Higher Education Student Support
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(1 day, 8 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
The Government announced on 4 November a significant package of measures to support students and stabilise the university sector.
We need to put our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing in order to face the challenges of the next decade. Maximum fees for the 2025-26 academic year will increase by forecast inflation, 3.1%, providing additional financial help for higher education providers after seven years of frozen fees, which have resulted in their value falling by an estimated 28%.
The 3.1% increase to maximum fees for 2025-26 will help cement higher education providers’ roles as engines of growth in the heart of communities across the country and will mean they can continue to deliver high-quality education that boosts the life chances of those who choose this path.
Maximum tuition fees for a standard full-time course and the subsidised up-front loans available to students to pay their tuition will be increased by 3.1% to £9,535 for a standard full-time course; to £11,440 for a full-time accelerated course and to £7,145 for a part-time course for the 2025-26 academic year.
The increase in maximum tuition fees for 2025-26 applies to new and continuing students; however, higher education providers are autonomous and responsible for setting their own fees up to the maximum amounts.
In deciding whether or not to increase fees, providers will want to ensure that they can continue to deliver courses which are fit for purpose and help students achieve their ambitions. For continuing students, providers will also depend on their individual contracts with students, and providers will wish to make their own legal assessment of contracts when considering fee increases.
From the start of the 2025-26 academic year, a lower maximum fee limit of £5,760 is being introduced for foundation years in classroom-based subjects. A lower tuition fee loan limit of £5,760 is also being introduced to match the new tuition fee limit. We recognise the important role that foundation years play in promoting access to higher education, but we believe they can be delivered more efficiently, at lower costs to students.
Students will receive additional support for their living costs in 2025-26, with the largest cash increases for students from low-income families. This approach ensures that the most support is targeted at the poorest students, while keeping the student finance system financially sustainable.
Maximum undergraduate loans for living costs will be increased by forecast inflation, 3.1%, in 2025-26 with as much as £414 additional support for students on the lowest incomes who need the most help.
I am also announcing today further changes to student support for the 2025-26 academic year that will benefit students.
Maximum disabled students’ allowance for students with disabilities undertaking full-time and part-time undergraduate courses in 2025-26 will increase by 3.1%. Maximum grants for students with child or adult dependants who are attending full-time undergraduate courses will also increase by 3.1% in 2025-26.
We are also increasing support for students undertaking postgraduate courses in 2025-26.
Maximum loans for students starting master’s degree and doctoral degree courses from 1 August 2025 onwards will be increased by 3.1% in 2025-26. The same increase will apply to the maximum disabled students’ allowance for postgraduate students with disabilities in 2025-26.
Bereaved partners and children of Gurkhas and Hong Kong military veterans discharged before 1997 who have been granted indefinite leave to enter or indefinite leave to remain will not be subject to the three-year ordinary residence requirement but will instead need to be ordinarily resident in England on the course start date to qualify for student support and home fee status. This change is being introduced as these students may find it difficult to meet the normal ordinary residence requirements for student support and home fee status.
We will expect the higher education sector to demonstrate that, in return for the increased investment that we are asking students to make, they deliver the very best outcomes both for those students and for the country.
We have set out our five priorities for reform of the higher education system and will work in partnership with the sector over the coming months to shape the changes to Government policy that will be needed to support this reform. We will expect our higher education providers to:
Play a stronger role in expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students.
Make a stronger contribution to economic growth.
Play a greater civic role in their communities.
Raise the bar further on teaching standards, to maintain and improve our world-leading reputation and drive out poor practice.
Drive a sustained efficiency and reform programme.
We will then set out this Government’s plan for higher education reform by this summer.
Looking forward to the 2026-27 academic year, the lifelong learning entitlement (LLE) will deliver transformational change to the current student finance system by broadening access to high-quality, flexible education and training. The LLE will launch in 2026-27 for courses starting from January 2027.
Further details of the student support package for 2025-26 are set out in the document “Higher Education Fees and Student Support for 2025-26: Details”.
I have laid regulations implementing changes to maximum fees for undergraduates in 2025-26 on 20 January.
Alongside the regulations, we are publishing impact assessments on the changes to maximum fees for 2025-26 which draw on the Office for Students’ independent analysis of the wider financial pressures facing the higher education sector as well as an equality impact assessment of changes to fees and student support for 2025-26.
I also plan to lay further regulations implementing changes to student support for undergraduates and postgraduates for 2025-26 in February. Regulations are subject to parliamentary procedure.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2025-01-20/HCWS372/
[HCWS372]
Higher Education Regulatory Approach
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(6 days, 8 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, I shall make a statement on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023.
In July 2024 I paused further commencement of the Act in response to concerns raised by a cross-section of voices. I took that decision because it is vital that we get this right. Our universities are one of this country’s greatest strengths, and I know Members across the House share my pride in a truly world-leading sector. At the centre of that excellence sit academic freedom and freedom of speech. The ability of our academics to explore and express new ideas through teaching and research is precious and we must protect it.
These fundamental freedoms are more important—much more important—than the wishes of some students not to be offended. University is a place for ideas to be exposed and debated, to be tried and tested. For young people, it is a space for horizons to be broadened, perspectives to be challenged and ideas to be examined. It is not a place for students to shut down any view with which they disagree.
Here is our starting point: academic freedom matters and freedom of speech matters, and we will preserve those two pillars of national strength, but we will proceed in a way that actually works. That is why we have carried out extensive engagement covering all corners of the debate: academics, universities, students; those for the Act and those against. All voices were heard.
I was especially keen to consider the views of minority groups, to learn how the Act might affect them, particularly given the shocking rise in antisemitism on campus. Standing here in this great Chamber of debate, I remain resolute about the importance of free speech, but our engagement on the Act has raised concerns that any responsible Government must take seriously. What was being proposed simply did not rise to the challenge: unworkable duties on student unions, a tort clogging up the court system, and the Office for Students obliged to consider a vast number of complex complaints.
There are also serious concerns over the Act’s potential impact on the welfare of minority groups. Many are worried that it could lead to increased harassment and discrimination on campus, and that the Act could push providers to overlook their safety. I share their concerns.
I reiterate that I am appalled by the rise in antisemitism on campus. In my view, rising antisemitism is best tackled through education, which is why I have confirmed £7 million in funding to tackle antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities.
I have reached a way forward that I believe is effective and proportionate, delivering an Act that is fair and workable. My decisions, subject to agreement from Parliament, will ensure that our higher education sector and the Office for Students continue to protect academic freedom and freedom of speech while ensuring the safety of minority groups.
I propose implementing key elements of the Act and returning others to Parliament for decisions on their amendment or repeal. I propose shortly commencing the following requirements currently in the Act: the duties on higher education providers to take reasonably practicable steps to secure and promote freedom of speech within the law; the duty on higher education providers to put in place a code of conduct on freedom of speech; and the ban on non-disclosure agreements for staff and students at higher education providers in cases of bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. I also plan to commence the duties on the OfS to promote freedom of speech and the power to give advice and share best practice.
I will retain the director for free speech and academic freedom role, and I am pleased that Dr Ahmed will be staying on. I have complete confidence in Dr Ahmed. However, in my view, it is not right for this position to be a political appointee. The director should, of course, hold a deep belief in free speech and academic freedom, but their independence matters, and therefore their appointment must be free from any suspicion of political bias. Sir David Behan’s review of the OfS, commenced under the previous Government, recommended we reconsider how all OfS executive and board appointments should be made. I will decide on that shortly.
While there is much in the Act that is valuable, there are provisions that I do not believe to be proportionate or necessary, and which will drain resources from providers and distract from the other important issues they face. It is therefore my intention to return to Parliament to seek the repeal of two provisions.
The first is the duties on student unions in the Act. Student unions are neither equipped nor funded to navigate such a complex regulatory environment, and they are already regulated by the Charity Commission. However, I fully expect student unions to protect lawful free speech, whether they agree with the views expressed or not. I also expect HE providers to work closely with them to ensure that that happens and to act decisively to ensure their student unions comply with their free speech code of conduct.
The second provision I will seek to repeal is the tort. I have heard the views in favour of the tort, and understand the arguments being made. However, it would create costly litigation that would risk diverting resources away from students at a time when university finances are already strained. Members can be assured that the remaining routes of redress have plenty of teeth—the Office for Students will have powers to take tough regulatory action where universities and colleges do not meet their duties. Ultimately, an Act needs to be workable for its teeth to bite. How would Conservative Members rather our universities spend their time and resources: by lawyering up, or by focusing on high-quality teaching and groundbreaking research? In fact, the fear of litigation could hurt rather than help free speech, as universities may decide against inviting challenging speakers to avoid ending up in court, and nobody wants that.
I have a message for vice-chancellors who fail to take this seriously: protect free speech on your campuses or face the consequences. For too long, too many universities have been too relaxed about these issues, and too few took them seriously enough—and that must change.
There are other elements of the Act that I am planning to retain, but, with parliamentary agreement, to amend. I propose keeping a complaints scheme in place with the OfS. It is an important route of redress for anyone whose academic freedom or free speech has not been protected, and there must be a route for righting wrongs. However, it must be proportionate: the OfS should have the power to consider complaints, rather than a duty to assess every single complaint it receives, including those that are poorly put together or nonsensical. This way, the OfS will be freed up to prioritise the most serious complaints. I also want to remove the confusing duplication of complaints schemes for students. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator can already consider student complaints on free speech, and will continue to do so. The OfS complaints scheme will focus on complaints from staff, external speakers and university members.
I will also amend the OfS’s mandatory condition of registration to give it flexibility in how it applies this condition to different types of providers. The OfS should have room to determine the best way to regulate on a case-by-case basis. That is the only way to deliver a sensible system that actually works.
Finally, I will take more time to consider implementation of the overseas funding measures. I remain fully committed to tackling cases of interference by overseas Governments, and the wider measures in the Act will further strengthen our protections. However, I want to ensure that any new reporting requirements for providers add value without being overly burdensome. We continue to work at pace with the sector on the wider implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme. My officials are working across Government and with the sector to review our response, and I will confirm my final decision in due course.
I intend to draft a policy paper to set out these proposals in more detail and will return to the House when it is ready. Where I am returning matters to Parliament, I will keep them under review in the meantime.
Our universities are leading lights of learning. They are spaces for vigorous discussion where people of all ages, faiths and backgrounds can come together to debate new ideas. I call on universities to promote a culture of disagreeing well. There is already excellent work going on across the sector, but we must see more.
Let me be clear that students have a duty as well: to embody that spirit of debate that makes our universities great, and not to simply try to cancel any views with which they disagree. This Government will secure freedom of speech in legislation that is practical, proportionate and workable, but legislation alone will never be enough. Freedom of speech is not easy. It is not just a right, but a responsibility. If we want a culture of debate that is robust yet respectful, challenging yet considerate, and strong yet civil, we must all do our part to nurture it. The freedom of speech Act provides a legal framework, but it is up to all of us every day to build a culture of truly free speech. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by Parliament prior to the election. By the end of the Act’s passage through both Houses, the Labour party had agreed in principle with the need for it; indeed, there are positive signals coming from those on the Front Bench today. However, immediately after the election, Government sources said the Act was a Tory “hate speech charter”, and paused its implementation. I ask the Secretary of State: what has changed? Does she still stand by her characterisation of the Act?
It should have been obvious straightaway to anyone with even a basic sympathy for the norms of liberal education that pausing the Act was a mistake. It should have been clear again, when more than 650 academics signed a letter to The Times decrying the decision, that pausing the Act was a mistake, but the Secretary of State still did not budge from her position. It should have been undeniable that the Government had made the wrong choice when, acting together, no less than seven Nobel prize winners and a Fields medallist later added their names to that letter, but still Labour was happy to roll out the old tropes about hate speech. Literary luminaries like Sir Stephen Fry, Tom Holland and Ian McEwan were forced to intervene. Those with natural sympathies for the Secretary of State’s own political positions were compelled to tell her that she was wrong. It is only now, after all that humiliation, that she has finally changed her footing. I pay tribute to the academics who led that fightback outside Parliament.
Much like they have done with academies in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, this Government take a wrecking ball to policy without a thought for the consequences. They are much more interested in virtue signalling than in what is right for the country, more interested in listening to student union advisers than to women hounded out of their jobs. Since the Secretary of State decided to pause the legislation, gender-critical women, among others, have, in the process of vindicating their rights, racked up enormous legal fees that have caused some to remortgage their houses. Professor Jo Phoenix said publicly that if the Act had been enforced, it would have saved her from that very ordeal. Will the Secretary of State now apologise to those who have suffered because of her inaction?
We have upcoming legal action in the judicial review brought by the Free Speech Union against the Government’s decision. Considering that a concern about expense was one of the reasons given by the Government to justify their decision, how much has that litigation cost to defend? What is the financial cost of the Secretary of State’s inaction? How much taxpayer money has been spent on a partisan play-up-to-your-own-gallery move that is about to fall flat of its face in the court? Did the Secretary of State receive legal advice before she made her decision to suspend the Act? Will she release it, so that Members can see the basis on which she acted? If she did not, how can she possibly claim to have acted responsibly in this matter?
Despite the Secretary of State’s statement, we now have confusion about what is actually happening. It seems that the Government cannot even do a much-needed U-turn properly. Without the tort, what consequences will universities face if they do not protect free speech? Why is the Secretary of State unable to set out a clear decision on overseas funding? Why is six months not enough time? Can she spell out the changes the Government are thinking about making to the overseas funding measure? Can she confirm that none of those were discussed during the Chancellor’s recent visit to China? Can she confirm that there were no deals done to amend that section? That is very important. It is extremely poor timing at best and invidious at worst to consider changes to the overseas funding element of the Act so soon after that trip to China.
It was always obvious that the Education Secretary made a mistake in pausing the Act, but rather than commencing a little more of the Act to try to cover up the mistaken delay, she needs to get up and perform the U-turn in full. The Act contains much-needed protections and she must not abolish them just because they came from the Conservative side of the House.
Finally, while we are at it, the Secretary of State should perform a U-turn on academy freedoms too. The Government must not take six months to realise their mistake on that one.
Bridget Phillipson
What we inherited from the previous Government was not a genuine attempt to solve a genuine problem; it was a mess designed to put party ahead of country. We saw a misplaced fascination with headlines for themselves, rather than a serious attempt to safeguard freedom of speech and academic freedom. It is precisely because this Government care about academic freedom and freedom of speech that we are determined to get this right, unlike the Conservative party. We are not content to leave it to vice-chancellors, who have done too little for too long. Universities must be places of robust discussion, where students’ views are challenged and academic freedom is central.
One of my many predecessors in the previous Government, the former Member for Chippenham, was unable to set out how the then Government’s proposals would prevent Holocaust deniers coming on to campus. Let me be clear: Holocaust denial has no place on campus or anywhere else in our society. The legislation would have emboldened Holocaust denial, and showed a shameful disregard for the welfare of Jewish students.
On the legal proceedings the right hon. Lady mentions, she was a member of the previous Government and knows very well that I am unable to comment on any aspect of that.
I said I would consider all options. I have done precisely that and have returned to the House, as I intended, to provide an update. If Conservative Members want to know what a U-turn on free speech looks like, I suggest they turn their attention to Liz Truss, who for so long extolled the virtues of free speech and is now on some bizarre quest to cancel the Prime Minister for saying that she and the Conservative party crashed the economy. Freedom of speech cuts both ways. What a bunch of snowflakes!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for confirming the Government’s approach to the implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023, and I welcome the clarity that she has provided today.
The implementation of the Act will present some challenges for universities and for students. The Secretary of State will know that there can sometimes be a fine line between free speech and hate speech, and between statements of views and opinions and incitement or encouragement to violence or intimidation in the real world. Can she assure the House that she will ensure that universities and students are absolutely clear about the limits to free speech, which are already enshrined in law, and that support will be provided on the interpretation of that when it is needed?
