in our schools—particularly with respect to English and maths, for example, which are fundamental and important skills—and that we do more to close the attainment gap in both English and maths. In recent years, this has grown between those who achieve the highest levels and those who do not achieve so well, and between those who are advantaged and those who are disadvantaged. Everybody in our schools needs access to the most rigorous and effective curriculum and teaching, which is what this Government are committed to delivering.

Home School Education Registration and Support Bill [HL]

Baroness Barran Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 15th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to the Home School Education Registration and Support Bill, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for introducing it. This Bill largely reflects Part 3 of the Schools Bill 2022, which aimed to set up a register of children not in school. I note however that there are some changes in scope, including proposed new Section 436G, which includes the offer of support in relation to safeguarding as well as education.

I would like to acknowledge the tireless work of Lord Soley, who long campaigned on this issue. I hope he is watching our debate today.

At that time, we acknowledged in this House that there are three main groups of children who are educated at home. First, there are those whose parents positively believe in home education and actively choose it for their children. Secondly, there are those children who have not thrived at school, perhaps because of bullying or unmet needs in relation to special educational needs and disabilities, and whose parents feel they have no choice but to educate them at home although initially they would not have chosen to do so. Finally, there are those children who are not in school, but neither are they receiving an education at home. As we have heard across the House, there are significant safeguarding concerns.

A register should permit parents who chose to educate their children at home to continue to do so. Combined with support, it should help parents who would prefer their children to be in school and who might be struggling to educate them at home. Finally, it should help identify that small group of children who could be at significant risk of harm and ensure that they are safeguarded.

When we were in government, we took the first steps towards increasing the level of information regarding the number of children who are educated at home. In February 2024, the Department for Education published experimental data to try to shed more light on this area, although I note that it uses data from 95% of local authorities and now, for the first time, we have data on each of the three school terms. The data published by the department showed that, in the 2022-23 academic year, there were 126,100 children receiving elective home education at any point in the year, which was an 8% increase on the previous year.

We recognise that this is an area of great sensitivity for parents, and we are clear that parents have the right to educate their children at home if they wish to. Thus huge care will be needed when the Government bring forward their children and well-being Bill—which I understand will include measures to create a register of home-schooled children—to ensure that the implementation of these measures is done with a focus on identifying those genuinely at risk or in need of support and does not intrude on the private life of families who are doing the best for their children.

It will be critical for services to be available to support those parents who need and request it. My noble friend Lord Lucas highlighted some of these sensitivities very eloquently. When I was sitting where the Minister now sits, I encouraged colleagues in the department when thinking about the guidance in this area to invite local authorities and home educators in to draft it together, because if they could agree in the room then perhaps it would work in real life. That is something she might want to consider.

Many of your Lordships, including the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will remember that, in the Schools Bill, these clauses were subject to a huge number of amendments. I tried to look it up last night, but, from memory, I think it was more than 130 amendments. So although we wish this Bill well, we expect to see it reemerge as part of the Government’s legislative calendar. It would be most helpful if the Minister could confirm when the education and well-being Bill will have its First Reading.

Universities

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Thursday 14th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I join other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick of Undercliffe, on securing this important and excellent debate. I thank all noble Lords for their insightful and varied contributions.

I welcome the blueprint prepared by Universities UK and its distinguished commissioners. The breadth of the report makes it hard to draft a succinct speech, but it underlines the scale, complexity and opportunities that our universities offer. I also welcome the outcomes that the blueprint aspires to: expanding opportunity, improving collaboration across the tertiary sector, generating stronger local growth, securing our future research strength and establishing a global strategy for our universities.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for being the first and possibly only Member to suggest that the report could have been a bit more self-critical. I would have been fascinated to hear more about how technology in general, and AI in particular, will in future shape our degrees, our teaching, our research and the university experience overall—but that is perhaps for another document. I also absolutely agree with my noble friend about transparency on costings and the differential impact from different universities and institutions—that would be really welcome.

This debate comes hot on the heels of that led by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, recently on the sustainability of the university sector. The blueprint covers the funding picture in detail, in all its aspects. The blueprint argues that there are two phases to achieving the outcomes to which it aspires. The first is about more funding for teaching, student maintenance and research, and the second phase relates to the transformation agenda, which is set out in the document to be led by universities and supported by government. Both are then underpinned by improved regulation and better measurement of impact. I wonder what the Minister thought when she read that and whether she shares my concern that the two phases need to be linked and that the transformation must be in parallel with any additional funding; otherwise, the delicate balance between what is paid for by the taxpayer and what is paid for by the graduate might tip too far towards the taxpayer.

