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

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 21st November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I want to speak to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran, raising the issues that arise from the fact that Skills England, for all the hype, is to all intents and purposes the DfE. As others have mentioned, it will not have a statutory basis of its own. It might have a grand name and have been billed heavily in advance by the Government, but it is not a non-departmental public body which would be legally separate from the department and staffed by public servants rather than civil servants; it will be created by simple administrative action rather than legal instrument, meaning that it is basically just the department.

Executive agencies, of which Skills England will be one, are units of central government, perhaps administratively distinct to some extent but remaining legally very much part of it. What does this mean in practice? In some ways, it could be good. Potentially, it means a shorter feedback loop into Ministers’ red boxes, where responsibility for overarching skills policy rightly resides—there will be no room for excuses; the buck will stop with the Secretary of State for Skills England’s performance; and there will be no excuses for any failure of Skills England to work successfully across government departments and to corral Treasury to fund our skills system appropriately. However, that is the upside and, to be honest, I think there is potentially rather more downside from this change, because it is a misdiagnosis of where priorities need to be right now.

A prerequisite for a successful skills system is a reasonable degree of stability and certainty necessary to get businesses to invest in training, and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that our businesses are not investing enough in training their workforce—as we all know, we are spending less than half the OECD average. Instead, we have near-permanent policy churn in this area. Supposedly once-in-a-generation reforms take place nearly every Parliament, sometimes every other year, creating chronic instability in the policy framework for investment for skills.

Now we have a massive machinery of government change with the abolition of IfATE, which was created less than seven years ago. Machinery of government changes are rarely worth the cost, disruption and distraction from other necessary priorities. This really is not what we should be debating right now. Machinery of government changes are no substitute for Ministers driving their teams hard, doing the difficult work of policy development and securing funding for skills from a very sceptical Treasury.

I am worried, therefore, that we are losing focus on the real issues. To my mind, there are two very big areas where I would prefer us all to focus our attention right now. The first is securing clarity from the Government on their plans for the defunding of applied general qualifications. I appreciate that there has been considerable movement from the Government on this matter since they took office in July, but further clarity is still needed on which qualifications that were due to be defunded next year will now be retained and when providers will get that vital information.

The second area I would prefer us to focus on is how we can end the confusion over the future of the lifelong learning entitlement, which has been delayed yet again in recent weeks and now will not start until sometime in 2027, and the provision by the Government of a clear statement as no one knows how the LLE will interact with their planned new growth and skills levy. These are two really important reforms and there is a desperate lack of clarity across our system on how they will work together. I would be very grateful if the Minister could help us with those two issues and take the opportunity to confirm that, in her mind, the LLE will still deliver the skills revolution that the last Government wanted from it and that Skills England will not quietly be asked to kill it off in the months to come.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, in rising to speak very briefly in this debate, I apologise for the fact that I was not at Second Reading. Most of the points that I sought to make have already been made. Therefore, I do not need to repeat them, save that I am sure that there is an absolute commitment in this Room that what we need is high-quality skills training and education and that no one would demur from that. The differences—or possibly the similarities—across the aisle are that we want to make sure that it is done effectively and as speedily as possible while ensuring it is done properly.

I am very sympathetic to the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Knight about the consideration that might be given to a statutory body. Some noble Lords who know my history may know that I have not always been a great fan of everything being held in the hands of the department or the Secretary of State—obviously, it depends on the Secretary of State. In this case, we can afford, if we to make a move, to think about making the appropriate move. From the discussions that I have had, it seems that the appropriate move from where we are would be to a statutory body, for all the reasons that a number of speakers have outlined. That may well confer a greater sense not just of stability but of consistency, which is where we need to be if we are to carry with us young people, their teachers, their parents and employers, who are all extremely concerned, and to ensure that we have excellent skills provision and skills acquisition in this country.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I too apologise that I was unable to be at Second Reading, although I have read all the contributions made by noble Lords, including those here, at the time. I add my general support to pretty much everything that has been said, including on Amendments 21 and 33. I have considerable sympathy with the proposal to get rid of Schedule 1, and specifically with those noble Lords who have said that we really need a statutory body. Just putting everything inside the Department for Education in an extremely unclear way is really unsatisfactory.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, the interesting Library briefing on the Bill contains the following paragraph:

“Unifying the skills landscape to ensure that the workforce is ‘equipped with the skills needed to power economic growth’, by bringing together mayoral combined authorities and other key local partners, large and small businesses, training providers and unions”.