Professor Shitij Kapur, vice-chancellor and president of King’s College London, has said:
“Universities are not there to function as a Speakers’ Corner where anyone can stand up and express an opinion not necessarily supported by facts. If academic freedom is to mean anything, it must be accompanied by the academic obligation for ideas and claims to be accompanied by evidence and reason. Proponents have an obligation to engage and respond to those questioning their assertions and conduct that debate and discourse in a civil manner.”
How will the Secretary of State ensure—particularly as the erosion of fact-checking and moderation on social media is taking place before our very eyes—that the implementation of the Act results in a high quality of evidence-based discourse conducted in a culture of civility?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her questions and her approach, and I look forward to discussing these issues with the Select Committee in due course should its members so wish.
My hon. Friend’s point about disagreement is important. Free speech should be robust and we should be able to express our views, but all of us, especially those in public life, have a duty to ensure that we do so in a way that is responsible. As for the tort—this is at the heart of the issue that she has identified—I was concerned that the potential impact of legal proceedings and the financial consequences for providers of breaching their duties under the Act might have led to some providers unduly prioritising free speech that is hateful or degrading over the interests of those who feel harassed and intimidated. These issues can be finely balanced. We will provide further clarity through the Office for Students, but let me make it clear that academic freedom and freedom of speech are crucial tenets of our country’s history.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
The Liberal Democrats fully support free speech, which, as several Members have pointed out, is at the heart of academic freedom, but it was clear from the start that this piece of legislation was not based on evidence, was not proportionate, and was fundamentally flawed. We welcomed the pausing of its implementation last year, and I welcome now the acknowledgement of its flaws and the Secretary of State’s move to repeal the provisions on the tort and on student unions in particular. I must, however, press her on the fundamental question of why the Act is necessary.
Higher education institutions already operate within a legal framework to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for academic staff, students, employees and visiting speakers, and universities have already taken action to improve their policies and processes relating to freedom of speech. Universities UK, which represents over 140 universities, has reissued and expanded its guidance in this area, as well as having regular discussions with university leaders to support them with these challenges. Would the Secretary of State consider taking a more meaningful step to ensure that students are safe, welcome and protected at universities by giving higher education institutions a statutory duty of care for their students?
The Secretary of State also referred to the well-documented fears of minority groups, particularly those in Jewish communities, that the Act in its previous form would allow a platform for extremist views, and she mentioned Holocaust denial. We had some indication of this in her statement, but will she provide more details of her plans to protect those from minority groups and communities on our university campuses?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising those questions. I will start where we agree, and then move on to where I might disagree with him.
I agree that freedom of speech and academic freedom are essential, but, sadly, we have seen too many examples of their not being upheld in the way that they should be by universities. The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) raised a number of cases in which we have seen unacceptable practice, and some individuals have had to seek recourse through employment law when it should have been possible for them to seek redress sooner. That is precisely what we are seeking to deal with in ensuring that the Office for Students is able to focus on the most serious cases without being caught up in complex cases that could be less well founded or even nonsensical.
I want to be clear that we have engaged with people with a range of views on these topics, including those who hold gender-critical views, those who were in favour of the legislation and those who had concerns. That careful process of engagement with the sector, stakeholders and people with a range of views has enabled me to come to the House today and set out our approach.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Mark Sewards, a member of the Education Committee.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. It is good to see that our universities will no longer be a battleground in which political parties seek to make headlines—unsuccessfully, I might add. Does she agree that now that she has taken decisive action on this issue, it is time to talk about the financial situation facing many of our universities, which threatens their very existence? We know that students are paying far more for far less at university, and we need to end that ridiculous cycle.
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend that, across the board, there are big challenges in the university sector. That is why I took the difficult but necessary decision last year to increase the fees that they are able to charge. This year, we will engage in reform right across the sector to provide the long-term financial sustainability that is required. As my hon. Friend recognises, we on the Government Benches are clear that our universities are a central part of our local and regional economies, and a beacon of excellence around the world. That is why so many students from around the globe seek to come to our world-leading universities.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Dr Caroline Johnson, a member of the Education Committee.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I respect the Secretary of State’s wish to ensure that she has considered the Act thoroughly. I regret that it has taken her so long to come to the conclusion that free speech is important, but I am glad that she has decided to bring into force many of the measures in the Act, which was introduced by the Conservatives. However, she has chosen to exclude student unions from the legislation. Can she say a bit more about how they will be held to account if they fail to keep in line with her desire to promote free speech?
Bridget Phillipson
On the timescale, this is a complex area, but in a little over six months we have consulted a wide range of stakeholders and considered all views, which is why I am able to return to the House today to update Members. The hon. Lady is right to say that we have decided not to commence provisions that will impose new duties on student unions. That is because some smaller providers have only a handful of members and do not have the resource or funding necessary to handle such claims, and they are already regulated by the Charity Commission. However, we fully expect student unions to protect freedom of speech, and providers to ensure that their student unions do so as well.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
I welcome the careful and considered approach that the Secretary of State has taken to this issue; it stands in stark contrast to when the Act was first brought forward. I refer the shadow Secretary of State, and indeed the House, to my comments in Hansard on 13 May 2021, when the previous Secretary of State explicitly confirmed on Radio 4 that Holocaust denial would be protected speech. In that vein, does my right hon. Friend share the concern of groups such as the Union of Jewish Students and the Antisemitism Policy Trust that the draft guidelines produced by the Office for Students risked undermining existing good practice in tackling antisemitism? Will she give an assurance that the OfS will meet Jewish representative organisations to ensure that such mistakes cannot be repeated?
Bridget Phillipson
I am confident that the OfS, as the regulator, and its director for freedom of speech will seek to engage with a range of views, including those of Jewish students and community organisations, as they take forward this important work. That is certainly something that I have done to understand the concerns and the potential impact on minority students, including Jewish students, at a time when we all sadly know that antisemitism on our campuses and streets has been rising. As a country, we must do everything in our power to tackle that.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
This screeching U-turn is welcome and I hope that, as the shadow Secretary of State says, it heralds a new period of humility and further change by the Government. The Secretary of State said that universities must protect free speech or “face the consequences”, but as far as I can see, she has removed those consequences. Could she please lay them out for us?
Bridget Phillipson
I know that the right hon. Gentleman is probably used to his party engaging in these discussions on quite difficult and sensitive issues in a rather reckless and irresponsible way, but we on these Benches take our time to do this seriously and properly to make sure that we get it right, because this is such an important area. He will have heard from my speech—I will set out further detail—the requirements that will be in place through registration conditions, the fact that the Office for Students will be able to impose penalties on institutions, and the requirements that we expect of all higher education providers. My message to vice-chancellors and institutions today is that they need to do more, and they need to do it better.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Select Committee member Darren Paffey.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her statement and for the measured, practical and common-sense approach that it takes, which is in sharp contrast to what we are hearing on the Opposition Benches at the moment. Although we will always defend their right to their opinions, a right to their own facts is rather regrettable and their revisionism is quite astounding. I know at first hand the value of a university education. It is about having our views challenged. It is about critical thinking based on evidence and facts and having our horizons opened. Does the Minister agree that this foundation and the measures announced today are the right way to secure academic freedom in the future?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend, through his background in higher education, knows all too well how essential it is that young people and students from a range of different backgrounds are exposed to views that they might not previously have heard or that they might find difficult or challenging. That is what a university education is all about, and that is what we are determined to secure and protect through the statement that I am making today.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Gavin Williamson (Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to the House and setting out the revised position of the Government. I am particularly concerned about the removal of the tort, because it effectively removes the real consequences for people who disregard free speech and the consequences that could be imposed on an institution or organisation. If that is going to be the case, can she set out to the House what resources will be dedicated to the director of free speech? Let us hope this is not just a one-person fig leaf. How many people are going to be working for them? What resource will there be to ensure that free speech is protected?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the former Secretary of State for his question. He will appreciate that this will be an independent regulator, and that there is a limit to what I can set out on their behalf. On the key issue of the tort, there will be consequences, even following the removal of the tort, for those providers who do not fulfil their duties under the Act. The OfS can already regulate providers in relation to free speech. It will be able to take regulatory action where there are breaches of the duties under the Act, including monetary penalties if needed, and the complaints scheme will enable the OfS to make recommendations to providers that they will be expected to follow. Existing routes of redress through judicial reviews and employment tribunals will remain open, but we want the OfS to focus on making sure that there is a system in place that is workable so that complaints can be dealt with swiftly.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for this statement. I think freedom of speech is really important, but it should be done in an environment of shared respect, as it is most of the time in this place. I welcome this pragmatic approach to the process. Will she confirm that the previous unworkable legislation would have added additional financial stress to institutions?
Bridget Phillipson
It is important that any legislation in this area is fair, proportionate and workable, and that is what we have sought to achieve through the wider engagement and consultation that has taken place since July, when I paused commencement. It is vital that we get it right. It is incredibly important, and today we have given clarity to the sector around expectations into the future.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I welcome the words from the Secretary of State around freedom of speech today—she knows that I have asked about this in the House previously—and I also welcome the partial U-turn. Will she join me, though, in thanking the academics who have really put pressure on the Government to get to this position, and also the work of the Free Speech Union? Will she encourage all academic institutions to sign up to the Chicago principles? Can she give us a brief timeline on when the foreign influence registration scheme could come forward?
Finally, I will be setting up the all-party parliamentary group on freedom of speech in the coming weeks. Will the Secretary of State agree to come along and speak to us about this at some point?
Bridget Phillipson
I am afraid I did not quite catch the very last part of the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, but I will happily look in Hansard and return to him on that point.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I think he just wants to hear a yes to attending a meeting.
Bridget Phillipson
I am afraid I am not going to do that without having reviewed exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I know him quite well. The Department for Education and the Home Office are looking jointly at some of these areas, and I want to be clear that national security is our No. 1 priority as a Government. I am grateful to all those who have engaged in good faith with the Department in this conversation. They hold a wide range of views: there are those who are for the Act and those who are against, as well as those with views somewhere in the middle and those with some new ones. I am grateful for their contributions to this discussion. I hope they can all see that we have taken this seriously and that we now have a workable plan to ensure that freedom of speech and academic freedom in our institutions are protected into the future.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
Frank Field was a very good friend of mine. He believed deeply in seeking out disagreement with other people for a richer conversation, and in the importance of listening in good faith to arguments made in good faith. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should see that spirit across university campuses? How will her measures ensure that that is a reality?
Bridget Phillipson
I think we can all learn from Frank Field, who brought wisdom to a range of areas. We can all reflect on the need to keep our views under constant review to ensure that we challenge ourselves. The chance to be educated, whether at school, college or university, is a crucial part of challenging ourselves and understanding the world in all its many forms. These measures will allow university students to have precisely that experience.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I particularly welcome the emphasis on reducing burdens for universities, which will mean a lot to smaller institutions such as the smaller research-intensive institutions like Reading University in my constituency. Will she commit the Department to continuing to work with smaller research-intensive institutions?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes. One of the many brilliant aspects of our country’s higher education sector is its diversity—smaller institutions, larger ones and those that bring a wealth of difference, having evolved and changed in different ways. We will continue to listen to and work with providers and institutions of all shapes and sizes across our country.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the shadow Secretary of State on the sheer audacity of coming to this place and pretending that hers is the party of free speech. It was her party that introduced the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014, the single largest restriction on free speech in the charity and voluntary sector, purely because the sector was saying things the then Government did not want to hear.
I encourage the Secretary of State to ignore the whines and the whinges, the gripes and the groans, of the Conservative party and carry on with what she is doing, because she is absolutely right. Universities are where people can challenge new ideas and hear things with which they may disagree. What advice is she giving to universities about the support they put in place so that students can explore these new ideas and have their own views challenged in a way that is safe and secure?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that freedom of speech cuts both ways, and Conservative Members would sometimes do well to reflect on that, too.
Sometimes, students can be exposed to views they find challenging or difficult, especially younger students who are newly away from home, and it is right that we put in place the right support. Institutions have invested a lot in mental health support and other provision. I think this also underlines the need to turn around the provision in the national health service, because I am concerned about the extent to which providers are having to put in place additional support, above and beyond what should be a statutory requirement for every person in our country.
Joani Reid (East Kilbride and Strathaven) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and I particularly welcome the funding for tackling antisemitism on campus, which is a well-documented problem. When the original guidance on the Act was published, it took an approach to free speech that did not take account of the limitations on freedom of expression for minority groups that arise from hate speech.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism, I am particularly concerned about the risk of giving that hate implicit protection and amplification on campuses. Can the Secretary of State assure me and minority community representatives who have raised this issue with us that any future guidance will more carefully outline the importance of expression for all, including minority groups that are sometimes crowded out by loud, hateful voices?
Bridget Phillipson
I will ensure that my hon. Friend’s point is taken up. Many have raised very serious concerns about antisemitism on campus and its impact on Jewish students, and I can see no good reason why any university would invite a Holocaust denier on to campus to deny the overwhelming evidence. Holocaust denial is an appalling form of antisemitism.
Yesterday, I joined the Holocaust Educational Trust in Parliament to make sure that, as we come to the 80th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau, we redouble our efforts to fight hatred and prejudice, including antisemitism, wherever we find it in our country.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I declare an interest, not only as someone who has worked in the sector, but as a member of the freedom of expression organisation English PEN, which condemned the approach of the previous Government because it felt it would restrict academic freedom. Further, my constituent, who is a well-regarded economist, lost his job after publishing research into the impact of migration on coalfield communities. Will the Secretary of State assure my constituent that this Government are committed to academic freedom and to ensuring the stability of academic institutions?
Bridget Phillipson
I give my hon. Friend that assurance. That is also why, as one of the measures that I intend to return to, we must look again at the board and executive appointments to the Office for Students. It is right that concerns have been raised that there could be the suspicion of political interference given that, rather unusually for that kind of appointment, it involves a political appointee. People might regard that as fine if they agree with the views of the Government of the day, but I do not think that is a good principle on which we enshrine in law very important positions that are central to how we uphold academic freedom and freedom of speech in this country.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and particularly in regard to the removal of the tort from the existing legislation. That will allow our universities to ensure that funds get spent on students and not on complex legal issues.
As the Secretary of State has said repeatedly today, the Government take the need to expose students to a wide range of issues seriously. As a former academic, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she agrees with me that our universities must remain centres of robust, rigorous debate always?
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, that is crucial. We know that the chance to study at university is life changing for so many students. That is of course the case for younger students—those who have what might be considered the more traditional experience of going to university at 18—but it is also about having the chance throughout life to return to education and training. That is what I have seen across so many institutions in our country. They put in place fantastic opportunities for upskilling and retraining later on in life, as people think again about how they want to go about things. I praise those institutions’ fantastic work in driving growth and innovation, and in the months to come, we will work with them to ensure they can do more.
Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)
May I invite the Secretary of State to respond to the following statement that was shared by the Union of Jewish Students while she was on her feet?
“We support the changes brought forward by the Secretary of State. She has listened to the concerns we and others raised and has taken action. The result is that the Act will now be less likely to damage efforts to tackle anti-Jewish racism on campus. That should be welcomed by everyone.”
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing those comments. I pay tribute to the Union of Jewish Students for the amazing work it does every day to support Jewish students on campus and to ensure that their voices are heard, including at the highest levels of Government. I give my commitment to UJS that I will continue to work with it and other student groups to make sure their voice is always heard. We as a Government are resolutely behind them in the fight against antisemitism in our country.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
As someone who was an academic until about 5 am on 5 July last year, I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for the leadership she has shown on this issue. I will ask a question in the context of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I am proud of all the universities in Edinburgh and how they attract students from all over the world, but last year when I visited the Edinburgh Hebrew Congregation, which is the main synagogue in Edinburgh, I was ashamed to hear of the intimidation that Jewish students were facing in university. I was pleased to hear that universities are taking that seriously and I know that the Edinburgh faith forum is too. Freedom of speech is an important right, but that should never extend to bigotry and hate. Does the Secretary of State agree that students should be free to practise their faith, always, and able to display their faith publicly, no matter what it is, without fear of intimidation?