Similarly, what are the Minister’s thoughts about fees increasing in future in line with inflation? As noble Lords have pointed out, the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions has, in effect, wiped out the increase in fees which her right honourable friend the Secretary of State spoke about earlier this month. If fees will increase in line with inflation in future, does the Minister agree that this must be mirrored by an increase in the quality of degrees as it relates to high-skilled employability? As the blueprint itself states, higher earnings are clearly not the only reason to go to university, but they are an important one which should not be dismissed and without which we will not achieve the faster economic growth that we all aspire to.

Does the Minister agree with what the Institute of Fiscal Studies said in an article published in September this year, in which it talked about potential changes to the fiscal rules? It said:

“Another issue is that departments may also face new incentives to design policies that create financial assets (e.g. student loans rather than a graduate tax to finance higher education) purely”—


I emphasise “purely”—

“because of differences in how the accounting treatment affects ease of compliance with a”

public sector net financial liabilities target. How will the Minister ensure that policy in this area, which is so important, is not distorted and other options for reform are not rejected because of this potential conflict of interest?

My noble friend Lady Bottomley talked about room for more radical and innovative approaches. The blueprint rightly raises important questions about cross-subsidisation of different subjects and of research and, indeed, describes this as “not fit for purpose” and “unsustainable”. I would be grateful for the Minister’s thoughts on that.

The blueprint also raises the thorny issue of the affordability of the teacher pension fund for universities. What is the Government’s attitude to giving universities more flexibility in relation to pensions?

The blueprint sets out an ambitious vision for research in our universities, and Universities UK rightly focuses on the importance of R&D and of full cost recovery. I confess that I am concerned at the prospect of having a target for R&D spend as a percentage of GDP and would rather focus strategically on the areas of research that yield the highest social and economic impact. The data in the report clearly shows that full economic cost recovery is highest in the most research-intensive universities, at 74%, compared with below 50% for the less research-intensive ones, although I totally accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, about the absolute size of the shortfall in our largest research institutes. I wrote in my notes that I am to make “jam” points, and then could not remember what I meant, but I think this is about spreading the jam, which he mentioned. I do not know whether there were recovery percentages by subject in the report, but it would be interesting to understand where we should focus for maximum impact and affordability.

In the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, led recently, there was a discussion about increased specialisation in our universities, and the noble Lord, Lord Rees of Ludlow, raised the subject again today. Does the Minister have more to say about the Government’s view on moving to more specialisation between research and teaching universities, particularly in a world where the giant tech companies have more to spend on research than all our universities combined?

Despite having more time than other noble Lords, as ever my speech is too long. I am going to skip ahead to the section on local growth. I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, highlighted the impact of Royal Holloway, in financial terms and the partnership that it has created. The report highlights the regional disparities that all of us across the House recognise and which so urgently need to be addressed. I remember when I was academies Minister visiting schools in some of the most deprived areas of England, where those children had exactly the same aspirations as their fellows in London and the south-east but a fraction of the opportunities. On the moral purpose, it is an area where universities do, and can do more to, make a huge contribution. I am really grateful to universities with active outreach programmes in those areas of the country for the work that they do.

Finally, in wrapping up, I echo the questions to the Minister from other noble Lords about the Horizon programme and what work the Government are doing to engage and shape its framework. On regulation, we were delighted and slightly horrified—delighted by the calls to streamline regulation but horrified by the diagram on page 107 of the report showing the extent of regulation in the sector. We remain concerned about the delays in the implementation of the freedom of speech Act.

As ever, it has been a privilege to listen to the points made. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.

Higher Education Reform

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, after relative silence in the Budget about the higher education sector, we on this side very much welcomed yesterday’s Statement from the Secretary of State for Education, but it raises a number of questions. I appreciate that the noble Baroness may want to write on some of them, but I hope that others require just a yes or no.

In the Statement, the Secretary of State talked about being “crystal clear” with students that their monthly repayments, once they graduate, will not increase. She was less than crystal clear about the fact that their total repayments will typically go up over the life of the loan. Can the noble Baroness confirm that I have understood that correctly? Have her officials calculated how much more the average student will repay once they have graduated?

The Secretary of State also talked about how she will

“secure the future of higher education so that students can benefit from a world-class education for generations to come”.