That brought joy to my ears. In this question about determining standards and all the other things that need to be done, we have a wealth of experience and expertise within trade unions of various kinds. My own experience, of course, is in education, but there will be other unions covering other sectors. It is important, when we are thinking about this, to ensure as we move forward with skills that we take account of those people who are either delivering the training or have themselves done the jobs. The best way to hear that voice may well be through the trade unions. I therefore commend to the Government listening to trade unions and having trade unions in the conversation.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 2 and 6, to which I have added my name. The great thing about following so many intelligent noble Lords is that I have little to say. In particular, my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith talked about the employer, which is important for everybody. I have been playing bingo with words and phrases and “clarity” has come up many times. With due deference to my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I am going to repeat myself: we need clarity; employers need clarity; teachers need clarity. This is my second bite at the cherry and I am not sure whether I declared my interest as a teacher at first. Everybody needs clarity from the Bill and these amendments give more rather than less, which is vital.

Curriculum and Assessment Review

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I do not think it is strictly true that large numbers of young people do not have a working knowledge of important areas of digital skills and computing. Of course, increasing numbers of them take GCSEs and A-levels in computing, but the noble Lord makes an important point about it being important to have the necessary skills for life. The curriculum and assessment review will consider that, and this Government will take decisions on it when we receive that review.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that, whatever the outcome of the curriculum review, a pedagogical focus on oracy would assist in the teaching of all the important skills that young people clearly need as they enter the world of work, and in being able to discuss issues such as anti-racism?

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My noble friend is absolutely right. We need to make sure that young people are able to express themselves and to engage in discussion and debate. That is why we welcome, for example, the work that Geoff Barton and his Oracy Commission have carried out in this important area. It is also why developing language skills is vital in early years to enable children to thrive. We are funding evidence-based early language interventions, targeting children who need extra support with their speech and language development.

Education (Values of British Citizenship) Bill [HL]

Baroness Blower Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 18th October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, today is Wear Red Day, the annual fundraising day for Show Racism the Red Card, of which I am the national vice-president. It is an educational charity specifically working in schools and increasingly in workplaces on anti-racist education and anti-racism. It also helps to train teachers, specifically in Wales, but we hope in England too.

Individual worth, as envisaged in the Bill, must mean the promotion in schools of anti-racism—of challenging racism of all types. Prejudice, or ignorance-based behaviour, as my noble friend Lord Mann sometimes describes it, is not acceptable. Show Racism the Red Card has programmes to challenge the background to racism as well as its contemporary manifestations, and to look at hate crime and how to challenge it.

A report out this week, A Portrait of Modern Britain, paints a somewhat rosier picture of the state of our country than some might recognise, but it rightly asserts that racism and discrimination have not been eliminated. I think we are all well aware of that. If the Bill provides an opportunity to look again at the curriculum and how we challenge islamophobia, anti-Semitism and all forms of racism—to be explicit, how we teach anti-racism—it would be a very good thing. It seems to me that individual worth adequately covers the notion that we should be teaching anti-racism.

Finally, I would like to say a word about the Prevent strategy. I was still engaged in education full time at the time of its introduction, and I am all too well aware that there were very big problems with it. The National Education Union, then the NUT—my union—believed that we should be taking a child protection approach to the issue of children being groomed into extremism. That is all the more true because according to Amnesty International, 87% of referrals of under-15 year-olds through the Prevent strategy do not meet the criteria for an intervention. It seems to me that there is something not helpful about the Prevent strategy. Certainly, decoupling it from the teaching of values and citizenship would be a profoundly good idea.

Ofsted

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

The noble Lord is right to outline the comments made by the coroner in the case of the tragic death of Ruth Perry and by the Education Select Committee in another place about the impact of the single headline grade in those circumstances. That is part of the reason for the Government’s decision to remove that single headline grade, while maintaining a wealth of information from the Ofsted inspection in the report card that is being developed.

I will be frank with the noble Lord. Having been on the receiving end of an Ofsted inspection both in schools and children’s social care, I think the inspections will always bring pressure on to schools and other settings, and so they should. The point is whether they are bringing pressure to good effect. During its Big Listen process, Ofsted has also had the opportunity to consider how to maintain that rigorous inspection and accountability process but to do that in a way, as the noble Lord says, that focuses on accountability and improvement but does not put undue stress on to schools and head teachers.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that considerable good practice is available internationally on how best to inspect and evaluate schools and that there is enormous understanding within the profession about how best to improve our schools? On that basis, I congratulate my Government on making this early decision. In response to the noble Baroness opposite about what question the Government are trying to answer with this, I think they are trying to answer that question of unrealistic, unreasonable pressure on individuals in schools from that headline judgment. If it did nothing else other than prevent any other head teacher taking their own life, it would be absolutely worth doing.