Bridget Phillipson
That is absolutely essential. The same is true for Jewish students and others from minority groups as they go about their business at school and college. Sadly, I have heard too many examples of abuse and intimidation of the sort that my hon. Friend describes. Universities must be robust places of intellectual challenge and rigour; there is no good reason why students should feel intimidated or harassed in a place where they should find comfort, challenge and support.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
In the week in which we return to this House and our children return to school, I am proud to be the Secretary of State for Education in a truly child-centred Government. The actions I take and the decisions I make are always in pursuit of what is best for the children of this country, and that starts with keeping them safe. After little more than six months in power, we are delivering the change that is many years overdue. No more lessons learned, no more paper pushing and no more foot dragging: it is time for Government to act, and this Government will act with the urgency that our children deserve and our country demands.
This Bill puts forward bold new measures to keep children safe. These include a new legal obligation for safeguarding partners to work hand in hand with education, because it is often teachers who first see the signs of abuse and neglect; a new duty to establish multi-agency child protection teams, because keeping children safe is everyone’s business; a new power to put in place a unique identifier for children, sharing information so that no child falls through the cracks; a new compulsory register of children not in school in every area of England, because if children are not in school, we need to know where they are; and a new requirement for local authority consent for parents to home-educate their children if they are on a child protection plan or subject to child protection inquiries. I respect parents’ rights to make choices about their child’s education, but children’s safety must always come first, and under this Government, their safety will always come first.
Let us be crystal clear: a vote against this Bill today is a vote against the safety of our children, against their childhoods and against their futures. Today, Conservative MPs have a choice: they can choose to back measures to protect children, or they can choose to chase headlines. They can choose to transform the lives of the most vulnerable young people in this country, or they can choose to sacrifice their safety for political gain. They can choose to show the public that they have finally learned the lessons of their resounding election defeat, or they can show voters that they are still unfit to govern. I want to be very clear that the conduct of politicians, be they on the Conservative Benches or anywhere else, who put the pursuit of headlines today above the safety of children tomorrow is sickening and shameful. A previous generation of Conservative politicians would not have had the slightest hesitation in saying that the conduct of today’s Opposition in seeking to block this Bill is quite simply beneath contempt.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
The Secretary of State has mentioned previous generations of politicians, and all of us in this House must recognise that we follow in the footsteps of giants. Tony Blair, Lord Adonis and others created the academy system that was built on under the last Conservative Government and brought about a transformation of English education. Why does the Secretary of State want to dismantle decades of work by Members across this House and bring about a gross socialist uniformity that will destroy the progress that has been made?
Bridget Phillipson
That is simply a mischaracterisation, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. I will come on to the wider schools measures in this Bill later in my speech, but I note that he had nothing to say in his intervention about the safety of children and the measures we are discussing today. The wrecking amendment that the Leader of the Opposition has tabled would block the very important, very serious measures that the Conservatives have been telling us for days they want to see put in place. If they want those measures, they need to support them.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) mentioned uniformity, but the only uniform measures I can see in the Bill are about saving parents money on uniform bills, which I think we can all welcome. Does the Secretary of State agree that the fragmentation of the school system created by the last Government led to many young people falling through the gaps, which is a huge issue?
Bridget Phillipson
I will come on to the wider point of collaboration later in my speech. Collaboration across the school system is crucial, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the really important measures in the Bill that will put more money back in parents’ pockets by cutting the cost of school uniforms and bringing in breakfast clubs in primary schools across our country.
This is child-centred legislation through and through—legislation that backs parents to do the best for their children. This Government are on a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity, driven forward by the plan for change unveiled by the Prime Minister in December. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a huge step forward in that journey of reform, starting with child safety and building from there. It is an agenda for excellence—for safe and secure childhoods, because healthy and happy futures are built on nothing less. It is an agenda for excellence—for high and rising standards, because we will accept nothing less. It is an agenda for excellence—for a top-quality core offer in all of our schools, because parents demand nothing less. It is an agenda for excellence, because every child in this country deserves nothing less. That is what mission-led government is all about: child-centred action across Departments, between professions and through partnership.
What matters about families is not the shape that they have, but the love they give. That is why, back in October, we announced the expansion of our work on fostering and on the trialling of a new kinship care allowance. It is why, in November, I came to this House to set out the biggest reform of children’s social care in a generation. It is why this Government then backed those changes with almost £300 million of investment, including the biggest ever investment in kinship care. It is why today I return to this House to cement our reforms in legislation, and to build a children’s social care system that is forward-looking, excellence-driven and child-centred.
Our first priority is to keep children with their family wherever it is safe to do so, so the Bill mandates all local authorities to offer family group decision making. With the guidance of skilled professionals, families with children at risk of falling into care will be supported to build a plan that works for them. We are strengthening support for kinship care, so that vulnerable children can live with the people they know and trust, wherever that is possible.
However, despite the best efforts of all involved, some children will inevitably need to enter care, so we must reform the system so that it works for them. I know that Members right across this House share my outrage at the excessive and exploitative profit making that we have seen from some private providers. It is shameful, it is unacceptable, and it will end.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I know that my right hon. Friend has a good head for numbers. Will she be doing some evaluation of the cost and benefits of investing in kinship care, so that we can reduce not just the cost to the child, but the cost to the taxpayer of expensive child social care?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my time with her on the Public Accounts Committee, I learned all too well the importance of those principles. The previous Government had work under way on understanding not just the benefits for children of staying close to those who can care for them best, but the spiralling costs and the need to take action. However, what we did not see from that Government was action, and that is why we are today making sure that we deliver better for our children.
This Bill gives the Government, through the Secretary of State, the power to introduce a profit cap. Providers should take note: we will not hesitate to use this power to protect our most vulnerable children. Children must always have somewhere to live if private providers unexpectedly collapse. That is why this Bill introduces a new financial oversight scheme to increase transparency and strengthen forward planning. Children need support when they leave care, too, so the Bill will require all local authorities to offer care leavers emotional and practical support through the Staying Close programme—support in finding a great place to live, support in accessing the right services at the right time, and support in going on to live a healthy, happy life.
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill provides the safe and secure foundation that all children need, and it builds on that foundation with urgent reform to all our schools, so that every child can achieve and thrive. That means schools being at the beating heart of their communities. That is why this Bill legislates for free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school, so that children get a welcoming, softer start to the day. It means schools where children come together to eat, learn and grow. It is good for attendance, good for attainment and good for behaviour.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
Before my election, I spent nearly 20 years as a secondary school teacher, seeing at first hand the devastating effects of food poverty on children’s health, concentration and academic performance. I welcome the introduction of free breakfast clubs in primary schools, which will improve child health and learning outcomes in England, as seen in Wales. However, I urge further action to ensure that all children can thrive. Will the Government consider extending free breakfasts to secondary school students, and will consideration be given to access to free school lunches as well?
Bridget Phillipson
We will of course always keep further action under review. Through the child poverty taskforce, which I co-chair the Work and Pensions Secretary, we are considering what further action is required to make sure that families have more money in their pockets and can increase their income, and will take action. The growing number of children we have seen in poverty in our country is a source of national shame, and Conservative Members are responsible for that record.
School uniform is important for building a sense of community, but too many families tell us that the cost remains a heavy burden, so our Bill limits the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have, putting money back in parents’ pockets.
I want children in school and ready to learn, and that is why the Government’s plan for change sets a milestone for record numbers of five-year-olds reaching a good level of development. That is vital for giving every child the best start in life, but that is just the beginning, because I want high and rising standards for every child in every school. That is one of the surest ways that we can break the link between background and success for millions of children. That matters for every child, not just a lucky few. Life should not come down to luck. When Governments forget that, it is not the children of Conservative Members who lose out; it is working-class kids across our country. I know that better than most, and I will take no lectures from the Conservative party on what it takes to deliver better life chances for working-class kids.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Reported figures for 2022 and 2023 show an increase in the proportion of children living in low-income families, and no change in the proportion of children living in absolute low-income families. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Bill will improve the household finances of families and the life chances of children in my constituency of Wolverhampton West?
Bridget Phillipson
Absolutely. The Bill will put hundreds of pounds back into family finances and back into parents’ pockets by cutting the cost of school uniform, and by introducing breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school. However, we recognise that there is so much more we need to do, because child poverty scars the life chances of far too many in our country.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
Could the Secretary of State comment on the falling rolls in some parts of this country, particularly London? Most local authorities unfortunately take the option of closing schools, which is very damaging to children and to local communities. Clause 50 appears to give her some powers of intervention, so we could perhaps instead downsize such schools, which would mean we kept the sense of them being community schools. That is so important, particularly in the poorest parts of many London boroughs. Can she give us some hope that there will be intervention, so that we keep community schools?
Bridget Phillipson
A number of provisions in the Bill deal precisely with that challenge. We recognise that in London—but shortly this will be the case right across our country—there are challenges that come with falling rolls and making sure that we manage that properly. That will require schools to work with local councils, and to collaborate on managing admissions and place planning. It will also require decisions on how we make best use of the schools estate. That is why we have started encouraging primary schools to bid to open primary-based nurseries. The recent pilot programme for that has closed, and we were delighted to see so many applications. There is also an opportunity to think about using the space that will open up as a result of falling rolls to create additional provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so that they can go to a school much closer to home, and can go to school with their friends, in their local community.
There has been welcome consensus that a high-quality state education should be the right of all children. That consensus has helped to ensure that innovations—from Ofsted to the national curriculum and academies—have stood the test of time, as Governments of all parties have driven reform. Academies, introduced by the last Labour Government and expanded by the Conservative party, have been instrumental in raising standards in our school system. They have delivered brilliant results, particularly for the most disadvantaged children, and they will continue their record of excellence under this Labour Government. However, this consensus must not stifle progress. While the Conservative party did make some progress over the past 14 years, it must reckon with its many failures. For example, one in four children leaves primary school without meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths. Tens of thousands of children do not secure good maths or English GCSEs. One in five children is regularly absent from school; they are unable to learn if they are not there, and hold back their classmates when they return. There are also hundreds of thousands of children in schools that perform poorly year after year.
Protecting the foundations should not mean that we do not build on them. After a decade of stagnation—I say a decade because Conservative Members will remember a time when they had an Education Secretary who was determined to deliver reform—now is the time to press on and, once again, deliver for our children. Members will see in the Bill a respect for the fundamentals, twinned with the drive to go further and deliver high and rising standards for each and every child. We inherited a system that was too fragmented, and that too often incentivised harmful competition over helpful collaboration.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The Secretary of State gives a lot of important statistics about how our children are developing, but their mental health and wellbeing is also important. Will she consider a national wellbeing measurement, so we can look at improving the wellbeing of our children?
Bridget Phillipson
I welcome the hon. Lady’s interest in this area, because I share her concern about the growing number of children in our country who are deeply unhappy, and the growing challenge of mental ill health and ensuring wellbeing. Far too many children do not receive access to timely support, and we are looking carefully at the issue that she identifies.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
On children’s welfare and making sure that children start the school day in the best position to learn, I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward plans for breakfast clubs, so that children are ready to learn, not only because they have had a good meal, but because they are eased into the school day. Does she agree that that will help young children, and particularly kids with special educational needs, to learn?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have been led by the evidence on this, which is clear: this measure provides real support to parents at the start of the school day, but also delivers benefits for children’s learning, development, academic outcomes and behaviour. I am delighted that in April we will start rolling out the first pilot across schools, including schools serving children with special educational needs and disabilities, demonstrating the difference that this Labour Government will make to children’s life chances.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
I am sure that all Members of the House share the right hon. Lady’s objective of ensuring that children get the best education and have the best educational outcomes possible, but why is she dismantling the infrastructure that has delivered improvements? We have specialist schools, schools able to attract the best teachers, and schools able to tailor their curriculum to their pupils. Why does she want to dismantle that, if she wants to improve educational standards?
Bridget Phillipson
That is just not the case. I invite him to read the Bill, and I will come on to further measures that we are proposing.
If we believe that every child deserves the best, that every classroom deserves a top teacher, and that every state school must be a great school, we cannot have excellence for some children and “just fine” or “okay” for the rest. We need all schools, working together, to deliver a national, high-quality core offer for all children, and to have the flexibility to innovate beyond that, so that parents know that wherever they live and whatever their local school, this Government are their child’s greatest champion. The best schools and trusts do incredible work, day in, day out, and I pay tribute to them. They are engines of innovation and civic leaders, and collaboration and improvement are central to their success. They prove that excellence already exists in the system, and it is time to spread it to all schools.
That does not mean no competition. Competition can be healthy and a spur to excellence, but competition that encourages schools to hoard best practice or to export problems to others must be replaced by collaboration, and by schools working together to solve problems and put children first. I do not just mean collaboration within trusts. True collaboration also looks outward, so that there are schools driven by a shared purpose embedded in communities. Our vision twins that deep collaboration with healthy competition, so that every child in every school can benefit from best practice.
The Bill brings reform. It demands high and rising standards across the board. We will restore the principle established by the noble Lord Baker, which is that every child will benefit from the same core national curriculum, following the curriculum and assessment review. The national curriculum was a Conservative achievement—I benefited from it—and this Labour Government will bring that legacy back for every child, giving every parent the confidence in standards that they deserve. Every child will be taught by an excellent, qualified teacher who has undertaken statutory induction. That will be supported by giving every school the flexibility to create attractive pay and condition offers to recruit and retain excellent teachers, and by backing those schools already doing that to keep it going.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
I agree, as would all Members, that we want excellent standards for all schools. One idea that the Conservative Government had was that if a school was failing, new management would go in to increase standards, yet the Secretary of State wants to dismantle that. I would call that vandalism of our education system.
Bridget Phillipson
No; I invite the right hon. Lady to look carefully at the measures in the Bill. We will not hesitate to intervene in failing schools—indeed, we will intervene a lot sooner than the Conservatives did in schools that are coasting. Those schools that fall short of the statutory level of intervention will see regional improvement teams in their schools driving up standards.
Where there is failure in the system, or where schools are not delivering the standards that every child deserves, we will act. That action will always be guided by what is best for the children in those schools. That may well be academisation, or it may be targeted intervention to drive change in practice and drive up standards, rather than to change the structure. The Bill will convert the duty to issue academy orders into the power to better deliver high and rising standards for all children, strengthening the range of ways through which failure can be tackled. There can be no excuse for fixating on structures and not on standards, because what matters is what works.
The Bill ends the presumption that new schools should be academies, giving local authorities the freedom to deliver the schools that their communities need. That includes the ability to open new special schools—something that Members across the House know is a major challenge. This Government will work tirelessly to make sure that all children with special educational needs and disabilities receive the support they need to achieve and thrive. The previous Government left that in the “too difficult” box, but we will tackle it and ensure that all our children get a great education.
Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)
The Secretary of State mentions special schools, and Members across the Chamber will have postbags filled with letters about far too many children who are not getting the support they need with their mental health, whether at special schools or otherwise. Will she consider putting a mental health professional in all our schools, including special schools, so that our children’s wellbeing can be improved, including their mental health?
Bridget Phillipson
I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the mental health challenges that many of our young people are experiencing, and we are committed to rolling out mental health support right across our schools. On the wider challenge of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, I wish to make clear to the House that the reform we must engage in, and the change required, is complex and will take time. I invite Members across the House—the Liberal Democrats and others—to work with us on the change that is required to get this right, because for far too long children with special educational needs and disabilities have been failed by this system. Parents have lost trust and confidence in it, and it is bankrupting local councils.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend has spoken about academies and various other forms of schools. Will she confirm that nothing in the Bill would result in a teacher in any school getting a pay cut?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend brings a wealth of experience as a teacher to the House. I know that teachers will want to hear what this will mean for their pay, so I reiterate that the measures in the Bill and the changes that we will bring forward to the schoolteachers’ pay and condition documents in the following remit will not cut teachers’ pay.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Secretary of State has spoken about her focus on standards. The free schools programme has driven up standards across the country, so why was one of her first actions to threaten 44 free school projects developed by parents, pupils and communities? Will she lift the veil of uncertainty over them?
Bridget Phillipson
We are looking carefully at all the schools in the pipeline, but we need to ensure that in every case there is a strong case for the need for the school and good value for the taxpayer. We have inherited an enormous challenge when it comes to the public finances, and we have had to make difficult decisions because of the £22 billion black hole that the hon. Member and his party left behind. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who is chuntering away, was in Cabinet as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and responsible for overseeing all of that.