In his recent blog, Nick Hillman of the Higher Education Policy Institute took figures from the Institute for Fiscal Studies on how much the income of universities will increase as a result of the changes announced yesterday and the increase in the national insurance contributions they will need to make as a result of the changes announced in the Budget, as calculated by the Universities and Colleges Employers Association. He estimates that the net benefit to universities will be about £18 million, or £45,000 per institution.

The noble Baroness said earlier today that we on this side of the House need to understand that you have to raise money to fund public services. I assure her that we understand that very well, but the serious point is whether the two decisions the Government have made in recent days will make a material difference to universities or not. It would be helpful to be clear on that. There is also the impact of cutting fees for foundation-year courses. Is there a figure for the impact of that? Can she clarify what this means for undergraduates who have already started their course, as there was some confusion in Wales when fees were increased recently and it played out differently in different institutions? It would be helpful to know whether this will be applicable to those already part-way through their studies. The Statement was also silent on how this impacts postgraduate student fees and the disabled students’ allowance. It would be helpful to understand those changes.

In the Statement, the Secretary of State spoke of her ambition to spread opportunity to disadvantaged students, which every part of this House will firmly agree with. However, she then asserted that:

“The gap between disadvantaged students and their peers in progression to university … is the highest on record”.


I looked at the data that the department helpfully published recently and, while she might technically be right, the spirit of what has happened and the reality for disadvantaged students is very different. I am not quite sure why she chose to use free school meals as the definition of “disadvantaged” rather than the POLAR4 quintiles. Leaving those technicalities aside, if we look at what has happened in access to higher education between 2013-14 and 2022-23 for disadvantaged students using the Secretary of State’s definition, there has been a 43% increase in the percentage going to higher education compared to 25% for their peers. For high-tariff universities, the numbers for those on free school meals are up 109% compared to 48%. The percentage of more advantaged students is much bigger than that of disadvantaged students, but opportunities for disadvantaged students, which we all care about, have really improved. I hope the noble Baroness will acknowledge that.

The Secretary of State talked about a “renewed drive for efficiency” and said that the Government will not accept “wasteful spending”. We agree in principle, but can the noble Baroness give the House a sense of where the Government see waste in the sector and whether they have an estimate of what it amounts to. Can she reassure us that this will not threaten the independent status of our universities?

The Secretary of State talked about an uplift of £414 on maintenance loans. I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could confirm that this was calculated on a maximum loan for a student studying and living in London and that the average will be closer to £223 per student or 61p per day.

Looking to the future, the Secretary of State promised a policy paper on HE reform. Can the noble Baroness confirm what colour it will be—white, green or neither? Can she give the House any sense of the Government’s thinking on improving access to universities for those who have worse access today? Will it be a positive focus on particular groups or through new penalties?

Given the delay in the introduction of the lifelong learning entitlement, it would be good to hear that the Government remain committed to that, and to the work on sharia-compliant finance.

As my remarks have shown, the Statement left many unanswered questions, and I hope we see more in the forthcoming policy paper. However, despite the rhetoric in the Statement, the bottom line is that the net financial impact is hard to see for universities, so the policy paper will need to come quickly and tackle the real issues they face.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, we welcome the Secretary of State’s Statement on universities in the Commons yesterday. Labour introduced student loans, and in opposition Keir Starmer wanted to abolish them. No doubt he cannot because of the £22 billion black hole.

We know that in 2015, the Liberal Democrats paid the price for making a pledge on tuition fees that we could not keep, but our reforms at least made the system fairer by giving more support to pupils on low incomes and ensuring that the least well-off graduates repaid the least.

Now, our universities are crying out for government to look at their funding, which has remained frozen for eight years. The Conservative Government, while espousing their importance, did nothing but abolish the maintenance grant, so that living costs became a barrier to university learning for disadvantaged students. The previous Government also cut the repayment threshold to £25,000, so that today’s students have to repay hundreds of pounds more per year than older graduates on the same salary. They lengthened the repayment period from 30 to 40 years, so today’s students will still be paying back their loans in 2066.

Does the Minister agree that the crisis in funding must be addressed, and have the Government considered how to support universities without raising fees? Will the Minister look at the benefits of international students and give universities stability in this area of policy? Finally, will the Minister look at how universities spend their allocation of £10,000 per student, so that students get value for money and a good university education experience, and the money is spent as efficiently as possible?

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

My Lords, first, I welcome the positive response to yesterday’s Statement and announcements. I think we all understand that this country is blessed with a world-class university sector whose teaching, research, contribution to the staffing of our public services, international reputation, earning and impact are significant and something we want to defend and ensure continues into the future.

