Post-16 Education and Skills Strategy
Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Nusrat Ghani(1 week, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement to update the House on the Government’s work to transform further and higher education in this country.
The House should be in no doubt: transformation is what we need, because the world is changing, with artificial intelligence, machine learning, green energy and new and exciting technologies. Global forces are reshaping the world of work more and more quickly. They bring fresh and exciting chances for growth and opportunity. However, unless education and training in this country also change, we risk missing those chances and our young people risk being left behind.
We have seen that before. Under the previous Government, who thought that colleges and technical education were for other people’s children, apprenticeship starts for our young people plummeted. They talked down our universities and were more interested in headlines for culture wars than in head-starts for students. We will never take that path. I know that Members on both sides of the House will agree that we in this country have a duty—to our people, to our businesses and to our great history—not just to keep up but to lead the way.
Today we publish our post-16 education and skills White Paper to seize the opportunities of this changing world, to deliver growth for our economy and opportunity for our communities, and to lead the way. My vision for post-16 education in this country is a skills system that drives growth and is more balanced, more responsive and more reflective of the evolving world of work. It will add dynamism, invention and expertise to our economy, and it will go further by inviting working people to be part of that economic strength and to add to and share in that success.
The young person who has just left school and is not sure of what is next deserves a range of quality options to choose the route that is right for him—a great apprenticeship, a top course at his local further education college, or to go off to university. A working mother deserves the opportunity to upskill and make the most of her talents. For her, it means more than a job; it means a career, security and opportunity. I want to see that opportunity cascade into our communities, with local businesses becoming more productive, taking on more people and paying higher salaries; hustle and bustle returning to the high street; the skilled workforce that we need to build more local homes; and empowered NHS staff with the right skills to deliver a transformed service that is fit for the future—getting this country moving again.
That is why the skills system is fundamental to national renewal. The White Paper is the turning point in how we go from a quarter of a million skilled vacancies sitting unfilled to a pipeline of top-quality training to fill those jobs and create new ones, from a muddle of confusing pathways to a coherent system meeting the needs of the modern economy, and from further education treated as the poor relation to our colleges standing side by side with our world-class universities.
The public will have heard such warm words about skills before, and they will know that warm words often fizzle out into nothing—no action and no change. But that is no longer the case, because our reform of the skills system has already begun. We have established Skills England, reformed the growth and skills levy, slashed red tape on apprenticeships, introduced technical excellence colleges and stabilised university finances, and we are rolling out the youth guarantee.
Today, we are going further, guided by our industrial strategy. We will fill gaps and meet needs, through our new foundation apprenticeships or through shorter courses in priority sectors, which from April will be funded by the growth and skills levy. To deliver growth, we are investing £187 million for our “Techfirst” digital skills and AI learning, £182 million for engineering, £182 million for the defence talent pipeline and £625 million to train 60,000 more construction workers. That is all backed up by 29 new technical excellence colleges.
Clean energy, defence, digital, advanced manufacturing, construction—what we need is technical excellence, and that is what our colleges can provide. Through this White Paper we will work with our fantastic FE staff. We will draw on their passion and expertise. We are strengthening professional development in our colleges, partnering with industry, and building on the evidence of what works. We will pair that support with improved performance measures, to bring our colleges out of the shadow of the university route, and to make it a pathway of equal importance, equal value, and equal pride in the eyes of the nation. As the Prime Minister has said, that will be a defining cause for this Labour Government: no longer a Cinderella service, but rather a system of high esteem, matching high support with high challenge, and spreading best practice from across the country to deliver high standards in every college. To seize the opportunities of the tech revolution, this country needs not just lawyers, economists, and scientists; we need wind turbine technicians, video editors, and builders—careers that we on this side of the House respect, and work that pays and lifts up communities.
We are introducing rigorous study pathways, giving young people a clear line of sight into great careers. That includes V-levels, the brand new vocational pathway unveiled in our White Paper today, sitting proudly alongside A-levels and T-levels, and building the skills and knowledge that employers value. We are backing those changes with £800 million of extra investment for young people in our colleges and sixth forms next year, above and beyond what was planned for this year and supporting 20,000 more students. That is why the target for 50% of our young people to go to university is evolving, because to compete in this changing world, we need to nurture a much broader range of talent.