Returning to support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, we will improve inclusivity in mainstream schools while ensuring that specialist provision can cater for those with the most complex needs.
The changes that the Bill brings are underpinned by our wider reforms to drive improvement. New school report cards will give a full picture of a school’s performance. New RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—teams will draw on the excellence in our system and bring schools together to spread good practice and challenge underperformance. Accountability and inspection should be a galvanising force for improvement and a catalyst for quality, raising the floor of success, not lowering the ceiling of ambition. It should not drag schools down but lift children up. It is about them—it is always about them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s speech, and not least for the opportunity to raise standards for children with disability, children experiencing anxiety and children who have got care experience. Will she look at the role that local authorities can play in building collaboration and ensure that they have the funding they need? The last Government hollowed them out, yet they have a crucial role in raising standards and supporting schools.
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to ensure that local authorities are working with schools, health services and other partners in their areas. Through the last Budget, we were able to deliver additional investment for our local councils. We want to see a much greater focus and priority on early help and early support and prevention, because we know that that is where we can make the biggest difference to children’s lives.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Will the Secretary of State give way?
Richard Tice
I was chair of governors of the 15th academy, and in 2008 I welcomed Sir Tony Blair to that academy in Northampton to show him the benefits of the freedoms for governors to act with regard to the national curriculum, with regard to pay and conditions, and with regard to innovation. I think that Sir Tony Blair and Lord Adonis will be horrified by these changes, which will restrict the freedoms to innovate and to improve. It is a great shame.
Bridget Phillipson
That is a total misunderstanding of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to speak for others in this regard. We are restoring academies to their core intended purpose of driving up standards for the most disadvantaged children in our country, with innovation spread wherever we can do that.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
I really welcome the measures in the Bill to ensure that the many children being home-schooled have all the support they need to get back into mainstream education. I was extremely concerned to find out that in the last academic year, 800 children in Hastings were being home-schooled—that is one in 16 children, or 27 classrooms of children. While there will be parents providing a good-quality education at home, I know from speaking to teachers and to local shops who see these children in their establishments that some are not necessarily getting a good education. We need to get those children back into school.
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend. I recognise the challenge that she faces in her constituency and that we see right across our country. We have seen a big increase in the number of children being home-educated. While I respect the right of parents to make that choice—there is a complex range of reasons why many parents are now making that decision, and there are questions about how we support our children with their mental health and wider challenges on the SEND system—let me be absolutely clear to the House that all children not in school, when they are being home-educated, must have a good level of education. We cannot allow the situation to continue where we do not have visibility of where children are and they slip between the cracks. We will ensure through the Bill that when a child protection investigation is under way or there is a child protection plan, local authorities will be able to decline that request from parents, because we all sadly know what can go terribly wrong when we fail to step in and protect children.
Bridget Phillipson
I am afraid that I am concluding now.
We are bringing together the system’s many parts into a collaborative, coherent whole with children at its heart. Our ambition to support children does not stop here. We expect to bring forward further legislation when parliamentary time allows. Our work to erase the stain of child poverty must and will continue through the child poverty taskforce, which I am proud to co-chair with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
Reducing the burden on schools, freeing teachers to teach and children to learn—today is about action. When colleagues from across the House read the Bill in all its detail, they will find running through its 60 clauses one golden thread, one common theme, one objective, one common cause. It is not structures or ideology, and they will find no pet projects or stale dogma. They will see that our focus is firmly on children: their life chances are the aim, their protection is the objective and their success is our common cause. This Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is written for them. It is introduced to the House for them. It will be implemented for them—for their safety, for their schooling and for their futures. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Education
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(2 months ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
Universities are responsible for managing their own finances and must act to remain sustainable, but Members across the House will agree that it is no use keeping tuition fees down for future students if the universities are not there for them to attend, nor if students cannot afford to support themselves while they study. I therefore confirm that we will boost support for students with living costs by increasing maximum maintenance loans in line with inflation, giving them an additional £414 a year in ’25-26.
[Official Report, 4 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 48.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson):
Bridget Phillipson
Universities are responsible for managing their own finances and must act to remain sustainable, but Members across the House will agree that it is no use keeping tuition fees down for future students if the universities are not there for them to attend, nor if students cannot afford to support themselves while they study. I therefore confirm that we will boost support for students with living costs by increasing maximum maintenance loans in line with inflation, giving them up to an additional £414 a year in ’25-26.
Children’s Social Care
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the Government’s plans for children’s social care.
I know all Members here today will agree that caring for vulnerable children is among the most vital responsibilities of any Government. This Government treat no issue with more importance than the urgent challenge of improving children’s social care. This is a new era of child-centred government, of putting children first. That is how we achieve our opportunity mission, how we break the unfair link between background and success, and how we support families to achieve and thrive.
Our mission applies to all children, especially the most vulnerable, those for whom childhood is a storm of instability, neglect and even violence—denied the foundation of love that is the first right of any child. Children’s social care alone cannot right all those wrongs. We need a joined-up approach, across Government and beyond. That is why mission-led government is so important. But done well, children’s social care empowers families to support their children, putting them back on the path to happy, healthy lives.
It is with great concern that I come here today to tell Members what they must already know: the system that the Government have inherited from Opposition Members is broken and failing far too many children. It is kept alive by the efforts of our amazing workforce. I want to thank all those working so hard to keep children safe, but children’s social care is struggling under an impossible weight.
We have more children in care in this country than ever before. With more and more money following children into the most expensive part of the system, resources are sucked out of preventive services, pushing yet more young people into care. And so the vicious cycle continues: higher costs but poorer outcomes. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) rightly identified that cycle in his review over two years ago: a broken market for care, vulnerable to the shameful profiteering of too many private companies. Local government spending on children’s social care has risen by £4.4 billion over the last decade. What do we have to show for it? A system too busy treating symptoms to tackle causes, a system that costs more for taxpayers but delivers less for families, and a system that is failing our children and which is crying out for change.
Today, the Labour Government begin that change: ambitious, wide-ranging reform to lift the life chances of our most vulnerable children. I am pleased to announce the publication of a policy statement that puts children’s social care back in the service of children and families, breaking the cycle of crisis intervention. This is the biggest reform of children’s social care in a generation. It starts with the acknowledgement that, wherever possible, children should remain with their families. That is where children belong. It is on that foundation of family love that children can live happy lives. That is why early intervention, tackling problems before they escalate, holds the key to brighter futures for our children. We will simplify the way we fund local government next year, consolidating more than £400 million of children’s social care funding within the local government finance settlement. With immediate effect, we will suspend the payment by results aspect of the supporting families funding. We will renew the way we work with the sector, co-designing services together to meet the needs of children and families in their communities.
The Deputy Prime Minister and I are ambitious about reforming how we work with children and families, from when they encounter challenges right through to building solutions. We will set out funding plans for children’s social care, and future investment in preventive services, in the upcoming local government finance settlement.
All families face challenges at one time or another. I want to help them to come up with their own solutions, wherever possible, so we will legislate to embed family group decision-making as an offer all families can access. Early targeted support minimises more costly and disruptive intervention later, so it is much better value for taxpayers. But ultimately, that is not the point. The most important point is that it is better for children’s lives now and in the future, building that bedrock of family love and support that we all need.
We know that we must also have strong child protection measures in place, so today I am setting out plans to require every council to have multi-agency child safeguarding teams, consulting schools and teachers to stop children falling through the cracks. Sometimes, despite the best efforts of all involved, children cannot remain at home, and our priority then is to support them to live with kinship carers or in fostering families, connected to extended family in a stable home. That is why I was not just pleased but deeply proud when the Government announced the largest ever national investment in kinship care at last month’s Budget—an investment in the futures of vulnerable children. That money will trial a new kinship allowance to help family members and friends to care for vulnerable children. We will also extend the “virtual school head” programme, placing it on a statutory footing and championing the education of children in kinship care.
Even with these changes, however, there will remain instances in which children must enter the care system, so it is vital that we fix the broken care market. We know that the quality and safety of children’s homes in England is simply not good enough. Year after year, the previous Government sat on their hands while children were let down— their life chances wrecked, their hopes dashed, and their dignity ignored. I know that many Opposition Members shared the disappointment I felt as Ministers in that Government ignored these issues and left them to drift, when they could have gripped them as this Government do today.
We will act decisively, helping children to remain close to the people who love them whenever possible, and ending the reckless profiteering of some providers. We will rebalance and stabilise the placements market, including by establishing a financial oversight scheme for the very first time. We will make the market more transparent, and we will empower local authorities to collaborate on placements, including through regional care co-operatives. We will give Ofsted the power to move more quickly against unregistered care providers and tackle patterns of poor care.
Those are actions to fix the care market, but Members should be in no doubt that if companies continue to make extreme profits at the cost of vulnerable children, I will go further and harder. We will introduce new powers allowing the Government to directly cap the level of profit from children’s social care placements. At their best, private providers can help improve the lives of vulnerable children, but when the focus drifts towards exploitation in the pursuit of profit, be in no doubt that I will act.
These are the reforms to deliver the best placements for children, but the journey does not end there. We must give young people leaving care the right support as they make the transition to adult life. I was pleased to co-chair the ministerial care leaver board alongside the Deputy Prime Minister earlier this month. We will drive forward action across Government, and we will expand the staying close programme into a national entitlement of enhanced practical and emotional support for care leavers.
It is time to fix the foundations of children’s social care, investing in the groundwork for a stronger sector, and that includes data. We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to improve the sharing of information for the benefit of all children, including those in care. We will change the law in two ways. First, we will introduce provisions for a “single unique child identifier” to join up data from different services, which is a further step towards ensuring that services work harder for children, parents and professionals. Secondly, we will establish a new duty, providing a clear legal basis for those working with children to share information for the purposes of safeguarding.
We are determined to ensure that children’s social care is an excellent area in which to work. We have published online resources to improve the health and wellbeing of staff, and we are joining the national workload action group to cut unnecessary tasks, freeing up staff to concentrate on children and their families. While agency workers can help to manage fluctuations in demand, they are no substitute for a permanent workforce. Children and families deserve stable professional relationships. We will therefore limit the use of agency social workers by local authorities, acting to reverse the alarming increase in their prevalence.
Every child deserves the best possible start in life, to grow up in a family filled with love, but not every child has that. There are still far too many who lack the stability, safety and love that they need to go on to happy and healthy lives. Our opportunity mission is for them, we are breaking down barriers for them, and the announcements that I have brought to the House today are for them—but we cannot achieve this alone. Keeping children safe is everyone’s business—not merely mine or the Government’s, but that of each of us in this House and all of us across the country. We need partnership with families, the workforce, carers, providers, health, police, schools, colleges—and, yes, with Members right across the House.
Today is the start of much-needed change—change that will fix children’s social care; change that will keep families together where possible and children safe where necessary; change that will give each and every child the best start in life. The children of our great country deserve nothing less. I commend this statement to the House.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the Government’s focus today on children’s social care, and on the profiteering issues that we identified and set up the market intervention advisory group to look at when we were in government. However, at the heart of the problem is a lack of high-quality places for looked-after children. That is what is causing the high cost of placements, as demand is outstripping supply.
In its 2022 report, the Competition and Markets Authority did not recommend a profit cap, because
“the central problem facing the market…is…lack of…capacity.”
The CMA concluded that taking measures to limit the profitability of providers would
“risk increasing the capacity shortfall.”
While I share the Secretary of State’s desire to ensure that we are getting best value for the taxpayer in this sector, we need to solve the capacity issue first; otherwise, ironically, she risks driving up prices and exacerbating the shortage of places.
The last Government took steps at the Budget in April to address the capacity side, with £165 million allocated for building and maintaining placements for looked-after children. I note that in the most recent Budget, despite the welcome money for kinship care, there was no more money for increasing the number of places for looked-after children. That is essential; otherwise, the strategy on places set out today simply will not work. What plans has the Secretary of State made to increase the number of places for looked-after children? How much she will need to fund that? Did she ask the Treasury for the money at the most recent Budget? What is her assessment of the impact of the changes announced today on the number of places available for looked-after children?
The review carried out by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), commissioned by the Conservatives in government, found that profit caps would not work as it would be
“relatively easy for providers to reallocate income and expenditure to maintain profit levels.”
Does the Secretary of State agree? Is the 8.8% level of profit that she referred to this morning the maximum level of profit that she is aiming for? If not, what will it be?
The capacity problem rests both on the availability of places and on the demand for those places. The Secretary of State has indicated that she would like to take steps on early intervention, which is obviously vital. Those were not specified in her statement, but I hope that she will bring them to the House at the earliest opportunity, as they are critical to solving the issue. She said that she wants to scrap payment by results. Given that that is an early intervention programme, on the basis of what evidence is she doing so? Does she have an evaluation of what scrapping payment by results will do?
We welcome much else in the statement, including the regional care co-operatives, multi-agency teams, and the enhanced role of Ofsted in the sector. On the latter, is the Secretary of State making any changes to the failure regime for children’s homes and the regularity of inspection? The Children’s Commissioner has done outstanding work on the increasing use of deprivation of liberty orders. Will the Secretary of State outline what action she is taking on that important issue? I am pleased to see the Labour Government take forward our proposal for a unique child identifier. When can we expect the Bill creating that to be introduced?
I want the Government to succeed in this area. Children’s social care is a hidden issue, and getting it right is at the heart of solving so many problems that this country faces. I hope the Secretary of State can reassure me and the House that she will do more to bring forward a greater supply of places for looked-after children, and that an early intervention system is forthcoming, because the futures of looked-after children rely on it.
Bridget Phillipson
I can say to the right hon. Lady that we will absolutely do more. We are doing more in four months than the Conservatives did in 14 years. They had 14 years, yet she has the temerity to stand there and carp about the changes that we are bringing in for some of the most vulnerable children in our country. Markets were left to fail, costs were left to soar and, worst of all, children were failed. We will ensure that there are high quality placements for our children who need that provision. That is why we set out £90 million to expand capacity and provision for children who need it.
We have to break this cycle of crisis intervention that is leading to spiralling costs and poor outcomes and bankrupting local councils. That is why we will have much more of a focus on kinship care, foster care and early intervention to support families. I know that where families are supported at the earliest possible moment, we can often prevent problems from escalating, and the right hon. Lady will know that, too. I am determined that we build a system that gives all our children the best possible start in life, and that is why I can confirm that we will give Ofsted the powers that it needs to tackle unregistered and illegal provision and to ensure that it is looking at patterns across providers. We will introduce legislation on everything we have set out today as soon as parliamentary time allows, but I can say to her that this is urgent and we will act as swiftly as we can.
On the right hon. Lady’s question about the Children’s Commissioner, I welcome the work of the commissioner in this important area. As on many other issues, she has cast a light on an important area of policy where we have not acted swiftly and her party failed to act. I would gently point out to her that the Children’s Commissioner carried out that work on behalf of the Department for Education. The Conservatives had 14 years to tackle these issues. I note that the right hon. Lady welcomed some of the measures that we have set out today, but when we set out legislation before this House to tackle the shameful failure that we have inherited, I hope that Conservative Members will back us and, more importantly, back the vulnerable children in our country.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the action that the Government have announced today to improve children’s social care. The Secretary of State will know that families from the poorest neighbourhoods are 14 times more likely to be referred to children’s social care than those from the richest areas, and that there is a growing body of evidence linking child poverty to the rise in children entering the care system. How will she ensure that the upcoming child poverty strategy delivers more stability and safety for children and ensures that fewer families enter the kind of crises that result in their children being removed from their care?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend has long championed this cause and brings considerable expertise to the role that she now undertakes as Chair of the Select Committee. I look forward to discussing these issues with her and her Committee in due course. She is right to identify that child poverty is a significant issue in this area. That is why we got the work of the child poverty taskforce under way in August; we know that that work is crucial. What she has set out today is something that I have heard from parents the length and breadth of the country as part of the work that we are undertaking. It is important that, alongside tackling child poverty, we ensure that all families have early support and early intervention to ensure that they can thrive, and that, as she says, problems do not escalate in the way that they currently do.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
The review of children’s social care carried out by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) in 2022 found that, without reform, there could be almost 100,000 children in care by 2032, costing an extra £5 billion a year, so it is essential that we recognise the scale and urgency of this crisis and move quickly, unlike the previous Conservative Government. Today’s announcements are therefore a welcome step forward.