Sadly, on coming into government we feared that the crisis in the funding of higher education put all these things at risk. That was the reason for taking the action we announced yesterday: to increase tuition fees by 3.1% and to reflect the challenge that students have faced, particularly from the cost of living, by increasing maintenance loans as well. We were also very clear that alongside that increase in investment that students will make in our higher education sector, we also expect to see considerable reform, which I will come on to in a moment.

Let me respond to the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. First, on repayments, she is right that the way in which both tuition and maintenance loans are repaid means that no student will pay more per month. Of course, no student pays anything, up to £25,000-worth of annual income. The total amount a student pays depends on whether they repay within the 40-year time limit for the loan. Any student who currently would not repay within the 40 years—because they were on a low income or had gaps in work—will not pay any more with the increase in tuition fees. It is of course right that anybody who would have repaid during that time period will now have a larger debt to repay; but to reiterate, that is no cost upfront and no higher repayment per month after graduation.

On the impact of both the national insurance contributions and the changes to foundation degrees, we will publish an impact assessment alongside the statutory instrument that will bring about the increase in the fees, and we will spell out the analysis at that point. Regarding students who have already started, the intention is that the tuition fee increase will apply to new and existing students, but that could depend on the contract and arrangements made between the university and the individual student. We will make further announcements on the changes to postgraduate support and the disabled students’ allowance in due course.

The noble Baroness also raised the issue of the gap in respect of disadvantaged students. I think she conceded, as my right honourable friend stated yesterday, that this year the gap between those who are more advantaged and those who are more disadvantaged has widened. Although there are more students, both advantaged and disadvantaged, going to university now, it is not good enough to rest there: not only have we been incapable of closing that gap, but it has widened in the last year. That is why, as the first of the elements of the reform programme, we will undertake serious work with the sector, with those who support students in applying to higher education and with schools, and think about what more we can do to support anybody who could benefit from and wants to take part in higher education, so that they can access it.

We are determined to close—

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Before the Minister moves on, first, I would be grateful if she could confirm that since 2013-14, the percentage of disadvantaged children going to university has grown faster than the percentage of those from advantaged homes. Secondly, while the free school meals measure has shown an increase in the gap, if we take the POLAR4 quintiles—I am sorry to be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, would say, a wonk about this—the gap has decreased. Does the Minister agree with her department’s data on that?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I am sure that my department’s data on that is correct, but I stick with the point made yesterday, which is also correct: if we take the free school meals measure in the most recent year, in contrast to what happened previously, we have seen the gap widen. My broader point was that, frankly, it does not matter which measure you take, we have not seen a sufficient closing of that gap. It is still wrong that students from disadvantaged backgrounds who could benefit from higher education are not getting that benefit. That is why we will take action, alongside the sector and others, to make sure that we can improve both access to higher education and the measures of continuation and progression out of higher education. In those figures, we have seen a differential between those who are disadvantaged who come into higher education and those who are advantaged. Not only is it more difficult to get in but it is more difficult to continue in their courses and to succeed. That is where we need to take action to improve the situation.

On efficiency, we are absolutely clear that providing additional funding for higher education brings with it a responsibility for the sector to spend that money as efficiently as possible—to provide the quality of experience that students have the right to expect, and in a transparent way—and we can use appropriate metrics to measure that. We will want to do that work alongside the sector itself, but we are clear that we need to see improvements in efficiency in exchange for the increase in investment, and that that is non-negotiable.

On the maintenance loan, the important point is that the maximum loan for any student will be going up by 3.1%.

On the other areas of reform, access is very important, but we have also made it clear that universities need to play a crucial role in the Government’s growth mission. We need to see them working alongside Skills England. We need to work with them to see what more they can do to contribute to growth in the economy. They already play a crucial civic role; we want to see that strengthened so that all those who argue for universities in their areas—quite rightly, because they understand the social, cultural and economic benefit—will see that maximised. We recognise the quality of what is provided in English higher education, but we want to ensure that where there are pockets of bad quality that is tackled, and that everywhere there is an emphasis on improving the quality of teaching provided for our students.

On the alternative financing mechanism, we will make progress on that, building on the work of the previous Government and the noble Baroness in particular—she knows that we are reconstituting the working group on that because she will be invited to be a member of it, so she will share in the responsibility for the progress that I hope that we are going to make.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked whether other methods of funding universities had been considered. We have given considerable thought to the options for how we can help to bring some stability to the financial position in HE and to support students. Given the current financial situation and the constraints on spending, this was the most appropriate way to provide some additional income and certainty for HE. As a matter of principle, it is right that students who benefit from higher education—it is still the case that a degree or a qualification through a university will give you on average higher lifetime earnings—make a contribution to that through repaying their loans, alongside the contribution made by the taxpayer and the Government more broadly, particularly for those students who do not end up paying off all their loans, and the strategic priorities grant and other forms of support for higher education.

