Early Years Childcare

David Johnston Excerpts

Monday 16th October 2023 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (David Johnston)]

May I first congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), the Chair of the Education Committee? He has helped with the development of our policy in this area, and his Committee produced a good report that we have responded to. I am also grateful to him for relinquishing his time so that I have longer to respond to some of the points made in the debate.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Selby and Ainsty (Keir Mather) on giving his maiden speech, which I thought he delivered with aplomb. He gave us a lovely portrait of his constituency, which I visited—on the losing side—a number of times earlier in the year. I have no doubt that he will be a strong advocate for his constituents.

May I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the hard work and dedication of our early years and childcare workforce? Through challenges from the pandemic to the rising costs of living, they have worked tirelessly to provide care that allows children to flourish. Extensive evidence makes it clear—a number of hon. Members touched on this—that high quality early years education has a positive effect on the cognitive, behavioural and social development of children in both the short and long term. Building a strong foundation for every child is at the heart of the Government’s agenda, and it is critical to enabling children to succeed both at school and later in life. That is true for all children, but as hon. Members will know I have a particular interest in disadvantaged children, having run charities for them before I became an MP, and it is especially important to try to ensure that they get the right support in their earliest years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) touched on in her excellent speech.

High quality childcare is also fundamental to building a strong economy, allowing parents to enter employment, take on more hours or choose from a wider range of jobs. That is particularly important for mothers, whose employment rates and pay have been and continue to be disproportionately impacted by having children.

The Government have a strong track record of supporting parents with the cost of childcare, supporting disadvantaged children and ensuring that childcare is of high quality. In September 2010, we extended the three and four-year-old entitlement that parents typically take as 15 hours a week for 38 weeks of the year. In 2013, we introduced 15 free hours a week for disadvantaged two-year-olds. In 2017, the three and four-year-old entitlement was doubled to 30 hours a week. Now, recognising that childcare is one of the biggest costs facing working families today, the Government are making the largest single investment in childcare ever.

This investment—an additional £4.1 billion—will double the amount being spent by the Government on childcare so that by September 2025 all eligible working parents will be able to claim 30 hours of free childcare—I will come back to the word “free” in a minute—from when their child is nine months old until they start school. As hon. Members know, that will be rolled out in stages. From April, eligible parents of two-year-olds will be able to access 15 free hours. From September, eligible parents of children aged nine months and upwards will be able to do likewise. The full 30-hour entitlement will come in from September 2025.

[Alex Cunningham]

We are all going to welcome additional funding within childcare and the expansion of services, but surely we need a very clear workforce plan if we are actually going to deliver all this.

[David Johnston]

I am grateful to the hon. Member, because I am about to come on to workforce. However, just before I do so, alongside this we want to increase the supply of wrap-around care to enable families to work more, or flexible, hours. We are investing £289 million in start-up funding to provide local authorities with funding to set up wrap-around provision from 8 am to 6 pm in their areas. More broadly, local authorities are critical to delivering this expansion of childcare, and we are working closely with them to understand the challenges they face and ensure they have sufficient places to meet parental demand. We will shortly be appointing a contractor to support them in that work.

There have been some key themes in this debate, beginning with funding rates. By 2027-28, we expect to be spending more than £8 billion every year on childcare. We have already increased the funding paid to nurseries for the existing entitlement by £204 million this year, rising to £288 million next year. That means that the national average rate for three and four-year-olds has gone up to £5.62 an hour, and for two-year-olds it has gone up to £7.95 an hour from £6—an increase of a third. Those rates are informed by a survey of more than 10,000 providers that we carry out in order to understand the funding pressures they face. That said, I am very happy to meet both my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), who raised issues in his constituency—there has been a 10.1% increase for providers there—and my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Danny Kruger), where there has been a 6.8% increase. I am happy to continue that discussion.