Tackling profiteering will help not only to address the financial crisis facing councils, but to deliver better outcomes for our most vulnerable children and young people. These are children for whom we in this place all bear a huge responsibility, and it is simply unacceptable that they have become a cash cow for private equity companies raking in profits of 28% or more, so could the Secretary of State spell out when we will see these reforms implemented, and when she anticipates the backstop taking effect?
Cracking down on profiteering is only one side of the bargain. To put provision on a stable and sustainable footing, we must also ensure that councils can provide these services themselves, where necessary, so will the Government work to support local authorities in running children’s homes, where they want to do so and where there is need? Many of these private equity firms are also profiteering from special schools, and we are starting to see them in the early years sector, too. Is the Secretary of State looking at those areas, and will she apply some of today’s announcements to them?
A new focus on family care is very welcome, as early support for families can keep children out of care who do not need to be there. Kinship carers are unsung heroes who often step up at a moment’s notice to look after family members. Will the Secretary of State please commit to moving beyond the very limited pilots that have been proposed, to a universal allowance for kinship carers, on a par with that received by foster carers? Will she also take the opportunity offered by the Employment Rights Bill, which is currently before the House, to legislate for paid employment leave for kinship carers? All the evidence points to that leading to better outcomes—and it would achieve cost savings immediately, not just in the long term.
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady has rightly championed the cause of kinship carers for many years in this House, and I pay tribute to her for drawing attention to this crucial area. The measures we set out in the Budget represent the single biggest investment in kinship care ever made by a Government. This is an important first step, but it is not the only action we need to take in this area. I will, of course, work with her and with Members on both sides of the House to make sure that kinship carers have all the support they need.
The hon. Lady is right that, in this House, we all bear a responsibility to represent the needs of vulnerable children, whose voices are often not heard in our deliberations. We will seek to bring forward measures as soon as parliamentary time allows, because we know that the crisis we face is urgent.
Yes, we will work with councils on the services they can provide, either directly or by working with charities and others. I have seen great examples across the country of that already happening. Councils need the Government to give them further backing to do this on a bigger scale, and the plans we are setting out today will provide for precisely that.
Today, I am calling time on excessive profiteering, and if providers do not respond, we will not hesitate to bring forward measures to cap their profits. We are looking very closely at special schools, too.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I welcome this statement, which those of us with care experience, and those of us who have worked in this area, have wanted to see for years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is entirely regrettable that the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) was commissioned by the previous Government and then left on a shelf to gather dust? Will she reassure everyone working in this area that, under this Labour Government, every penny will go towards helping young people to thrive, not merely survive, rather than lining the pockets of profiteers?
Bridget Phillipson
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has consistently shared his personal experience, and who has demonstrated to so many young people what can be achieved, even when there are barriers to overcome. He knows as well as I do that far too many care-experienced young people in our country lack the support and backing that they deserve, and we are determined to change that. He is also right to point to the excellent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). I am delighted to have been able to set out many developments arising from that crucial work. There is so much more that we need to do together to put the rights and needs of vulnerable children at the heart of our policymaking.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. [Interruption.] I did not mean to knock you down a peg, Mr Speaker; that would be very unwise.
I regret the Secretary of State’s tone in response to the shadow Secretary of State, and I hope that, over time, she learns not to adopt that tone on issues such as this. The shadow Secretary of State noted that there is a capacity crisis, and the Secretary of State has said that we need greater early intervention now. Is the Secretary of State confident that she has the resources to support local authorities and others in tackling this twin challenge? Both parts need to be tackled at the same time, which is a truly serious undertaking.
Bridget Phillipson
I am not quite sure how to begin to respond to the frankly extraordinary first part of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. To take the more serious points he raised, we are determined to ensure that we have the resources and support in place for the most vulnerable children in our country. The reason I get so cross when I hear some of the contributions made by Conservative Members is that during my time as shadow Secretary of State and Secretary of State, I have heard directly from far too many children who have been badly failed by this system. It is shocking and shameful, and we will change it.
Mrs Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
Years of inaction by previous Conservative Governments have led to vulnerable children feeling forgotten and councils being financially crippled. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that reforms truly prioritise children’s wellbeing and tackle profiteering at their expense?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend brings real expertise to this House from her work in education. Education is also a crucial area where we need to work together on safeguarding; school staff, teachers and others have a role to play in keeping children safe and ensuring that all children can thrive. The steps that we are setting out today will make a big change to the life chances and wellbeing of many children across our country, and I am grateful for her support for that important work.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
For far too long, children’s services have been a Cinderella department. I am delighted that the Secretary of State is shining a light on them and driving a positive way forward for them. We need to ensure that our communities are kinship and foster care-friendly. How will the Secretary of State drive that agenda?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree that there is still much more that we need to do to support kinship carers and foster families; that is why the measures we set out in the Budget are so important. From speaking to kinship carers in my constituency on Friday, I know that there are still too many barriers in place, including differences between local authorities, issues around access to mental health support, and the need to do more to support kinship carers in balancing work and caring responsibilities. I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on those important areas.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The almost 600 kinship carers in Portsmouth North welcome this Government’s prioritisation of kinship care; it is vital to keep kids with their families. However, not all children can live with their families, so some live in the care system. Because of the past 14 years of Conservative Government, life has been too tough, so will the Secretary of State tell us a little more about what this Government will do to support those care leavers?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the fact that, sadly, a move to a different kind of placement, outside family care, is a necessary step for some children, for their safety and wellbeing, and in the interests of their long-term future. We are rolling out the Staying Close programme nationally to ensure that all care leavers get the support they deserve. We are also setting out plans around corporate parenting, to ensure that all of us fulfil our responsibilities to the children for whom we are responsible. I was delighted to chair, with the Deputy Prime Minister, the care leavers ministerial board, because there is more that all of us, across Government, need to do to ensure that care-experienced young people have their voices heard, and to ensure that we take action to address their concerns.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Five years ago, Bath and North East Somerset council’s budget for children’s services was £28 million; this year, it is predicted to be £40 million. Transport costs, particularly, are spiralling out of control, as private providers seem to deliberately place young people out of area. What my council needs, apart from potential price control, is capital investment, so that it can rebuild its in-house services. Will the Minister commit to that?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree that costs are spiralling out of control. More action is necessary to support councils in investing in services and ensuring provision for children much closer to home. Too many children are being sent far away from family support networks. That presents local councils with additional cost pressures, and pushes many to the point of bankruptcy, as well as denying children the life chances they deserve.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall and Camberwell Green) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will be aware that local authorities have a legal duty to house unintentionally homeless people, including those in priority need, such as 18 to 19-year-old care leavers and people with dependent children. At the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, we heard that, shockingly, over 150,000 children are in temporary accommodation in England. Does the Secretary of State agree that without urgent action on the housing crisis, we will not see improvements for care-leaving children?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree, and the Deputy Prime Minister is determined to drive forward change in this area, not just with more homes being built across our country, including social homes, but by taking action in the area that my hon. Friend describes, when children are leaving the care system. I assure her that the Government will act in those areas.
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I warmly welcome today’s statement. The Secretary of State is right that it is long overdue, and that early intervention is key. Too many children in this country are in care because they and their families did not get the support and help that they needed, when they needed it. She referenced the report led by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which stated that we need a revolution in family help, and specifically a £2.6 billion temporary injection of financial support to make the shift to prevention. Can she make that commitment?
Bridget Phillipson
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington will speak for himself on his report. The Government recognise the need to rebalance the system away from crisis intervention, and to break the cycle of spending ever more pots of money on what amounts to a failure within our system. We will refocus our work on early support for families, and ensure that there is more support for kinship and fostering families. That is important, not just given the cost of the increasing number of interventions; most crucially, it is how we will deliver better life chances for the most vulnerable children in our country.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Having grown up in a kinship care setting, with my grandparents, I heartily welcome the content of the Command Paper. Had its provisions been available to my grandparents, I would have had a very different experience growing up, so I greatly welcome what the Secretary of State is doing; however, for those young people who have to enter the care system, it cannot be a one-way process; ageing out cannot be the only exit. Will she set out a little more on what the paper will do to help with reunification, so that young people who go into care can go back to their parents? I encourage her to look at the work of Pause, a national charity that is doing so much work with the birth parents of children who get taken into care, so that they get the help and support that they need after what can be a very traumatic experience.
Bridget Phillipson
I thank my hon. Friend for speaking about his experiences. He will know that until quite recently this area was perhaps little understood. It is so important that people like him are able to speak openly; it demonstrates bravery and will encourage others to do the same. I will happily look at the report and the work that he mentions, and ensure that routes back into family care, for those children for whom that is possible, are considered in our ongoing work.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
In the London borough of Sutton, we started to in-house some children’s care home provision back in 2020, and we now care for six children with complex needs. What assessment has the Department made of the potential scale of local authorities taking on services directly, if given the right support by the Government?
Bridget Phillipson
Like the hon. Gentleman, I have seen good examples of councils across the country that have started to take such action, but they have done so by going against the grain of Government policy. This time, councils will have the backing of the Government in making those changes. We will also ensure that they can take action on a regional basis, work together and collaborate, so that they can manage placements more effectively. That way, we will not just bring down costs to the taxpayer, which are spiralling out of control, but ensure that children can stay closer to family support networks, which is crucial to their long-term future.
Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)
Having spent 14 years watching children’s services struggle in the way the Secretary of State outlines, with serious case reviews often being the moment of intervention, I heartily welcome the emphasis on early intervention, and what she says about the responsibility that we all have. She will know that there has been much discussion about the concept of corporate parenting. What is her thinking on that, and what role does she see for us as Members of Parliament? At the moment, relationships across the country are clearly too inconsistent. That is to the detriment of safeguarding, and indeed of our young people.
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right that there are many long-standing challenges in this area. On corporate parenting, today’s Command Paper sets out the steps that we intend to take to bring forward further plans in this area. I look forward to working with her on the shape and scale of those plans, because it is essential that we all take our responsibilities incredibly seriously, as I know she does.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s broad commitment to reducing the number of children who need to go into care. Building on the comments of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), I want to emphasise the work that Pause does with West Sussex county council and 24 other authorities. Pause has a vision of ensuring that no one goes through having a child taken into care more than once. However, more than half of areas have no support available for parents after a child is removed from their care, which leads to many being trapped in a cycle of pregnancies, care proceedings and repeat removals. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that this valuable work will be more widely rolled out across the country, and will she meet me and Pause to discuss how that work can be taken forward?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, and I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) would be happy to meet her to discuss the issue further. She is right to identify the need for ongoing support for families when a child or children has been removed. Before coming to this House, I worked with many families who were in that situation. I saw directly not just how much of a difference could be made to the lives of those children and families, but how, when mothers were going through subsequent pregnancies, that intervention and support could often be crucial in making sure that the children were able to stay with the mother. That is sadly not always possible, but much more can be achieved with the right level of support. I certainly saw some amazing examples where it was possible to break what had sadly felt like a cycle.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I thank all those working so hard to support vulnerable children in our country, and I thank the Secretary of State for her statement today and some excellent steps forward. May I ask her for a little more clarity on the important point she made about the need for greater co-production with charities and other agencies?
Bridget Phillipson
As we take forward further proposals both for legislation and for wider change and reform across the sector, we look forward to working not only with family rights organisations, charities and others to make sure that they are involved in the design of services, but with our brilliant and often unsung workforce—as my hon. Friend identifies—who often do their work behind the scenes and without the recognition they deserve. Our social work workforce and others play a crucial role, and we are determined to do more to support them in their vital endeavours.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
I warmly welcome today’s statement from the Secretary of State. As a county councillor in Oxfordshire, the number of children in our care who are living in unregistered children’s homes is of grave concern to me. Those homes are often overpriced and always suboptimal for vulnerable children, as well as being strictly illegal. I heard what the Secretary of State had to say about the local authority settlement next month. Will she undertake to work with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Chancellor to allocate some of the capital investment announced in the Budget, so that local authorities can open new registered children’s homes and provide safer and more affordable accommodation closer to home for vulnerable young people?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree, and I will be working very closely with the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister in this area. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the increase in unsafe unregistered placements. That is why we are giving Ofsted further powers to act and why I set out in the Command Paper that we will make sure that councils and others have the powers they need to deliver more placements for children. I encourage him to look closely at that work; I think he will find much that he can welcome in it.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s considerate focus. Children in care have died in unregulated accommodation, but that did not stop the last Conservative Government introducing cruel legislation to make it permissible for councils to place children in care aged 16 and above into such accommodation—tents, caravans, bed and breakfasts and houses in multiple occupation, surrounded by adult strangers and with no continuing care at all. Please will she overturn that legislation?
Bridget Phillipson
I know that my hon. Friend, from her professional expertise before coming to this House, understands better than most how important social work, early intervention and support for families are in this area. She is right to identify that we see an increasing number of children in unsafe and unregistered placements. They are illegal to run, but Ofsted found 887 unregistered homes, up from 370 in 2022-23. We will give Ofsted the powers it needs to tackle unregistered provision. We need to hit providers who are behaving in this way where it hurts, as the threat of prosecution clearly is not working.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
Somerset council is facing a £7.5 million overspend on children’s services this financial year, with an increased number of children coming into care. I welcome the pledge to provide early interventions, as they provide better outcomes for children while keeping costs down for councils. Will the Secretary of State provide more detail on how a joined-up approach will be achieved, so that local authorities can provide the best possible care for children?
Bridget Phillipson
I am working closely with the Deputy Prime Minister in this crucial area, and there will be more to say before too long about the local government finance settlement. As the hon. Member identifies, it is important that we rebalance the children’s social care system away from crisis intervention and towards more timely and early support. We know that that is where we make the biggest difference to children’s lives, and that is also what is driving the cost pressures that, sadly, lots of local authorities are seeing, as ever increasing numbers of children go through the children’s social care system. We are determined to make progress and to put more support in place earlier for families.
Mark Ferguson (Gateshead Central and Whickham) (Lab)
I wish to associate myself with the comments of the Secretary of State. While children in care are incredibly important, it is also important that we do our best for those who are care experienced. In my constituency, 50% of those who leave care are not in education, employment or training, as I heard when I visited Changing Lives at Eslington House in my constituency on Friday. What more can be done to support care leavers?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to identify that, sadly, for too many care-experienced young people coming out of the system, their outcomes are just not good enough and the facts in terms of their life chances are stark. We are determined to change that. I am working closely with the Deputy Prime Minister as part of the care leavers inter-ministerial board, because actions across many Departments could make a big and meaningful difference to the life chances of care-experienced young people. As part of that, it was incredibly powerful to listen to the experiences of two young people who had just come through the system, and in all our discussions in this important area we must listen to the experiences and views of those who have direct lived experience of how the system has let them down, and what needs to change in future.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Devon county council children’s services was assessed by Ofsted in April. It found that the children’s front door service was effective, after previously having been deemed by Ofsted to be inadequate. When the Secretary of State simplifies and consolidates the money available through the local government finance settlement, will she take into account the additional costs borne by rural local authorities?