I agree with the noble Lord and hope that he has seen a very different tone towards international students from this Government than was the case previously—universities tell me that they have seen that. We will continue to welcome international students, not only because of the finance that they bring but because of the benefits to students and our role in the world that come from that. I think I have already covered the point about value for money, which we are absolutely committed to ensuring.

Education: Early Years Attainment Gap

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Tuesday 5th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right. The first years of a child’s life, where they depend on their parents, are fundamental. Supporting parents to be able to take on that job—he is quite right that it is not always easy and does not necessarily come naturally—is really important. Evidence has shown that high-quality parenting programmes, alongside wider integrated support, can be really important. That is why the Family Hubs and Start for Life programme includes funding to improve the parenting support offer, including evidence-based parenting programmes. It is why we will work to ensure that there is further awareness of the importance of parenting in childhood development. We will consider how, through the development of family hubs, we can provide further support for parents, precisely because, as he says, it is good for children and saves money later on in life.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, could the Minister confirm that the Government’s childcare funding rates will be increased to absorb the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

We have increased the rates this year, but we will be looking at the implications of national insurance contributions for the early years sector.

Unregistered Children’s Homes: Fees

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Monday 28th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate raises an important point. In the development of private children’s homes, we have seen a growth: for example, it is possible to get hold of accommodation more cheaply, but that does not necessarily mean that such homes are where children need them. Some 25% of all homes nationally are in the north-west, despite only 16% of children who need to be looked after in residential care coming from the north-west. That is why there has been investment to support local authorities to improve existing provision and to create additional placements; and it is why, through the children’s well-being Bill and in other ways, we will work to ensure that, wherever a child needs care, there is high-quality care that does not involve them having to travel or the local authority facing excessive costs.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, raised the issue of the costs associated with some unregistered children’s homes, but I want to ask the Minister a more basic question. We know from Ofsted’s 2023 guidance that it is illegal to send a child, even a child with a deprivation of liberty order, to an unregistered children’s home, yet the case to which the noble Baroness referred, as I understand it, was about a year later. What are the Government doing to make sure that children do not go to unregistered homes at all, whatever they cost?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Baroness identifies the absolute difficulty and the challenging circumstances that directors of children’s services and others find themselves in. For example, on a Friday afternoon, when faced with having to find a placement for a child urgently, they have no other option, because of a failure to provide sufficient places, than to place a child in an unregulated home. This is so unsatisfactory for everybody, and that is why, through the provisions we will bring forward in the children’s well-being Bill and through appropriate investment in increasing the number of places, we will try to ensure that that happens far less in the future.

Special Educational Needs

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The right reverend Prelate makes an important point about the experience of looked-after children, which I also discussed in an Oral Question earlier this week in response to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. We have to get to a system where there are fewer bureaucratic processes to enable children and young people to get the support that they need. The point about moving from authority to authority is very important, and I will certainly take it back to my colleagues in the department. This strikes me as an additional piece of bureaucracy. While it is obviously important that, in every context, children’s needs are properly understood—and that provision through an EHCP, for example, is properly put in place—that should not be a bureaucratic process that prevents children getting the support they need when they need it.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm whether the Government are committed to continuing the reforms that the previous Government set out in the SEND and AP plan to set national standards and to digitise the process, so that EHCPs are much clearer and speedier, removing a lot of stress for parents and their children?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The Government are committed to doing everything we can to ensure that the process of going through an education, health and care plan—even now, only 50% of parents get them within 20 weeks of applying for them—is made much easier. I am sure that there are ways that we can build on work from the previous Government to ensure that that happens. Fundamentally, the problem with the system, which we also inherited from the previous Government, is that too many parents feel the need to go through this arduous process alone, because they do not have the support in the rest of the school system and do not get identification early enough. That is what, more fundamentally, we need to put right, and that is what the Government are committed to doing.

Special Needs Schools

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Monckton of Dallington Forest on securing this important debate, on the truly dignified way in which she made her remarks and on combining such practical examples with deep expertise and understanding of this topic.