Having been a teacher myself, I know that all teachers welcome engagement with those authorities which seek to assist them to improve in their practice. I am confident—and I hope the noble Baroness agrees—that a move towards a balanced scorecard, engaging the profession and looking at best practice internationally is absolutely the way to ensure that we have an increasing number of self-improving schools for all our young people.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I strongly agree with my noble friend, particularly on the points about how very good existing school leaders can support school improvement more widely and about learning from international experience. I know that Ofsted, in its consideration of improvement of the education inspection framework, will reflect on that, as will the Government. One reason for saying that it is a good idea to introduce the regional improvement teams in the way in which the Government are suggesting is because that enables us to build on the expertise of leaders in academies and other schools to support those schools which need to improve to be able to do so. In some cases, it will be necessary to change the management arrangements of schools but, short of that, much can be done to bring good practice to bear on those schools that need improvement, and we should make use of that capacity across the system.

King’s Speech

Baroness Blower Excerpts

Friday 19th July 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, there is much to welcome in the gracious Speech, and I look forward to working with our new Front Bench to try to move forward every single aspect of it. Before I move into my main remarks, I would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. We very often did not agree, but we did that in a very agreeable fashion—and sometimes we did agree, which was always quite helpful.

I begin with the review of the curriculum and assessment. It is an exciting prospect, and the National Education Union has said that we need a broader vision for education that supports well-being, allows all students to learn effectively and uses a variety of formats to capture all that students achieve and contribute. The current curriculum is too narrow and constrained. As the NEU and others have repeatedly pointed out, arts, music, dance and drama need to have a greater place in every student’s education, but so too do all the skills listed by the noble Lords, Lord Baker and Lord Aberdare. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, we really need to look at the curriculum model: boldness is required here.

On assessment, it goes without saying that assessment should be fit for purpose at all key stages. Key stage 2 SATs have a distorting effect on the educational experience of years 5 and 6 pupils and contribute nothing valuable to their educational journey. A different approach is needed. Many academics and the NEU have much to contribute on this. At secondary level, there is widespread support for re-examining why we persist with GCSEs at 16-plus and very deep concern about the defunding of BTECs. I hope all these aspects will be given proper consideration, especially in the light of ongoing critical reports, not the least just this week, about the role and value of T-levels, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Knight. I know there are very many in the academic community and those with a great concern for education who will want to give the best of counsel to Becky Francis, and I hope she will be given the opportunity to take the widest possible view.

Ensuring that all schools will have to co-operate with their local authority on school admissions—rather than academies just going their own sweet way—on SEND inclusion and on place planning is particularly welcome. I echo all the questions on this from my noble friend Lord Watson of Invergowrie, and I look forward to hearing the answers.

As we all know, the school workforce is composed not just of teachers—who will once again be required to have qualified teacher status, which is a very good decision—but the essential school support staff, who will enjoy a seat at the national table on pay and conditions with the reinstatement of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body. It is a pity, though, that there is not yet a proposal for such a national structure for collective bargaining for teachers. I earnestly hope that that can follow in short order. We continue to face significant problems with recruitment and retention of teachers, so while the reinstatement of QTS is a welcome signal from the Government about the status of teachers, it will not help with paying the rent or the mortgage. Significant improvement in teachers’ pay is needed. I hope the profession will not be disappointed when the Government announce the outcome of and their response to the STRB report.

Breakfast clubs are very welcome, as they will help the one in four children—according to 2023 figures—living in poverty. However, as so many anti-poverty organisations and campaigners have said, removing the two-child benefit cap would help so many families now. A task force may be a good long-term idea, but lifting the cap now is what is called for. Further steps must also be taken on school food. The NEU suggests that there are economic benefits as well as educational, social and nutritional ones to making sure that children receive free school meals.

I welcome the bringing of multi-academy trusts into the inspection system, but note that Ofsted is not held in high regard by the profession or many parents. Better ways of evaluating the work of schools and multi-academy trusts exist and function in other jurisdictions. I very much hope that the Government, in their welcome ambition for education, will soon give consideration to them.