As the Prime Minister has announced, we have a new ambition. No longer just half; we want two-thirds of our young people to get into high-level learning, be it academic, technical, or an apprenticeship. But pro-technical and pro-vocational does not mean being anti-academic. Our universities are a stamp of quality recognised across the world, a source of immense national pride, and a driver of economic strength in our regions. To any young person growing up in England today, I say this: if you want to go to university, if it is right for you, and if you meet the requirements, this Government will back you. That is why we are introducing new targeted maintenance grants for those students most in need, funded by a levy on international students’ fees, because in this country, opening up access for domestic students from disadvantaged communities is my priority.
We also need a system that delivers for working people living busy lives. That is why we are making higher-level learning more flexible and available in bitesize chunks, with break points in degrees, and supported by the lifelong learning entitlement. But it is not only degrees that matter. I want to see our universities working with colleges to deliver more level 4 and 5 qualifications, and to spread that excellence far and wide, making it easier for people to take those vital courses in their local further education college, and delivering the “missing middle” of skills that is so important for our economy and for our people seeking their next promotion.
To safeguard the excellence in our universities for future generations, last November I announced that tuition fees would increase by £285 this academic year. Today I confirm that we will increase undergraduate tuition fee caps for all higher education providers in line with forecast inflation for the next two academic years. We will future-proof our maintenance loan offer by increasing maintenance loans in line with forecast inflation every academic year. To provide long-term certainty over future funding, we will legislate, when parliamentary time allows, to increase tuition fee caps automatically in the future, linked to quality. We will not allow institutions that do not take quality seriously make their students pay more. Charging full fees will be conditional on high-quality teaching, balancing stability for universities with fairness for students and taxpayers.
Within this White Paper is a challenge to our universities to build on what makes them great, drive up access, drive out low-quality provision, improve collaboration and push forward innovation, deliver the research breakthroughs that will revitalise our economy, and feed that energy back into our local communities.
We will support every young person to take the pathway that is right for them—technical, academic or vocational—but I will not accept their having no pathway at all. Far too many of our young people find themselves not in employment, education or training. From there, they become isolated from society, disconnected from success and their hope fading, and that must change. We will strengthen the part played by schools in the transition to post-16 education, we will improve accountability, with a bigger role for strategic authorities, and we will introduce a new guarantee. Any 16 or 17-year-old not in education or training will automatically get a place at a local provider. I will not let opportunity slip away, just as those young people are getting going in life.
The White Paper delivers on that promise to our young people to give them the skills that they need, but the task of revitalising our skills system is not the isolated work of one Department or another. It is the collective undertaking of local and national leaders, together with our workforces, businesses and trade unions. It is mission-led Government in action and the prize is huge: opportunity for our young people, growth for our economy and renewal for our nation. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Bridget Phillipson
It is a real shame that the right hon. Lady cannot bring herself to welcome anything that we have announced today. It is par for the course; that is how she likes to do things. In government, the Conservatives talked about how they valued post-16 education. Their record was very different, of course. The difference between record and rhetoric is the difference between our parties, and it is clear for all to see.
We are investing £800 million more in further education, while colleges were cut to the bone under the Tories. We are putting a real focus on vocational education and FE, restoring their esteem, giving them proper respect and simplifying the qualification landscape that the Tories made even more muddled, and we are securing the future of our world-renowned universities. I did not hear whether the right hon. Lady accepted, disagreed, welcomed or did not support what I have set out today about university funding. If she does not support it, I would like to know how she intends to safeguard our world-leading universities into the future.
As usual, we heard plenty from the right hon. Lady about debt-trap degrees. We often hear a lot of talk about low-value courses or Mickey Mouse degrees, with an answer never given as to which young people should not be going to university, which courses that applies to or which institutions she has in mind when she makes sweeping generalisations of that kind. It is always working-class kids and other people’s children who will lose out from the snobbery that comes from saying that education is not for people like them.
This Labour Government will deliver a world-leading university system alongside brilliant technical and vocational routes so that all our young people have access to brilliant careers and training opportunities, including throughout their lives. This is about choice for young people and finding the route and the path that is best for them. This Labour Government say to young people, “Further study is important; it is for you. It matters to us, and it should matter to you as well.” That is why we are bringing changes to the qualifications landscape.
In answer to the right hon. Lady’s question, we believe that T-levels were a welcome and important addition to the qualifications landscape. They provide high-quality technical qualifications, with strong work placements alongside them, and sit alongside well-established A-levels, but the rest of the system alongside that is missing. We are making sure that we have good, strong routes through V-levels that young people will be able to combine with A-level study. That is for those young people who are not quite so clear at the age of 16 whether they want to specialise in one particular area. As the right hon. Lady will know, a T-level is the equivalent of three A-levels, and it requires young people at the age of 16 to make a definitive choice about the future of their career. We want to ensure that there is a range of high-quality options so that those 900 qualifications will move towards becoming part of the new V-level system. We will launch a consultation on how we deliver that, and we are keen to hear from businesses as a part of that.