Bridget Phillipson
We will look at all factors including the one identified by the hon. Gentleman, as well as at areas of good practice where many local councils, despite the many difficulties they face, are taking forward innovative new ways of working, and doing all they can to support children and families. There is much we can learn from good examples that exist across the country.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
In Derbyshire, the Conservative leader of the county council got in touch with me and other MPs in the previous Parliament to plead with us to do something about the profiteering taking place in the private sector. Nothing happened under the last Government, and we heard from the shadow Secretary of State that if we do anything to try to curb that profiteering, we will lose capacity. I agree with the Secretary of State that councils have a greater role to play. Does she agree that if councils had their own provision, that would empower them to prevent the profiteering being carried out by extortionate private providers?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend, who is right to identify that there is support for such measures across political parties. Children are being let down by our failure, and we must do more to improve capacity. We will support councils working together to do that. I have seen great examples of where that has happened, but much more needs to be done. As he identifies, this is about ensuring that children get the support they need to thrive, and under this Government they will have support in that crucial area.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. This is incredibly good news so I thank her very much—I think we all welcome it across this great United Kingdom of Great Britian and Northern Ireland. The Barnardo’s charity in Northern Ireland has indicated for a long time that it has been concerned about this issue, so it too welcomes the statement today. We in Northern Ireland have the highest rate of kinship care, along with Scotland, but a streamlined process with a decent level of funding would enable greater buy-in from those who have lots of love but not enough money. Any increase would also need additional funding for the devolved regions. Is the Secretary of State able to confirm that?
Bridget Phillipson
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I am visiting Northern Ireland soon, when I look forward to discussing both that area and wider issues relating to education with counterparts in Northern Ireland.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s comments. The more I hear about this area, the more I think that this Government have inherited a wild west from the previous Government, so shocking is the situation in children’s social care. Will she agree to meet me to talk about a particular issue with a foster carer in my constituency that exemplifies the scale of the problem we face?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to this area. I would be more than happy to meet him. He is right that the situation we have inherited is one where too many children are being let down and where the quality of provision for very vulnerable children is just not good enough. I look forward to working with him to make that change happen.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
With more than 300 children in Hartlepool in social care, the council is being slowly bankrupted. The top four private providers on average are charging £12,000 per child per week. That is £624,000 a year per child. Does my right hon. Friend agree that only by capping that outrageous profiteering can we protect children, but also get value for money for local council tax payers?
Bridget Phillipson
Private providers are making, in some cases, between 20% and 30% profit. That is way beyond what we would expect in any other area. Crucially, when we think about where they are making that profit, it is off the back of the trauma, abuse and sometimes very difficult early childhood experiences of some of the most vulnerable children in our country. My hon. Friend is right that the issue he identifies in Hartlepool is sadly felt right across the country. He may wish to know that there are now more than 1,500 children in placements that each cost half a million pounds every single year. We have got to change that.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Analysis by the Local Government Association reveals that the top 15 private children’s social care providers are making an average profit of 23%. It is frankly unacceptable that private firms are profiting at all from vulnerable children, let alone when the care they provide is so often poor and is funded by public money, pushing councils to the brink. I commend the Government’s plans to tackle this urgent issue. Will my right hon. Friend also commit to properly fund not-for-profit and public sector provision to improve children’s social care and to end this obscene profiteering for good?
Bridget Phillipson
It is vital that we drive up standards and quality in children’s social care placements, and we want to make sure that we are providing support for councils, charities and others to do precisely that. The highest possible standards and quality of care are essential for children and young people who have been through some very traumatic experiences and deserve our full support. I agree that we must take action on excessive profiteering. It has been left to drift for far too long, and this Government will act.
David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)
I warmly welcome this statement, like all colleagues on the Government Benches and hopefully like colleagues across the whole House. I particularly welcome the comments on care leavers; it is important that we do not forget about them. When I became council leader of St Helens in 2019, services for care leavers were rated inadequate by Ofsted. I am proud to say that they are now outstanding. The credit for that goes to Councillor Nova Charlton and the whole children’s services team. The Secretary of State is more than welcome to visit St Helens to hear about the good work they do and how they do it. Will she tell me a bit more about what steps she is taking with colleagues to make sure that local government has the funding it needs to run these services? It has to be a whole council effort—if one part fails, it all falls down.
Bridget Phillipson
I commend my hon. Friend and his council on the work they have undertaken to deliver better outcomes for care-experienced young people. It is crucial, and I am sure there is much we can learn from that work. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) will be happy to have a conversation with him to discuss that further. We will be setting out further steps to make clear the funding arrangements, but it is essential that we put more money into children’s social care. We are doing that, and we will set out more in due course through the local government finance settlement.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
I welcome the reforming zeal of the Secretary of State in this area; her work has been outstanding. As somebody who led a council with a double outstanding accreditation for the past eight years—all praise goes to council staff for that—may I ask that we learn from the best within the sector and ensure that local government can also trigger a review where it sees profiteering? In one case in Telford, a bill for one placement of £409,000 was taken almost overnight. May I also give a word of caution and be assured that this grant will not be like the public health grant, which was consolidated into the local government fund and cut and eroded over a number of years?
Bridget Phillipson
I join my hon. Friend in praising the work of council staff and the many councils across our country taking action in this area. I agree that we can learn a lot from the best examples of support for care-experienced young people and the overall approach taken around children’s social care. I look forward to working with him in that area and note the point he raises. When it comes to ensuring that local councils have a role in the financial oversight of the system, we will of course take his views into account. The regime we will set out will allow us to provide much clearer and greater scrutiny those providers that are, frankly, profiting shamefully from some of the most vulnerable children in our country.
Sarah Edwards (Tamworth) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear the statement on care leavers. Children who leave care have previously been let down by a system that pretty much stops support once they leave care. To ensure that care-experienced young people can make the most of their future, will the Secretary of State outline the Government’s plans to support care leavers in Tamworth and around the country so that they can gain the skills and experience they need to thrive?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to identify the urgent need to do more to support care leavers at the point when they move through the system and throughout their lives. That is why I am working with the Deputy Prime Minister and other Government colleagues so that we all pull together and do much more to deliver better life chances for care leavers. We will roll out the Staying Close programme nationally to ensure that all young people leaving care have the support they need. We are also setting out corporate parenting proposals to ensure that all of us pull together to listen to the views and experiences of young people. I am sure that, like me, she has heard directly from care leavers about how badly they feel failed by a system that has not properly reflected their needs and experiences, and it is vital that we put the needs of care-experienced young people front and centre in our discussions.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I welcome the statement and the robust steps the Government are taking for our children and young people. I was disappointed to read a report by Ofsted last week into the special educational needs and disabilities provision in Derbyshire, which found there to be “systemic failings” and that the provision was inadequate. Our children and young people deserve so much better. Has the Secretary of State made an assessment of how the previous Government’s failure to deal with SEND has fuelled problems in children’s social care? Does she agree that more integration is needed between education, healthcare, local authorities and providers, including through integrated care boards and partnerships, to deliver long-lasting and sustained outcomes for our young people?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend: that joint working is important, and it provides much clearer support for families who often do not want to have to repeat their experiences time and again to different sets of professionals and who want better and more targeted support. I have seen great examples, including in Lewisham earlier this week, where the pathfinder programme ensures that all children get the support they need through more timely intervention and through working closely with families. I know that Derby city council has done some excellent work in that area. There is an overlap between children’s social care and SEND, and they have similar challenges. We want to ensure that we share practice between those two areas where possible.
Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)
Children in care are some of the most vulnerable in our society, and many people in Sandwell are worried about children in small care homes, which often seem to lack oversight and regulation. I welcome the measures that the Government set out today. Will the Secretary of State ensure that Ofsted has the powers it needs to inspect children’s social care and ensure that all homes are suitable and safe places for children to be?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for sharing her and her constituents’ concerns with the House. We will act to ensure that Ofsted has the powers it needs to tackle unregistered, unsafe and unsuitable placements and accommodation. Our most vulnerable children deserve the best possible support, and right now we are sadly far away from that.
Josh MacAlister (Whitehaven and Workington) (Lab)
The outcomes for children and families involved in the children’s social care system are some of the worst in our country. That is truly a huge social justice issue, so I welcome the leadership shown by the Secretary of State and her team so soon in the new Government’s time in office. So many of the recommendations came from the contributions of those with lived experience, whether on regional care co-operatives, expanding corporate parenting, the importance of a unique child identifier and the changes to Ofsted that have been announced. Does the Secretary of State agree that the contribution made to the review that I led by thousands of people with lived experience, who are often so unheard and unseen in society, is validated by today’s announcement?
Bridget Phillipson
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his tremendous work in this area. I am delighted that we have been able to act in many of the areas that he identified as part of his review. He is right to draw our attention to the thousands of people, including those with lived experience, who contributed to his vital work. It is testament to his work and their contributions that the Government are able to take forward work in so many areas that will make a significant difference to the lives and experiences of vulnerable children across our country, from today and over many years to come.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), for her recent visit to my constituency. In its exemplary work, Leeds city council is currently focusing on small group homes to bring children back to Leeds from private provision outside the city, which will give much better outcomes and save significant costs, and on early help and intervention. The Minister saw all that work when she was in Leeds. Will the Secretary of State, whose work on regional care co-operatives I absolutely welcome, clarify further what support will be available for local authorities to consider alternative models of care over and above those co-operatives?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend’s local authority has done brilliant work in this area. We are keen to build on the best examples that already exist around the country. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary was impressed with everything that she saw as part of that visit. We are determined to ensure that we back councils and their ability to work regionally to deliver better placements closer to home, and to bring children back into their local area wherever possible. My hon. Friend will know, as I do, that children thrive when they are close to family and support networks. That allows for much stronger and better life chances as they move into adulthood. I look forward to working with him to ensure that councils have the powers to do more. We will set out more as soon as parliamentary time allows.
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
It is so refreshing to see a Labour Secretary of State take action on profiteering in our local authorities. I have been calling for such action, because in my constituency the average cost of an independent residential placement has increased by 65% in the last five years. Despite that, our Labour-led council continues to fight to give decent and good-quality placements to all our looked-after children. Does the Secretary of State agree that tackling the practice of excess profiteering, which was largely ignored by the previous Government, is exactly what we were elected to do to get value for taxpayers’ money and ensure that these vital services, which look after our vulnerable children, deliver the best possible outcomes for children whom we are determined will succeed?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful for all my hon. Friend’s work in this area. She is right that councils were left at the mercy of private providers, often paying extortionate costs for poor-quality provision that did not deliver safety, dignity and better life chances for our children. We are determined to turn that around, and I look forward to working with her to ensure that children across our country, including those going through the children’s social care system, have their voices heard. Their struggles and challenges have too long been ignored. Under this Government, action will follow.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
In my time as a councillor and corporate parent, nothing was more distressing than the complex safeguarding issues that we had to deal with, and nothing more enraging that seeing people profit from them. That is why Calderdale council did good work to bring children’s homes in house. I hope that the statement means an end to that profiteering.
Bridget Phillipson
We are calling time on the excess profiteering of big private providers, which are seeing profits of 20% to 30%. If they fail to act and bring down costs, we will legislate to cap their costs. This cannot continue; it has been left to drift for far too long, and local authorities such as my hon. Friend’s have been up against it, often facing an impossible task but doing great work where they can. We will work with councils, including on a regional basis, to provide accommodation for children and young people that is closer to home and of a higher quality, with better standards, and we will tackle unregistered and illegal provision.
Jake Richards (Rother Valley) (Lab)
It is brilliant to see a Secretary of State take this issue so seriously and get a grip on it so early on in her time in government. Figures published last week show that the number of children placed far from home increased by 51% over the last decade between 2014 and 2024. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is about not only capacity, quality and cost, but the geography of the placements, to ensure that when children are placed away from their families, they can stay in touch?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right. There are big differences based on geography. I find it quite astounding that 25% of registered places are in the north-west of England. That is a staggering number, and sadly it means that far too many children are moving far from home, away from family networks and moving school or education provision. We need to make sure that that changes and that our most vulnerable children, who have often been through incredibly traumatic early childhood experiences and exposed to things that no child should ever see or witness, get the best possible support and standards. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to drive up standards and make sure that every child in his constituency who needs support through children’s social care has a much better experience and better adult life chances.
Contingent Liability: Local Government Pension Scheme Guarantee
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(2 months, 1 week ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I am today laying before both Houses a departmental minute on the use of a contingent liability by the Department for Education to provide a local government pension scheme guarantee to further education providers operating in the statutory sector.
The Department for Education further education local government pension scheme guarantee is a Government commitment to fund pension deficits in the event of a closure and where the provider’s reserves are insufficient to fund their own LGPS deficit upon closure.
We expect LGPS administering authorities to recognise the Crown guarantee provided by the further education guarantee in their funding strategies, setting employer contribution rates and deficit recovery periods.
A full departmental minute has been laid in both Houses providing more detail on this contingent liability.
[HCWS202]
Education
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
We will secure the future of higher education so that students can benefit from a world-class education for generations to come. That is why I am announcing that, in line with the forecasts set out in the Budget last week, from April 2025 we will be increasing the maximum cap for tuition fees in line with inflation to £9,535—an increase of £285 per academic year.
[Official Report, 4 November 2024; Vol. 756, c. 47.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson):
Bridget Phillipson
We will secure the future of higher education so that students can benefit from a world-class education for generations to come. That is why I am announcing that, in line with the forecasts set out in the Budget last week, from August 2025 we will be increasing the maximum cap for tuition fees in line with inflation to £9,535—an increase of £285 per academic year.
Higher Education Reform
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Mr Holden, you don’t help yourself, do you?
The Secretary of State is here to make a statement, so hon. Members will have the opportunity to question her. If the premature media reporting is due to an unauthorised leak, that is a great discourtesy to this House. I hope the Secretary of State will be able to identify the guilty party, take appropriate actions and brief me accordingly. I hope the Secretary of State will announce a leak inquiry, we will get all the details of how this information could have got out and the House will be informed as that goes forward.
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Mr Speaker, may I begin by expressing my deep regret that the content of the statement that I am about to make appeared in the media earlier this afternoon? It had always been my intention to come before this House to make the statement first, given its significance and importance. I appreciate that you, Members across the House, and our conventions, rightly demand and expect that. I hope that you can accept my deep frustration and regret at what has taken place. I will take whatever steps I can to keep you updated on the matter, because I do respect the conventions of and my responsibilities to this House.
Mr Speaker
Can we take it that there will be a full inquiry into how this has happened—that everybody will be brought in and questioned, and you will then update us on that full inquiry? That is what I really want.
Bridget Phillipson
I can give you that undertaking, Mr Speaker, and I will speak to officials about the matter, as you request.
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, I would like to make a statement about the future of our higher education sector and the changes that we will be making for students in the upcoming academic year, 2025-26.
Before I go further, I want to make clear the approach that this Labour Government take to our universities and, above all, to the students whose education is their central purpose, because the Conservative Government did not just talk down universities; they talked down the aspirations of working-class families across our country, and they dismissed the ambition of our young people and undermined their opportunities. This Government take a different approach. We are determined to break down the barriers to opportunity, and higher education is central to that mission.
Higher education is part of what makes our country great. It enriches our culture, powers our economy and sustains intellectual traditions stretching back centuries. It is a beacon of opportunity—to students not just from this country, but from across the world—and a sector of which everyone in this House ought to be proud. But when this Government took office in July, we found a university sector facing severe financial challenges. With tuition fees frozen for the last seven years, universities have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income. We also found a regulator subject to political whim, unable to focus on the challenges our universities face. A succession of Conservative Ministers faced with tough decisions had, for year after year, ducked them time and again.
We inherited in our universities, as across so much of our public sector, the consequences of long years of shameful abdication of responsibility: long years in which I heard too often from students of the gap between the course they were promised and the experience they had, about the trouble they had making ends meet as they worked hard not merely at their studies but often at two or more jobs on top; long years in which I saw the amazing research our universities deliver but how infrequently those triumphs drove wider success; and long years in which I heard from international students, who make such an important contribution to our country, that the previous Government had made them feel neither valued nor welcomed. That is the mess that Opposition Members left behind, but where the Conservatives shirked the hard choices, this Government have not hesitated to grip the challenges we face and take the tough decisions to restore stability to higher education, to fix the foundations and to deliver change.
We have accepted in full the recommendations of the independent review of the Office for Students. We have also brought new leadership to the office and refocused its work to monitor universities’ finances and to hold leadership to account. I thank Sir David Behan for his work both leading the independent review and now as its interim chair. We have paused the commencement of the last Government’s freedom of speech legislation while we consider the impacts on universities, students and the regulator, because although universities must be home to robust discussion and rigorous challenge, regulation must also be workable.