On quality and flexibility questions, it is worth first noting that we have some of the highest-quality childcare in the world, with 96% of early years settings rated good or outstanding. However, we are working with the sector to increase flexibility and remove unnecessary burdens. In September, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory) touched on, we changed the ratios for two-year-olds. We are pushing landlords to be more flexible and to allow childminders to operate on their premises, and we will shortly announce our response to the recent consultation with the sector about the early years foundation stage, where we are hoping to make a series of changes to help practitioners more easily do their jobs while maintaining higher standards.

Delivering expansion is going to require a significant boost to the workforce, so it is key that we are able to encourage more people into this sector—to raise its status, as my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth touched on. In the new year, we will launch a big recruitment campaign to encourage people to consider working in a nursery school or as a childminder. We are expanding the early years professional development programme: nearly 25,000 people are already undertaking apprenticeships in this sector, but we are looking at accelerated apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships and will also be running early years skills bootcamps from next year to try to get more people into the sector. A start-up grant scheme for childminders, which will provide £600 for those registering with Ofsted and £1,200 for those registering with a childminder agency, will also be starting shortly.

Very briefly, I will touch on some other points made by the Chair of the Select Committee. Our funding rates do take business rate costs into account, and in the autumn statement the Government announced a freeze to the business rates multiplier, a tax cut worth £9.3 billion over five years. Small business rate relief exists, as does relief for charities, but I am happy to look at the extreme cases that my hon. Friend set out. He is right to flag the issue of tax-free childcare, which can save parents up to £2,000 per year on the cost of childcare, or up to £4,000 for children with disabilities. We are trying to drive up the take-up of that through our Childcare Choices website. As for people in education and training, a big part of this offer is to try to encourage people into work: students are eligible for the universal 15 hours for three and four-year-olds and for the 30 free hours if they meet the income criteria, and there is also the childcare grant and the parents’ learning allowance. However, I have heard the point that my hon. Friend has made.

I think I have covered most of the points that people have made. A number of Members from Northern Ireland have spoken: obviously, this issue is devolved in Northern Ireland, but I will just say that next week, I am chairing a meeting of the British-Irish Council on the topic of childcare. I am sure we are going to discuss childcare in both Northern Ireland and the Republic.



I think I have covered most of Labour’s commentary. I would be a lot more amenable to criticism from the Labour party if it had any policy whatsoever in this area. As it does not and all it has done is commission a taskforce to tell it what to think, I will close the debate there.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered support for childcare and the early years.

Childcare Reform Package

David Johnston Excerpts

Wednesday 28th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, which will help some of those on the lowest incomes either to take up work or to take on more work. She will recall that when I had the pleasure of taking her to a nursey in Didcot, it raised the varying rates that nurseries are paid by local authorities across the country for the same work. Does she agree that, although the Government’s largest single investment in childcare ever is welcome, it is important that local authorities pay a broadly comparable amount of money to providers?

[Claire Coutinho]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking to me to Bright Horizons in Didcot, which was a useful visit. Local authorities have different rates. We will set out funding rates before the summer, and will consult on them. We take different costs across the country into account, but he makes an interesting point.

Safety of School Buildings

David Johnston Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

The condition of school buildings is important. It affects learning and it is very much why the Government are funding more than 1,000 school improvement programmes through a £1.8 billion investment. That is part of a much wider amount of money being put into schools, with £58.8 billion to come in 2024-25. That will be the largest amount going into schools that there has ever been. My constituency, which runs from Wallingford to Shrivenham, has benefited from that. Schools from Wallingford to Shrivenham have benefited in particular from the condition improvement fund. Nine schools have benefited so far, including Wallingford School and St John’s Primary School yesterday.

While the condition of the building is important, what goes on inside the building is also important. I will never tire of reminding Opposition Members that in 2019 they stood on a manifesto to abolish SATs, Ofsted and academy schools. I would very much like to hear what they think about the fact that we came fourth in the global rankings for reading last week. I would like to hear what they think about their friends at the National Education Union who keep calling strikes in the run-up to exams for children who missed so much school time during covid. What would their approach be to these unions were they in government? Would it be beer and sandwiches? The NEU runs statements every day welcoming whatever Labour says. It runs paid-for social media ads against Conservative colleagues. The NEU clearly thinks it will get a better deal from the Labour party, so what will it be?