The right hon. Lady asked about GCSEs and English and maths resits, and she criticised our plans to get more young people through their English and maths GCSEs. In order to do that, there has to be a stepping stone to making it happen. An endless cycle of unnecessary resits is not the way to support more young people, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, to get English or maths GCSEs. She and her party were happy to consign a generation of young people to failure, endless resits and a sense of desperation. We want to ensure that they make progress and master the basics then move on to getting that good, strong GCSE pass.
This Government will ensure that all our young people have the opportunities and chances that they need to get on. The Conservatives might be determined to ensure that fewer young people have the chance to go on to university and that our businesses do not have the skills they need, but this Labour Government will ensure that apprenticeship starts are there, with good, strong FE options alongside our world-leading universities. That is what this White Paper is all about.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement. I welcome the Government’s focus on further education and skills, which have been overlooked for far too long and are critical to the delivery of the Government’s missions. My Committee has recently undertaken an inquiry into FE and skills, and I am pleased to see a number of our recommendations reflected in the statement, particularly in the commitment to address the vortex of failure in which the current system of English and maths resits traps far too many young people.
I welcome the priority of increasing the quality of further education, but there are two key contributors to quality that the Secretary of State did not mention in her statement. The first is the 15% pay gap between teachers in schools and teachers in FE colleges, which is a barrier to recruitment and retention for colleges. The second is the inability of FE colleges to reclaim VAT, a situation for which my Committee found no justification and which City College Norwich told us made the difference of a whole floor to a new building that it had recently completed. How does the Secretary of State plan to ensure that the further education sector has not only the policy framework to improve quality but the necessary resources?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the Chair of the Education Committee. We continue to keep all such matters under review, and I can be clear with her that we believe that further education colleges are engines of growth and opportunity in our communities. This White Paper is about ensuring a prestigious, world-class system in which we will reform initial training in further education, continue to invest in whole-career professional development for FE teachers and build ties with industry to ensure that FE teachers have the greatest opportunity to develop their teaching skills and subject expertise to help young people to achieve and thrive. Alongside that, we will match that support with appropriate challenge, so that we continue to raise the bar on standards through the new Ofsted system with the backstop of the FE Commissioner.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I too thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. There is far too much in this White Paper to respond to comprehensively in two minutes, so let me focus on three critical issues.
The first issue is V-levels. The Secretary of State talks about ending confusion, yet she is introducing a new qualification that sounds remarkably like BTECs—they are flexible, sector-based and can mix with A-levels. BTECs already work: 200,000 students took them last year, 99% of universities accept them and one in five UK workers have one. If we are recreating BTECs, why scrap them first? We should keep both until 2030, so that we can compare outcomes. T-levels reached 1% uptake after five years, so let us not repeat that mistake.
The second issue is lifelong learning. The Secretary of State rightly speaks about the working mother needing to upskill, but will the support be sufficient to make that real? The lifelong learning entitlement is welcome, but the Government have cut over-21 apprenticeships, including those in shortage professions such as nursing and social work. What confidence do the Government have that their LLE can cover the costs of providing that vocational education, particularly in subjects with high operating costs?
The third issue is the international student levy. We support maintenance grants—another manifesto commitment we made that the Government have adopted—but funding them by taxing international students is self-defeating. This is incredibly tricky to model, but analysis shows that the levy could cut up to 135,000 domestic student places over five years and reduce our economy by £2.2 billion. That is not helping disadvantaged students. Will the Secretary of State make the modelling transparent and promise that opportunity will not be narrowed by the levy? There are many more questions, but I appreciate that I do not have time to ask them all.
There is much to welcome in this White Paper’s ambition, but we must guard against unintended consequences and missed opportunities. The Lib Dems stand ready to work with the Government to get this right.
School-based Nursery Capital Grants
Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Nusrat Ghani(6 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, because this is an investment in early years, which is an investment in the future of our communities. In my constituency, there is an investment of hundreds of thousands of pounds at Springhill primary academy in Burntwood, Boney Hay primary academy in Burntwood and St Stephen’s primary in Fradley. These schools do amazing work in supporting the next generation, and this money will be used to renovate facilities, give children a better environment in which to start their learning, expand the number of places and help provide the 30 hours of free childcare that working parents so desperately need. Can I put on record my thanks to these schools, and can I ask if the Secretary of State will join me in visiting schools and celebrating the work they do?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Just say yes, Secretary of State. [Laughter.]