I am here today to make two sets of announcements on higher education reform, addressing the challenges our students and universities face, and gripping these issues as a responsible Government. First, we will fix the foundations. We will secure the future of higher education so that students can benefit from a world-class education for generations to come. That is why I am announcing that, in line with the forecasts set out in the Budget last week, from April 2025 we will be increasing the maximum cap for tuition fees in line with inflation to £9,535—an increase of £285 per academic year.
I understand that some students may worry about the impact that the increase will have on their loan debt, so I want to reassure students already at university that when they start repaying their loan, they will not see higher monthly repayments as a result of these changes to fee and maintenance loans. That is because student loans are not like consumer loans; monthly repayments depend on earnings, not simply the amount borrowed or interest rates, and at the end of any loan term, any outstanding loan balance, including interest built up, will be written off.
Increasing the fee cap has not been an easy decision, but I want to be crystal clear that this will not cost graduates more each month as they start to repay their loans. Universities are responsible for managing their own finances and must act to remain sustainable, but Members across the House will agree that it is no use keeping tuition fees down for future students if the universities are not there for them to attend, nor if students cannot afford to support themselves while they study. I therefore confirm that we will boost support for students with living costs by increasing maximum maintenance loans in line with inflation, giving them an additional £414 a year in ’25-26. I also confirm that from the start of the ’25-26 academic year a lower fee limit of £5,760 will be introduced for foundation years in classroom-based subjects such as business, social science and humanities. The Government recognise the importance of foundation years for promoting access to higher education, but they can be delivered more efficiently in classroom-based subjects, at a lower cost to students.
The change that the Government are bringing about must go further, so my second set of announcements signals the start of deeper change for our students, our universities and our country. Today, I will set out the scale of our ambition to build a higher education system fit for the challenges not just of today but of tomorrow. In the months ahead, we will publish our proposals, because in universities, as across our public services, investment can come only with the promise of major reform. The contribution of higher education to our economy, our communities and our country must grow and strengthen. That begins with universities doing more to spread opportunity to disadvantaged students, in both expanding access and improving outcomes. Our most recent data shows why. The gap between disadvantaged students and their peers in progression to university by age 19 is the highest on record. I will not tolerate that shameful divide any longer. Universities can and must do more, and they must rise to the huge challenge of technological change, supporting adults with the flexibility that they need to retrain. That is why we confirmed in the Budget that we are pressing ahead with the lifelong learning entitlement.
While the UK is home to many world-class universities, it is time that all students in higher education in this country feel the benefit. It is time to raise the bar further on teaching standards, to improve our world-leading reputation and drive out poor practice, and it is time to ensure that all students get good value for money, which, if we are honest, has not always been the case in the past. Furthermore, universities must do more to raise their impact beyond their gates. They must do more to drive the growth that this country sorely needs by attracting talent from around the world, joining with Skills England, employers and partners in further education to deliver the skills that people and businesses need, and shaping world-class research to create good jobs across the country. Members across the House will know how important universities can be for the areas that surround them—not just local economies but local communities. I want universities to work harder to embed themselves in those local communities, as civic anchors—the beating heart of local life in our towns and cities—not ivory towers far from local concerns.
Lying beneath those challenges must be a further transformation: a renewed drive for efficiency. Students and taxpayers support the costs of our universities. They are right to expect that every penny is spent effectively. We will not accept wasteful spending. Universities must rise to the challenge, which means ensuring that the pay of their top teams is fair and justifiable. I am determined that our world-class higher education sector does not merely survive in the years ahead but thrives, supporting students in every corner of our country and at every stage of their lives. I am determined that our universities become all that I know they can be. The scale of our ambition demands a new approach, rooted in partnership, so I look forward to partnering with the sector, the Office for Students and UK Research and Innovation. I will work closely with Ministers across Government, in particular the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, to deliver a reformed and strengthened higher education system for our country.
As today the Government look to the future, I am reminded that more than 60 years have passed since the Robbins report on higher education was presented to this House, with its famous principle
“that courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.”
That principle drove the expansion of higher education over the decades that followed, under successive Governments of both parties. It is central to the thinking of this Government today. That is why responsible Governments must treat universities not as a political battleground but as a public good. It is why Government Members want to see the continued success of our young people, and it is why we are determined to ensure the sustainability and success of our higher education sector, not just in the years ahead but for decades to come. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
The Budget last week declared war on business and private sector workers, and on farmers, as we have just heard. It seems that today the Secretary of State wants to add students to that list. Not content with pushing up the cost of living for everyone with an inflationary Budget, and pushing down wages with a national insurance increase, we are now in a situation whereby students will suffer from the first inflationary increase in a number of years, at a time when they can least afford it.
Yet again, there was no sign of that in the Labour manifesto. Indeed, in only 2020, the Prime Minister made scrapping university tuition fees a centrepiece of his leadership campaign—perhaps we should start putting sell-by dates on his statements. But it is not just the Prime Minister: in July this year, at the time of the King’s Speech, the Secretary of State said that she had “no plans” to increase tuition fees, and yesterday the Chancellor said that there was
“no need to increase taxes further.”
Yet what is happening today apart from a hike in the effective tax that graduates have to pay? Students have not had a chance to prepare for that rise. They will have fairly expected, based on all the statements that I have mentioned, that the last thing a Labour Government would do in office is put up tuition fees.
We have some of the best universities in the world here in the UK, but we need to do much more to reform the system and make it better and fairer for students and universities by ensuring that courses provide students with an economic return, helping universities to harness the growth potential of the innovations that they foster, and ensuring that students and lecturers are free to express and debate their views. We are willing to work with the Government on all those things. It is also right that we consider university funding, but pushing up costs for students at short notice in an unreformed system will lead to students up and down the country feeling betrayed.
How much of the increase will be absorbed by the national insurance increase for employees at universities? Does the Secretary of State intend to increase fees every year, or should students expect this to be the only increase? What is the impact of the change on public finances, and has the Office for Budget Responsibility been consulted? Why was the change not announced in the Budget? How much longer will it take the average borrower to repay their tuition fees as a result of the change? And why was Labour not up front about the measure in its manifesto?
In June 2023, the title of an article written by the now Secretary of State proclaimed:
“Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour government”.
Well, it turns out they will pay more—more broken promises.
Bridget Phillipson
Amid the faux outrage that we just heard from the shadow Education Secretary, I did not hear whether she will support the measure. She, like her party for many months during the election campaign, had nothing to say other than doing down the ambition and aspiration of young people and their families who want the opportunity to go on to university. The Conservatives went into the last election determined to ensure that fewer young people had the chance to go to university. That is shameful, and it is something that Labour will never back. Young people with talent and ambition, and their families, want a Government who recognise it.
It is little wonder that, at the ballot box on 4 July, the right hon. Lady’s party got a clear message. It is just a shame that in the time since, there has been no reflection on why that was. The Conservatives have learned nothing from their years of failure. They ducked the tough decisions for years. I make it absolutely clear to the House that I do not take any pleasure in this decision—it is not one that I want to take—but I am determined to secure the long-term financial sustainability of our world-leading universities. She is right to recognise their success. They are beacons around the world, and that necessitates tough decisions—decisions that she and her colleagues in the Treasury ducked year after year. They put a Conservative peer in to chair what should have been an independent regulator. They picked fights with the sector time and again, and over the course of 10 years, the Conservative party never had a serious plan to reform the higher education sector. I am determined to bring that reform, and in the months to come we will set out further plans to reform efficiency, access and participation for our young people.
To answer the precise questions that the right hon. Lady asked, as we lay legislation before the House, we will publish an impact assessment alongside it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
First, let me put it on the record that I am the parent of a young person in her first year at university.
The Secretary of State has set out very clearly the case for our universities and the justification for her announcement today. However, as young people who might be applying for university as the announcement is being made might see only the headlines, what steps is she taking to ensure that it is communicated effectively, so that it does not deter young people from low and middle-income backgrounds from applying to university in the first place?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question, and I look forward to speaking with her and her newly constituted Select Committee about this issue and many others.
I recognise the importance of communicating the message that university should be for all young people who have demonstrated that they have the qualifications and talent required. This was not an easy decision, but as Secretary of State, I need to ensure that we secure the long-term financial sustainability of the sector. Alongside that, I am absolutely clear with the sector—with vice-chancellors and others—that it must do more to provide better support and to widen access and participation so that more young people, especially those from more disadvantaged backgrounds, have the opportunity to benefit from higher education.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement.
It is clear that the current university funding system is broken. Not only is it pushing many universities into a financial crisis, but the changes made by the previous Conservative Government have left us with a system that is deeply unfair in how it treats students. It simply cannot be right to raise fees without taking steps to substantially reform the system to make it fairer.
By abolishing maintenance grants for disadvantaged students in 2016, the Conservatives put up a barrier between disadvantaged students and higher education. The Liberal Democrats opposed that abolition at the time, and we have consistently campaigned to restore those grants ever since. The previous Government also cut the repayment threshold to £25,000, so today’s students have to repay hundreds of pounds more per year than older graduates on the same salary. Perhaps worst of all, they lengthened the repayment period from 30 years to 40 years for those starting courses from August 2023 onwards, so today’s students will still be paying back their loans in 2066.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the first priority must be to fully reform the system, fixing the damage that those changes made and creating a system that is fair for all students? That, rather than simply putting up fees without those much wider reforms, has to be the best way forward. The crisis in funding for universities must be addressed, but have the Government considered how to support universities without raising fees? Does the Secretary of State agree that an important first step would be to recognise the benefits of international students and give universities stability in that area of policy? Does she also agree that any reform must examine how universities currently spend their allocation of £10,000 per student per year, so that that money is spent as efficiently as possible?
Bridget Phillipson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I gently observe that although it might have been slightly before his time in this House, his party has got a bit of form on this topic, but I will address his questions in the spirit in which he asked them. I appreciate the constructive approach that he has taken.
As part of the reform that we want to deliver for our young people and our sector, the hon. Gentleman’s questions about making sure that young people are supported to succeed are important ones. Since becoming Secretary of State, I have also been very clear that our international students play a crucial role, not just in our communities and our country but in the contribution they make to our local economies—I see that myself as a constituency MP. As we take forward our programme of reform, working with the sector and others, I will of course be happy to discuss that further with the hon. Gentleman.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The last Government nearly bankrupted a number of universities. Indeed, one of the two excellent universities in my constituency had to go through a significant redundancy programme to stay afloat. However, I recognise the challenges that students in my constituency are facing, not least because of the high cost of living. As part of my right hon. Friend’s reforms, will she also look at the cost of housing students, so that they can pay their way when they are studying?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend makes an important point, and we will absolutely take that into consideration. It is important that we look at student accommodation, which is a big challenge in many university towns, including in her constituency. I believe the sector should be doing more to address issues around student accommodation, working with local councils. We will be setting clear expectations of how that should work in future.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Secretary of State mentioned having paused the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023. Does she accept that, given that the Act got Royal Assent in May 2023, it remains the law of the land until repealed by this Parliament? How long does she expect that pause to continue?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He is correct in the question he asks; what I would say about the commencement of the provisions and the wider, long-term future of the Act is this. I believe it is important that our universities are places of robust challenge and disagreement, and that students should be exposed to a range of views, some of which they may not agree with. However, alongside that, it is important that regulation is workable. That is why we are taking our time to make sure that we get this right, listening to a range of voices across the sector who hold differing views. That work is under way. We will make sure that we act having listened to those views, and that will be at the heart of further steps we take in this area.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I would not be standing here today were it not for the incredible opportunities of a university education. I was the first in my family to attend and I spent the next 20 years as a higher education lecturer, watching culture wars break out and the financial system become increasingly broken. Does the Secretary of State agree that we now have an opportunity to restore universities as machines of opportunity and economic growth?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with my hon. Friend, who recognises, both in his professional life before coming to this House and as a constituency MP, the crucial role that our universities play in towns and cities, as well as by providing opportunities for lots of young people. Alongside that, one area where we need to make more progress—and in which I know that my hon. Friend has a real interest—is care-experienced young people and their opportunities at university. There is a lot more that the sector must do to support young people coming through the care system who want the chance to go on to university, to ensure that the additional barriers they face are overcome, and I would expect it to be doing more.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Does the Secretary of State accept that it might have been better to hold a wider review of the whole system—it is broken; we know that—instead of jumping immediately to putting up tuition fees? She says that we all respect and want to protect our world-beating universities, but how does she square that with her Government removing the funding for the exascale computer at Edinburgh University, which would have maintained not only its position, but our whole university sector’s position?
Bridget Phillipson
What I am announcing today is very much in line with the approach that we took at this Budget—a one-year settlement that allows us to fix the foundations, given the need to bring financial sustainability to the sector, because we recognise the acute financial pressures that many universities are facing after years of falling income from fees. That was not an easy decision, but it cannot be the entirety of what we do. I am determined to reform the sector. I will happily work with the hon. Member’s party to look at ideas for how we do that, but she will know as well as I do that the record on progression to university for young people from more disadvantaged backgrounds in Scotland is not a strong one.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I commend my right hon. Friend for making such a bold and difficult decision here when so many of her predecessors shied away from it. Putting the sector on a sound financial footing is crucial, but I also welcome the move on maintenance support. Can she assure me that, when she talks about increasing efficiency in the sector, she is talking not about vice-chancellors balancing staff and workload, but about addressing the overspend in some capital projects that might be viewed as particularly wasteful, so that good money does not follow bad?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend has long championed our fantastic universities. He is right to draw attention to the need for further efficiencies, but he is also right to identify that efficiencies do not mean making staff do more with less, or indeed with fewer staff. They do mean reeling in needless or excessive spend and waste, and he is right to highlight that.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Ten million pensioners, almost 30 million workers who the Institute for Fiscal Studies says will now see lower wages because of national insurance rises, tens of thousands of farmers, hundreds of thousands of small businesses seeing business rates rising, and today millions of students. Is there anyone that this Government told before the general election “Don’t worry!” who they have not since shafted?
Bridget Phillipson
I remain slightly bewildered by the right hon. Gentleman’s approach. He has clearly learned nothing from the election campaign we have just been through and clearly was not listening when he heard time and again about the £22 billion black hole his party left behind and the difficult decisions it ducked year after year. That is the Conservatives’ record, and he should reflect on it.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Through a 10-year career in the higher education sector and now as chair of the all-party parliamentary university group, two things have become abundantly clear to me: first, the Conservative party left the sector in utterly dire straits when it left office, and secondly, today’s measures are absolutely necessary for our universities to avoid bankruptcy. What steps is the Secretary of State taking with universities, students and campus unions to develop a new financial model—one that delivers excellence and value for students, and stability and security for university staff and management?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend brings real expertise on these matters to the House. While the Government ensure that we play our part in securing financial sustainability, I have been clear with the sector that it too must do more. That involves playing an expanded role in driving economic growth, including in towns and cities across the country. The sector ought to be considering how it can do more, including working with further education providers to look at different ways of delivering provision, especially for adult learners, who often need a different approach in order to upskill, retrain and take on new opportunities. I have seen some great examples of that and some fantastic practice around the country, but there is more that the sector should be doing.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement on increased maintenance loans and what that will do for equality of opportunity. I agree with her that the last Government did not properly value the contribution of international students. For more than 15 years, the much higher fees charged to international students have cross-subsidised British students, to say nothing of what international students do for British soft power. Will the Government remove international students from the net migration figures, so that that cross-subsidy can continue?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on the important contribution that international students make to our country and the reach they give us around the world through soft power, influence and the business and trading links that they grow and develop, but I am afraid I cannot give him the answer he seeks on his wider question.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Keele University and the University of Staffordshire, two of the wonderful universities around my constituency, have been warning for a long time of the dire financial circumstances they face. We often forget that they are also major employers in my constituency, so I welcome the announcement of this financial support—if nothing else, to protect jobs in those institutions that currently face a desperate budget round. I share the Secretary of State’s ambition to widen participation; in my patch, Uni Connect’s Higher Horizons scheme is doing a lot of work to help disadvantaged students to access higher education. What is her Department doing to ensure that that funding is in place, so that more young people from places such as Stoke-on-Trent can have a higher education experience?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend is right to raise those issues and to highlight the important contribution that universities make to employment opportunities, and not just for academics and others engaged in research and teaching, but for a wide range of jobs right across the board. From security staff to hospitality staff and library staff, there are many jobs across higher education that play a crucial role. The Department is looking at how we can work with the sector to deliver an expansion in the civic role of our universities. It is important that they do more when it comes to economic growth, but also to widen participation, because it is shameful that too few young people from disadvantaged backgrounds have the opportunity to go to university.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement that
“universities must be home to robust discussion and rigorous challenge”.