This has been an excellent and wide-ranging debate. We have heard from across the House that every one of your Lordships wants an education system that helps all children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities to thrive, fulfil their potential and lead fulfilling lives, whether they are in special schools or mainstream education. We recognise the important role played by our special colleges, which support young people with special educational needs both academically and in order to make the transition to more independent living, to reduce isolation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, pointed out, and indeed to remove stigma, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Addington.

We have heard this afternoon that, as we knew before we came into the Chamber, this sector faces many challenges. Perhaps the most immediate that we heard in the debate, from all noble Lords, is the rising demand for specialist provision and the pressures that places on funding. It was in recognition of that growing need that the last Conservative Government increased the high-needs budget to £10.5 billion in 2024-25, which was a 60% increase on the figure in 2019-20. To help to increase capacity, £2.6 billion is being invested from 2022 to 2025 to fund new specialist places and improve existing provision. When complete, that investment in special schools will provide an additional 60,000 places.

As we all know, though, the level of need continues to outstrip that, with real consequences for parents who are looking for a place for their children, and for their children. It was the lack of consistent support and outcomes that led to the development of the SEND and Alternative Provision Improvement Plan that we published last year, which was designed to ensure high-quality early support for every child regardless of where they live. At its core was an attempt to deal with the feeling that too many parents are having to battle with the system to get help, that too many parents have lost trust in the system, that we are not offering them the confidence that their children can realise their potential and, as my noble friend Lord Jamieson said, that the system needs to be on a financially sustainable footing.

There are two key areas within that, so that children can get the right support in the right place and at the right time. One is about having a national system with national standards to deliver consistent, clear and early support. The second is about moves to improve the timeliness and quality of education, health and care plans by adopting a standardised and digitised template to deal with some of the burden and stress that parents face, as we have heard, when they try to make those applications. It would be reassuring if the Minister could just comment on whether the Government plan to continue with those two initiatives, particularly given the level of consultation that underpinned those decisions.

The pressures that we are seeing on special schools, many of which we know are operating over capacity, also make the Government’s proposal to impose VAT on independent schools from 1 January 2025 even more misguided. We know that around 100,000 children and young people without an EHCP receive specialist SEND support in independent schools. Putting VAT on their fees risks disrupting their education, particularly as it is being in brought part-way through the school year.

As the Minister knows, on these Benches we think the Government should drop this policy in its entirety or, at the very least, delay it. But I suggest the Government should look at a particular area: the position of the 130 specialist FE colleges that provide training for young people with complex needs. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and my noble friend Lady Monckton pointed out, all of their students are publicly funded through the high needs system. If these colleges are required to charge VAT, the purchasing local authority would simply reclaim it, resulting in no actual financial benefit to the public purse but considerable bureaucracy. I would be grateful if the Minister would consider reviewing that.

We know that our special schools and colleges perform a crucial role but it is also the case that the relationship between special school and mainstream provision is important, as we heard in particular from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln. We are concerned that the demand pressures that have built up in recent years, which were also highlighted in the National Audit Office report today, are leading to other impacts, including a worrying increase in the number of home-educated children with special educational needs. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Storey, who is not in his place, and the Minister have plans for legislation in this area. I look forward very much to those debates.

We support the principle of assuring that all children receive a suitable education. More broadly, we look forward to hearing more from the Government in the coming months about how they will improve their use of data in this area, as also recommended in the NAO report, in predicting changes in demand for special educational needs and disability provision, and how they will build on some of the excellent work which officials had already started, to ensure that expansions in capacity are done in the right place.

There is one topic which I think has not come up in your Lordships’ debate this afternoon, which is alternative provision. The previous Government intentionally brought together our strategies for children with special educational needs and disabilities with those in alternative provision, given the very high incidence of special educational needs among those children. In fact, my first visit as a Minister was to a school near Bristol for children who had been excluded from other schools. Some were as young as five and it was clear that they needed many things from the system, but two stayed with me.

First, for very young children, it seems obvious that they need a clear route to return to mainstream education. All children should have access to integrated care teams so that all their wider needs can be met and again, where possible, they can return to mainstream. My understanding is that there were some encouraging results from the DfE’s specialist task force pilot—only the DfE could come up with that name—where there was a multiagency response for those children. I would encourage the Minister to consider continuing with that.

To conclude, there is unity in this House about the desire to ensure that the SEND system works better and provides the support and outcomes that children and people with special educational needs and disabilities deserve. I think we are also in agreement that this is one of the hardest areas of policy to get right—although I was encouraged by my noble friend Lord Jamieson’s remarks in this regard. I would like to reassure the Minister that, in opposition, we will work constructively with the Government to try to get this right for children and their families.