Bridget Phillipson
I will do my very best to visit Lichfield to see the fantastic provision and, critically, to see the brilliant work my hon. Friend is doing to champion local schools and nurseries in his constituency.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Nusrat Ghani(7 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is legislation that belongs to children. The clue is in the name—the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It is for them. It is because this Government are for them. We are on a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for each and every child, to sever the link between background and success, and this Bill sits at the centre of that mission.
Let me start by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions, especially members of the Bill Committee for their scrutiny. I say a particular thank you to the ministerial team—my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—for guiding the Bill through its Commons stages.
This debate is valuable. Education is back at the forefront of national life and children are back at the centre of our national conversation. Every child in this country deserves a safe childhood and an excellent education.
The action in the Bill cements in legislation the biggest reform of children’s social care in a generation, keeping children with their families wherever it is safe to do so, supporting them to stay together and strengthening kinship care so that vulnerable children can live with the people they know and trust if they cannot continue to live with their parents. It fixes the broken care market so that when children cannot stay with their family, and kinship or foster care sadly is not an option, children have somewhere to live that is safe, secure and supportive.
After 14 years of inaction and our most vulnerable children being pushed to the sidelines, their voices not heard, the Bill puts their life chances front and centre. We have started that reform already, piloting new financial support for kinship carers and investing over £500 million into family help and child protection in the next financial year alone.
This a Bill that protects children based on data, evidence and expertise, laying the groundwork for a single unique identifier for children, enabling sharing of the right information at the right time, creating multi-agency child protection teams and requiring permission before children subject to child protection inquiries or plans can be home educated. It spots early warning signs and stops vulnerable children falling through the cracks. It starts with safety and it builds from there. The Bill legislates for free breakfast clubs in primary schools, so that our children are ready to learn at the start of the school day. It puts money back in parents’ pockets, with breakfast clubs saving them up to £450 a year. Our new limit on expensive branded uniforms will save some parents over £50 per child in the back-to-school shop. This is a Government who support families, parents and children alike.
It is the right of every child to have every opportunity to succeed, and it is the right of every parent to send their child to a great local school. That is what the Bill will do. It will provide the certainty of an excellent local school for every child. Our best schools and trusts are partners and leaders. They have shown the value of collaboration, and how excellence and innovation can flow from one classroom to another. It is time to bring that to the whole country: excellence in every classroom, science lab, art studio and music room in every type of school. The curriculum and assessment review published its interim report just this afternoon. From that review will come the rich and broad curriculum that our children need and deserve, delivered by expert teachers, raising a floor of high standards below which schools must not slip, and above which they can build and innovate with no ceiling on what they can achieve.
When it comes to our children’s safety and life chances, I am always impatient. I ask Opposition Members to put aside their rhetoric and gimmickry, just for one moment, and consider what their constituents actually want—not their friends in high places, in the commentariat and in the Westminster bubble, but parents up and down this country. Parents want qualified teachers at the front of their children’s classrooms. Parents want to know for sure what their child is being taught. Parents want more teachers in our schools, better trained and supported. Parents want free breakfast clubs in their child’s primary school. Parents want cheaper uniforms that do not set them back at the start of every term. Parents want stronger safeguards for children after the horrific incidents that we have sadly seen in recent years.
If Opposition Members oppose the Bill, that is what they are opposing. They may talk in the vaguest of terms about the supposed horror that the Bill will unleash. We have seen it all before. Just months ago, they told us that Labour’s plans to end tax breaks on private schools would send a flood of children into state schools, who would overrun them—scaremongering. I have lost count of all the doom-laden stories. Do they come to pass? Absolutely not. Once again, the Conservatives are on the wrong side of parents, resisting change and protecting privilege. It speaks to a wider point. The Conservatives are just lost. They are so out of ideas, clinging on to the misguided hope that the public will just forget the past 14 years as if they never happened and that it was not all for nothing. But it was.
