All 5 Baroness Henig contributions to the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022

Read Bill Ministerial Extracts

Tue 15th Jun 2021
Tue 6th Jul 2021
Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]
Lords Chamber

Committee stage & Committee stage
Thu 15th Jul 2021
Wed 21st Jul 2021

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for International Trade

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts
2nd reading
Tuesday 15th June 2021

(3 years, 6 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Henig Portrait Baroness Henig (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Black, on her outstanding maiden speech, and welcome her to the House of Lords. I know she has made a huge contribution to the higher education sector, most recently and presently at Lancaster University. Her expertise and experience will be of great value in our future debates. I look forward to working with her on this Bill in the forth- coming weeks.

Who could argue with the principal aims of the Bill—to transform post-16 education and training, to boost skills and productivity, to involve employers more closely in course planning and provision, to get more people into work and to launch a new lifetime skills guarantee? What is there not to like? But let me just stop there a minute. We are learning that this Government speak in headlines—ringing headlines that are echoed in the press and social media—but then frequently there is little or no follow-through.

It is important to make it clear that to deliver the transformation that is needed in post-16 provision, a transformation which it is quite clear from the debate so far that we all support, to deliver the objectives of this Bill, we must acknowledge that significant changes are needed, changes to structures, attitudes and funding. On these crucial areas, the Bill is largely silent.

I have been involved in post-16 education in various ways, having served as a governor of an FE and an adult education college. Post-16 education, especially 16-19 education, is incredibly fragmented. There are 11-18 grammar schools, faith schools, 11-18 academies, comprehensives, sixth-form colleges, FE colleges and, very occasionally, tertiary colleges. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that putting employers at the heart of the post-16 skills system relates to their relationship with the local FE college only, but what of the other units providing post-16 education? Will adult education colleges be involved? Will other education providers be drawn into collaboration and, if so, how will this happen?

To be successful, local plans must bring together all schools and colleges in an area, as the noble Baroness, Lady Black, so vividly reminded us in her story about the schools working together with the college in the Lancaster area. Employer groups need to include such major employers as the NHS, local government and local universities. Can the Minister clarify the intentions here because unless there is significant collaboration in local areas across the area, the aims of this Bill will never be achieved?

There is also a huge issue around parity of esteem, and the Minister pointed this out in her opening remarks. Parental choices and student preferences have not changed that much in the past 50 years. Leaving aside public schools—although they cast a long shadow—grammar schools and 11-18 faith schools remain very popular with parents, followed by 11-18 local academies and sixth-form colleges. I regret to tell noble Lords this, but in the local areas that I know well, students are not clamouring to go to the local FE college, even when they want to pursue courses in computer games technology or basic health skills.

I was talking to my 18-year old grandson about this issue recently. He attended a sixth-form college in the north-east. I asked him whether any of his former schoolmates went to the local FE college. His reply was swift and telling: “Only if they couldn’t get in anywhere else.” That showed me that attitudes and perceptions have not changed very much. We all know the problem, dating back to the Education Act 1944, that technical schools and technical education never developed as envisaged, and that in the past two decades all the emphasis has been on getting a university place, not on developing practical technical expertise or getting technical qualifications.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, has been working incredibly hard in recent years to change this situation, but the difficulties that he has encountered show the magnitude of the problems that we are still facing in this area. It will take great effort and a huge transformation of technical provision throughout the country to change perceptions. It is something that we must do, but it will not be easy, and it requires long-term investment.

The Bill is silent for the most part on funding issues, yet we know that one reason why FE colleges have struggled in recent years and have had to cut courses and narrow curriculums is lack of funding and constant cuts to budget. Post-16 education funding is at present not fair and not rational for all the competing institution. My noble friend Lord Layard pointed this out very clearly.

If the Government mean what they are saying about wanting to improve opportunities and boost skills, particularly among disadvantaged students, they must commit to long-term funding, not just for post-16 FE colleges but in a whole range of social welfare provision, to enable poorer, more disadvantaged and unemployed individuals to access courses, train and retrain and become more skilled.

Among the briefings sent to me for this debate was a sobering statistic that 13 million adults in this country—that is nearly one in four people over 18—lack level 2 qualifications, equivalent to GCSEs. Some 9 million adults lack functional literacy and numeracy skills. The Bill has a lot of heavy lifting to do, and it will need major investment over many years if it is to be more than aspirational. We want it to be successful, and I await the evidence in Committee that the investment will be forthcoming.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for International Trade

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts
Baroness Henig Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

My Lords, the next business is the first day of Committee on the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. During the debate on each group, I invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request. The groupings are binding. Participants who might wish to press an amendment other than the lead amendment in a group to a Division must give notice in the debate or by emailing the clerk. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely wants their voice accounted for if the Question is put, they must make this clear when speaking on the group.

Clause 1: Local skills improvement plans

Amendment 1

Moved by

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for International Trade

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts
Clause 17 agreed.
Baroness Henig Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 72. Anyone wishing to press this or anything else in this group to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 18: List of relevant providers

Amendment 72

Moved by

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for International Trade

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts
Baroness Henig Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, has a question that he would like to put to the Minister.

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Portrait Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I am perplexed because, in her response, the Minister said that she expected the announcement made yesterday by the Office for Students on funding for the arts and creative subjects would open up many more such courses. The report that I have received is that high-cost subsidy funding is to be cut by half, with effect from September this year. How on earth could that open up more courses? Universities are saying that they may even have to close down courses. Defunding cannot produce more courses, or have I misunderstood the noble Baroness?

--- Later in debate ---
Clause 26 agreed.
Baroness Henig Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig)
- Hansard - -

We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 100. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division must make that clear in debate.

Clause 27: Commencement

Amendment 100

Moved by

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Department for Education

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Baroness Henig Excerpts
Amendments 51 and 52 agreed.
Baroness Henig Portrait The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I call the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to move Amendment 53.

Baroness Barran Portrait Baroness Barran (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

Sorry, this group is for my noble friend Lady Chisholm.

Amendment 53