That is very welcome, but she must be aware that many students are put off going to university by the already very high fees. There were no proposals in her statement to reform university finance; there was only a proposal to charge students more. Will that not drive more people away from university education rather than to it? Universities should not be dependent just on student income to survive. Should we not be moving in the direction of lowering fees, or indeed removing them altogether, in order to make higher and further education genuinely open to all in our society?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree that there is more that universities can do to ensure that they have a wide source of income. That includes greater work around economic growth, around spin-offs and much more besides—I will be working with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology on precisely those questions. The reality is that it is necessary to bring forward this increase next year to stabilise the sector. It is a difficult decision but a necessary one, because it is no good encouraging young people to go to university if their institutions continue to be in financial peril.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I fully understand that something needs to be done. Tuition fees were introduced just before I went to university. It never sat well with me that Members of this House went to university free of charge, or with a grant too, and then seemingly pulled the drawbridge up behind them. I am pleased that the Secretary of State mentioned disadvantaged students and her plans to conduct an equality impact assessment, but we know that university applications have been slowly declining. Has she any plans to review her actions if the equality impact assessment shows that there are issues for disadvantaged students?
Bridget Phillipson
We will be setting out further plans in the coming months around the wider reform that we intend to bring to the sector. I recognise my hon. Friend’s genuine concern about making sure that talented young people who want to expand their minds and benefit from university have the chance to do so. There is much more that the sector can and must do to improve outcomes for disadvantaged students, including around progression. Sadly, it is not just that fewer disadvantaged young people are thinking about university, but that the progression rates in terms of completion are just not good enough. More needs to happen on that front, too.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
Universities work in collaboration with FE sector institutions such as Petroc college in my constituency. Government funding for the FE sector has fallen significantly in real terms over the past decade, leading to falling teacher pay. What are the plans to fund the FE sector so that it can remain a viable and accessible option, particularly in rural areas such as mine, for people to access university courses?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Gentleman raises important points not just about the state of our further education sector, but about the important collaboration between further education and higher education providers, including in communities where travelling times might be longer, and about ensuring that access to education is available to a much wider range of people. I have seen some really great work going on across the country, but there is more that the Government can encourage higher institutions to do.
The Government inherited a real mess in further education, a sector that had been ignored for so many years. We are determined to put that right. That is why in this Budget we invested £300 million into further education, alongside a £300 million capital allocation, for the first time in a number of years: to ensure that we are investing in our further education colleges, which are crucial parts of our towns and cities.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
We have thousands of international students at the University of Hertfordshire in Hatfield—they are most welcome and they make a great contribution. However, when the Conservative party was in power, the independent Office for Students concluded that the entire higher education model was reliant on international fee income. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that was a completely unsustainable model—another example of the Conservative party ignoring a problem and leaving it to us to rescue and reform our higher education sector?
Bridget Phillipson
International students play an important role in our communities and make an important contribution to our economy, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the fact that there can sometimes be pressures. I know that can be especially acute where expansion happens and the right levels of accommodation do not follow. We will be setting clear expectations of the sector that it has to work with local councils to ensure the availability of high-quality accommodation. Alongside that, as a Government we are legislating to make sure there are higher standards in the private rented sector through the Renters (Reform) Bill, because too many students are expected to live in substandard private rented accommodation.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I put on record that I am the parent of three students—two undergrads and one postgrad—who are all paying their fees. Does the Secretary of State agree that courses offering just eight hours a week of contact time do not represent good value for money? Will she ensure that that element is fully evaluated in the reforms that are coming? Will she advise the sector that if students are getting only eight hours of contact time, which is effectively a part-time course, they do not need to charge the full fees?
Bridget Phillipson
We are working closely with the Office for Students on the areas that the hon. Lady identifies. She is right that we need to do more on quality, particularly teaching quality, and we will be discussing that further in the months to come. I would be more than happy to discuss that issue with her and her party.
Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)
Universities are critical for students, of course, but also for economic growth, town and city regeneration, and much more. Reform and accountability are also important. Will the Secretary of State outline in a bit more detail the accountability to which she will hold these university vice-chancellors on teaching contact time, helping vulnerable students and ensuring that universities play a huge part in the wider communities of the towns and cities in which they are anchor institutions?
Bridget Phillipson
One of the first actions I took as Secretary of State was to refocus the work of the Office for Students on precisely those areas that my hon. Friend identifies, because it is important that we ensure that the student experience at university is strong and that students have the opportunity to take part in a wider range of activities. I am also acutely aware of the financial pressures that many students are experiencing, and that is why we have taken the decision to increase maintenance loans at the rate of inflation. I have set out five priorities today for reform of the higher education sector. We will expect higher education providers to play a stronger role in expanding access and improving outcomes, especially for disadvantaged students. Such institutions should make a stronger contribution to their communities and to economic growth.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
It was not that many years ago that I was at university—[Laughter.] Who would have thought it? Just before the Secretary of State took to her feet, I checked my student loan balance, and it is just over £60,000. For many students at university, the elimination of maintenance grants was devastating, and the reintroduction of maintenance grants will mean that living costs are not barriers to university for those disadvantaged students. Will the Secretary of State confirm the reintroduction of maintenance grants, so that no young people are put off university for fear of the costs?
Bridget Phillipson
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we will look at this issue as part of wider reform, but he will appreciate that after 14 years of Conservative failure when it comes to our universities, there are no easy options. This is a difficult decision and a difficult choice, but I can give him the assurance that I want to ensure that university remains an attractive option for all young people who want the chance to learn, to expand their minds and to take all the opportunities that come from a university education.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s leadership not just on the funding, but on the reform that the sector needs. The previous Government’s approach to regulation put ideology over evidence, and one example of that is in the role of the designated quality body. It was there to check on quality and standards in higher education, but it had to give up that role because the regulatory climate that the previous Government brought in was non-compliant with international standards. Can the Secretary of State assure the House that the regulatory approach that she will take will be different from that of the previous Government and ensure that our higher education sector continues to be world-leading?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend brings real experience on these matters to the House. He will know it is important that the independent regulator retains the autonomy to act, but we will work with it closely on quality, student outcomes and much more besides. As he will know, under the last Conservative Government, that regulator was increasingly fixated on political matters and political whim, and did not have enough focus on teaching quality and students’ outcomes. Under its new interim chair, Sir David Behan, it has changed that approach and is focusing on ensuring not only that our universities are sustainable, but that they deliver better outcomes for students.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. With fees to increase, how can we expect students to stay and work within the United Kingdom when the fields are much greener on other shores and it is much cheaper to live there as well? May I make a plea about the retention of student and junior doctors? I have repeatedly asked for bursaries or forgiveness of debt against a job commitment of perhaps three or four years. Will she consider that? If enacted, that would mean more students and junior doctors staying, which has to be good.
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. For many young people, the chance to go to university is a long-term investment in their future prospects, which offers not just the chance to study and to learn, but the chance to take on a new career in the way he described, particularly in our health service. Of course, this matter overlaps with the Department of Health and Social Care, and he can be assured that we keep these matters under review.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Any country that is serious about growing its economy should also be serious about supporting its university sector. In that context, I welcome the promise that a review will be published soon. I hope that it will take lessons from Scotland, where while undergraduate education is free, universities are grossly underfunded to deliver it. The announcement will only widen the gap between Scotland and England in that regard.
I also welcome the confirmation that we need our universities to be able to attract talent from around the world. Both the Higher Education Policy Institute and my union, the University and College Union, have said that the previous Government put blocks in place to that happening. Will the Secretary of State engage with the sector to ensure that we have the right environment to attract the best students and the best staff to UK universities and that the very best international graduates can work here at the point of graduation?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised a number of important points. In addition to those he made about the record in Scotland, he will know better than most of us the shameful record of the SNP Government when it comes to opportunities for university study for our more disadvantaged students. The share of first-time university entrants from Scotland’s most deprived areas fell for the second consecutive year. He will also know that the SNP Government in Scotland also cut mental health provision for Scottish students.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I would like to put on the record that my husband works for a university. I welcome the announcement that the Government plan to reform and strengthen higher education. I went from a northern comprehensive school to university, and I agree it is vital that we expand access so that students from all backgrounds can go to university. I recently met the vice-chancellor of Bradford University, which has a high proportion of students drawn from the city, but many students fail to progress due to the lack of high-quality graduate jobs. I invite the Secretary of State to come to Bradford, perhaps meet other Bradford MPs and see the civic contribution that the university makes. Hopefully we will see more of that from other universities in the future.
Bridget Phillipson
I would be delighted to visit and meet my hon. Friend and other colleagues in neighbouring constituencies to discuss the approach that has been taken there. She made the wider point that our higher education sector is diverse and includes a range of providers who offer different kinds of opportunities, training and study for different sets of students. Of course, young people are often the focus of our attention in these discussions, but the chance to go to university later on in life is also crucial, with the opportunity to retrain, to upskill and to make a change of career. Many of our newer universities have driven so much of the excellent work that I have seen in expanding opportunities for adults to go back into education.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Before I was elected to this place I was a university lecturer and researcher. I worked hard to expand access to education for all. I agree with the Secretary of State that universities need to do more to ensure that, no matter people’s background, they have the opportunity to access a university education and the social mobility that comes with that. Does she agree that such opportunities are a fantastic route for social mobility, whether students choose to study a science degree, a social sciences degree, or one of the fantastic arts and humanities degrees?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree. My hon. Friend will recognise that over many years we heard the Conservatives doing down young people’s ambitions to go on and study. Like me, he will have heard dismissive talk, which I will not repeat, about types of degrees and the kind of study that our young people were engaged in. It is essential for a modern economy that people have the chance to study science and technology and much more aside, but also subjects like art and music, not just because they are good in and of themselves but because, increasingly, they are a key part of driving economic growth in our country.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
The dire state of the finances of higher education institutions such as the University of East Anglia is likely to be improved by this announcement, but can the Secretary of State assure staff and students that mechanisms are in place to ensure that increased income from fees translates into fewer job losses and helps encourage more students from lower-income backgrounds into university?
Bridget Phillipson
That is my expectation. Excessive and wasteful spend in universities needs to be reined in. There must be a much greater push for efficiency. As a Government, we have made the difficult decision to increase fees to provide sustainability for the sector. Now, the sector must play its part.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have Falmouth University in my constituency, which is a world-leading arts university. Unlike the Conservatives, this Government have committed to restore the arts as a large part of the economy in this country. Could the Secretary of State confirm that arts degrees will be an important part of the economy in future, and will be supported by this Government?
Bridget Phillipson
Going to university is often a long-term investment in someone’s earning potential and career opportunities, but the chance to study is also good in and of itself. That means that we must value and respect a wide range of courses and opportunities, including subjects like music, art and much more besides, although many well-paid, great careers also result from studying such subjects.
Mr Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
When I was a student at Morley high school, the University of Leeds reached out to me and students like me to ensure that we considered a place at the institution, despite the fees at the time. Does the Secretary of State agree that, whatever the fees, it is crucial that these universities expand access to working-class students, to truly break down the barriers to opportunity?
Bridget Phillipson
I agree very strongly. It is crucial that our university sector does more to open up opportunities, including to working-class young people and those who do not have a family history of going to university. The experience that my hon. Friend described was very much my experience too—not just the encouragement that I received from my teachers but the opportunity to visit universities and see what was available. Although often there is individual good practice of the type he described, universities should do more, particularly within their regions, to collaborate to avoid duplication, ensure that they are serving their communities and draw on the wide range of talent available. They must make sure that university is an attractive option for young people who otherwise might not consider going to higher education.
Mainstream Free Schools: Review
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(2 months, 4 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Education is at the heart of the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity and give every young person the best start in life, no matter their background. This Government are determined to drive high and rising education standards for children across the country. We can only achieve this by making sure Government funding is targeted where it is most needed.
Under the last Administration, substantial funds were allocated to the free schools programme, often resulting in surpluses in school capacity. The National Audit Office set out in 2017 that of the 113,500 new places in mainstream free schools due by 2021, an estimated 57,500 amounted to spare capacity in the new schools’ local area. Not only is this poor value for money, the oversupply of places can be detrimental to the other, more established schools in that area—who might lose pupils, as well as teachers, to their new competitor.
Meanwhile, in the 14 years since the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme, some of this funding could have been put to better use improving the deteriorating condition of our existing schools and colleges. We do not underestimate the scale of the challenge that we have inherited and this will not be a quick fix.
I have therefore asked officials to review the mainstream free schools planned by the last Government, that have not yet opened. We will look at whether they will meet a need for places in their local area and offer value for taxpayers’ money. We will also take into account whether projects would provide a distinctive curriculum and any impact on existing local providers. Officials will work with local authorities and academy trusts to take this work forward over the autumn and will write to them now, setting out next steps in relation to individual projects. There are 44 centrally delivered, mainstream projects where we will engage with local authorities and trusts to review whether the school should open. More detail on schools in scope of the review will be provided in due course.
Our priority is to ensure children thrive in education, whatever type of school they are in—including free schools. Capacity varies from place to place, so we will continue to open new schools where they are needed. We also value the role of academy trusts within the school system. Strong trusts use their collaboration and leadership to deliver exceptional results for children and young people, including those in disadvantaged areas. Academy trusts will continue to have a crucial role in our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity.
We are setting this out now, so that we can work transparently and openly with trusts and local authorities as we undertake this important work.
The review announced today will only examine mainstream free school projects that were approved by central Government. It does not include those being delivered through competitions run by local authorities, which will continue as planned.
The Government are clear they want to make sure all children with special educational needs and disabilities receive the support they need to achieve and thrive. That is why the manifesto set out a clear ambition to improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, while ensuring that special schools cater for children with the most complex needs.
Work to deliver special and alternative provision free schools is continuing. As with all Government investment, special and alternative provision free school projects will be subject to value for money consideration through their development, in line with the Government’s vision for the special educational needs system.
Access to high-quality school places that enable all children to achieve and thrive, including those who are disadvantaged and those with SEND, is fundamental in delivering our mission to break down the barriers to opportunity.
[HCWS150]
Education
Bridget Phillipson Excerpts(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Qualifications must deliver on our missions, enhancing and spreading opportunity, and growing our economy. The last Conservative Government botched the roll-out of T-levels and defunded them. That is why this Labour Government have announced a pause and review of qualifications reforms, to support skills growth and students, and to bring certainty where there has been chaos.
[Official Report, 9 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 547.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson):
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
Qualifications must deliver on our missions, enhancing and spreading opportunity, and growing our economy. The last Conservative Government botched the roll-out of T-levels and wider qualifications defunding. That is why this Labour Government have announced a pause and review of qualifications reforms, to support skills growth and students, and to bring certainty where there has been chaos.
SEND Provision
Bridget Phillipson
It is certainly the case that there is a big workforce challenge, and making sure that we have specialists in critical areas is a central part of making sure children and young people can access the support they need. Our school support staff will play a crucial role in that, which is why Labour will reinstate the school support staff negotiating body. We will make sure that teachers have more training alongside support staff, in order to deliver better support and education for our young people, and this year we are investing over £21 million to train 400 more educational psychologists.
[Official Report, 9 September 2024; Vol. 753, c. 556.]
Written correction submitted by the Secretary of State for Education:
Bridget Phillipson
It is certainly the case that there is a big workforce challenge, and making sure that we have specialists in critical areas is a central part of making sure children and young people can access the support they need. Our school support staff will play a crucial role in that, which is why Labour will reinstate the school support staff negotiating body. We will make sure that teachers have more training alongside support staff, in order to deliver better support and education for our young people, and from this year we are investing over £21 million to train 400 more educational psychologists.