Labour is cleaning up the mess that the Conservative party left behind, to ensure that every child has a safe, loving home, to put money back into parents’ pockets, to drive high and rising standards in all our schools and to deliver the brighter future that every child in our country deserves. I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]
Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Nusrat GhaniTuesday 25th February 2025
(8 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 38-R-I Marshalled list for Report - (3 Feb 2025)
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend always champions the ceramics industry in his constituency. We have had many conversations on that topic, and he is absolutely right to put it into context. Skills England will benefit the ceramics industry and his constituents because we will be able to move much more rapidly to make changes to qualifications and training requirements in order to meet the needs of employers, with further flexibility, shorter courses, and foundation apprenticeships for young people for the chance to get on, including in long-standing traditional industries as well as in future jobs and opportunities.
The Bill is a crucial leap forward, bringing the different parts of the skills system closer together, and it paves the way for Skills England. It transfers the current functions of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to the Secretary of State, not to exercise power from Westminster, but to empower the expert leadership of Skills England to drive the change we need. Bringing those functions to Skills England will place the content and design of technical qualifications at the heart of our skills system, where they belong.
Skills England has existed in shadow form since Labour took power and began the work of change in July. It set out its first “state of the nation” report into skills gaps in our economy in September. Skills England is moving ahead. The leadership is in place, and by laying the groundwork for a swift transition to Skills England, we are moving a step closer towards a joined-up skills system.
At its heart, this Bill is about growth and opportunity—growth for our economy, and opportunity for our people—and there is no time to waste. We need action, not delay. The people of this country need better jobs, higher wages and brighter futures; no more vacancies unfilled due to a lack of skills, no more chances missed and no more growth lost. We need change now, not change pushed back to some foggy future, so we are pushing ahead.
This is legislation that builds on what has come before but demands more—more cohesion, more dynamism and more ambition. That is how we break down the barriers to opportunity, that is how we fire up the engines of economic growth, and that is how we deliver the future that this country deserves—the bright hope that our best days lie ahead of us. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Higher Education Regulatory Approach
Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Nusrat Ghani(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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
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.
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?
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Nusrat Ghani(9 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Nusrat Ghani(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
I pay tribute to all the businesses across our country that are providing high-quality skills training and apprenticeship starts. However, apprenticeship starts for the under-25s fell by 38% in the period 2015-16 to 2022-23. It will fall to this Labour Government to turn that around.
Madam Deputy Speaker
If Members are bobbing, they should be prepared to be called to speak.
Bridget Phillipson
Yes, I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend. In this period of review, we are speaking to employers, training providers and colleges to ensure that we get this right.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for her response to those questions. I know that she does not have direct responsibility for Northern Ireland, but may I ask her about apprenticeships? In defence and cyber-security—in Thales and Spirit AeroSystems—and in agrifood, opportunities should be there for young ladies as well as for young men. What is being done to ensure that there is equality of opportunity for everyone, both male and female?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising this matter. I would be happy to meet with him to discuss it further.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
We have seen attempts by hostile states to influence our higher education sector, which the last Conservative Government took action to counter. Does the Secretary of State therefore share the concerns about reports that Peking University HSBC Business School in Oxford may be partly operating under Chinese Communist party rules, and does she expect the Office for Students to investigate that?
Bridget Phillipson
Like my hon. Friend, I take having strong freedom of expression in our universities, and students being exposed to a range of views—some of which they might find difficult or disagree with—extremely seriously. That is why it is so important to have a wide-ranging education. Officials will ensure that we engage with a wide range of views in this important area as we look at next steps, and I would be more than happy to discuss that in more detail with her.
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Member is right in his characterisation of a system that is adversarial and where so many parents have to fight to get a good education and support for their children. I would be happy to do so, or perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister might take that meeting.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It was in response to growing demand that the last Conservative Government increased the high-needs budget to £10.5 billion and put in place a statutory override so that SEND-related deficits did not overwhelm council budgets. With that set to expire in 2026, what is the Secretary of State’s message to local authorities: is she pushing the Chancellor to extend that protection or for deficits to be written off?
Education and Opportunity
Debate between Bridget Phillipson and Nusrat Ghani(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I welcomed the opportunity to meet my opposite number in Scotland recently, and I want to find areas on which we can reach agreement constructively and collaboratively. As for his specific question, I am afraid I cannot give him that commitment, but I want to ensure that all young people have the chance to travel, learn and study.
The hope that I want for our young people comes from the opportunity that this Government will deliver. As Members know, opportunity is a journey that lasts a lifetime, and the first steps are in early years education, because the barriers to opportunity appear early in a child’s life. We will bring about a sea change in our early years system, beginning right now.
I am fully committed to rolling out the childcare entitlements promised to parents, but I need to be frank with the House: the challenges are considerable, and the last Government did not have a proper plan. The irresponsibility that we inherited was shocking. I acted immediately to get to grips with the task at hand, but I must be honest: the disparities across the country are severe, which means that some parents will, sadly, miss out on their first-choice place. They and their children deserve better, and I am determined to get this right. We will create 3,000 nurseries in primary schools to better connect early years with our wider education system. By the time we are done, we will have thriving children, strong families, and parents who are able to work the hours they want.
The foundations for a love of learning are laid early, in primary school, but child poverty puts up barriers at every turn. It is a scar on our society. The need to eradicate child poverty is why I came into politics, and it is why the Prime Minister has appointed me and the Work and Pensions Secretary to jointly lead the new child poverty taskforce. Together, we will set out an ambitious child poverty strategy, and I will introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school. They are about more than just breakfast; they are important for driving up standards, improving behaviour, increasing attendance and boosting achievement.
What children are taught once they are in the classroom matters, too. We must start early with maths, and inspire a love of numbers in our youngest learners, and this Government are committed to fully evidence-based early language interventions in primary schools, so that all children can find their voice.
I want high and rising standards across all our schools and for all our children, but I mean that in the broadest and most ambitious of terms. We should be growing a love of learning, and encouraging children to explore the world around them, to be bold, to dream and to discover their power. Our curriculum must reflect that. That is why I have announced the Government’s expert-led review of the curriculum and assessment at all key stages, in order to support our children and young people, so that they succeed tomorrow and thrive today. By working with teachers, parents and employers, we will deliver a framework for learning that is innovative, inclusive, supportive and challenging, that drives up standards in our schools, and ensures that every child has access to a broad and rich curriculum.
However, any curriculum is only as strong as the teachers who teach it. Today, those teachers are leaving the classroom, not in dribs and drabs but in their droves—and too often, opportunity follows them out the door. I am working tirelessly to turn that around. We will back our teachers and support staff, and we will partner with the profession to ensure that workloads are manageable. We have already begun recruiting 6,500 more expert teachers. Together, we will restore teaching as the career of choice for our very best graduates, and we will invest in our schools and services by ending the tax breaks that private schools enjoy.
Accountability is vital and non-negotiable, but Ofsted must change, and change it will. Our reform will start with ending one-word judgments. We will bring in a new report card system. That is part of our plan to support schools and challenge them when needed in order to deliver high and rising standards for every child.
I have spoken to colleagues from across the House about their concerns about how the system is failing learners with special educational needs and disabilities. I share those concerns; the system is broken. I am delighted to see on the Government Benches my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), with whom I worked so closely on this issue in opposition, and who shares entirely my focus and concern. All families want the best for their children, but parents of children with special educational needs often face a slow struggle to get the right support. They are bogged down by bureaucracy and an adversarial system, and entangled by complexity. It is not good enough, and we will work relentlessly to put that right. We are committed to taking a community-wide approach in which we improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, as well as ensure that special schools cater to those with the most complex needs. I have already restructured my Department to start delivering on this commitment. There can be no goal more important and more urgent than extending opportunities to our most vulnerable children, which also means reforming children’s social care.
Young people and adults deserve high-quality routes to building the skills that they need to seize opportunity, and businesses need staff with the skills to help them grow. Those are two sides of the same coin, and the key to our future prosperity and growth. We need a skills system fit for the future, but we have a fragmented system that frustrates businesses, lets down learners and grinds growth into the ground. It is time for a comprehensive strategy, and for our country to take skills seriously, so this week, alongside the Prime Minister, I announced Skills England, a new body that will unify the fractured landscape. It will bring together central Government, combined authorities, businesses, training providers, unions and experts. Businesses have told us that they need more flexibility to deliver the training that works for them, so we will introduce a new growth and skills levy to replace the failing apprenticeship levy.
Post-16 education is all about giving learners the power to make choices that are right for them. For many, that choice will be university, and I am immensely proud of our world-leading universities. They are shining lights of learning, but their future has been left in darkness for too long. This must and will change. There will be no more talking down our country’s strongest exports. Under this Government, universities will be valued as a public good, not treated as a political battleground. We will move decisively to establish certainty and sustainability, securing our universities as engines of growth, excellence and opportunity.
This Government will break the link between background and success. We will create opportunities for children and learners to succeed. We will give them the freedom to chase their ambitions, and the freedom to hope. This Labour Government are returning hope to our country after 14 long years, and there can be no greater work than building a country where background is no barrier to opportunity. That work of change has already begun.