I like counting things, and Members will know that the last time we had an education debate, I counted how many times the Leader of the Opposition talked about education in his speech setting out his vision for the country. It was zero. I counted how many policies the Labour party has on education, and there are two. The first is breakfast clubs, a policy Labour likes so much that it has announced it twice, in March 2021 and then again 18 months later. I am afraid that does not count as an additional policy; it is just the same policy being repeated. The other is VAT on private schools, which few people believe would raise any money. It is small fry for the whole of the education system.

What we find over and over again is this sort of student union vibe of bringing motions on education. We have had eight Opposition day motions on education from the Labour party since the general election. The Leader of the Opposition has mentioned it zero times, Labour has two policies on it, but we have had eight debates. Today’s motion is a classic example of that, because there is no policy in it. It does not say whether we are spending too much or too little. It does not say what Labour would do or how it would pay for it. It is just another attempt, as the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) said, to try to strike fear into people about what is going on in our schools.

[Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)]

I am extremely grateful to my Oxfordshire colleague for giving way, and I too have some of our county’s secondary schools. I am curious about whether he has had the same representations as I have had from heads in Oxfordshire, who are desperate for their buildings to be improved. I have one school where the toilets have become such no-go areas that a child said they no longer drink when they are at school because they are scared to go into them. This is a great school—it is outstanding—and what goes on in it is fantastic, but surely he would agree that improvement can be made to school buildings and that the Government need to help.

[David Johnston]

I said at the start that the condition of school buildings is very important, and as my right hon. Friend the Minister set out, lots of these schools are being rebuilt as part of this. As I said, I have nine that are being rebuilt. To go back to the Labour party, as it is Labour’s motion, if we look at what has happened in Wales, where it is in charge, there has been no audit of schools’ conditions since 2017. Again, it is a case of “Do as we say, not do as we do”.

The Labour party is currently into setting missions. We do not have a lot of policy, but we are told that the shadow Chancellor is stopping a lot of policy because she does not want to make unfunded spending commitments. I do not think it can be that, because we are already up to £90 billion of unfunded spending commitments. It is just that we do not seem to have many in education. However, Labour is into setting missions, which seem to be big statements with no detail about how it will achieve them. Surprise, surprise, but we have not yet had one for education, so I have a suggestion. Let us have a mission for this area, and let us have the Labour party have a big five-year mission to find some education policy.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Johnston Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Claire Coutinho]

My hon. Friend is testament to the fact that good things come out of Lichfield. I have met Busy Bees a couple of times. It does some really impressive things, in particular on retention of staff and training programmes. I wish it well in the years to come.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to increase the uptake of degree apprenticeships.

[Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)]

22. What steps her Department is taking to increase the uptake of degree apprenticeships.

[The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)]

My hon. Friend will know that “degree apprenticeships” are my two favourite words in the English language. My hon. Friend’s constituency of Wantage has had 330 extra degree-level apprentices since 2018. We have had over 180,000 starts overall since 2014 and we are investing an additional—an additional —£40 million over the next two years to support degree apprenticeships.

[David Johnston]

My right hon. Friend is a great supporter of degree apprenticeships, as am I, but he will know they do not always function as the route for social mobility that they should. We have seen a much higher proportion of the most affluent young people obtain them than we have the poorest young people, so what is he doing to ensure disadvantaged students get their fair share of degree apprenticeships?

[Robert Halfon]

We are transforming careers advice on apprenticeships in our schools and targeting that advice towards disadvantaged students. The Office for Students has asked higher education to increase the proportion of level 4, 5 and degree apprenticeships as part of reforms to wider access. We also increased the care leavers bursary from £1,000 to £3,000, and are providing £1,000 to employers and training providers when they recruit young people. Our determination is to get more young people from disadvantaged backgrounds doing degree apprenticeships and apprenticeships across the board.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities: Specialist Workforce

David Johnston Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd March 2023 Westminster Hall

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Whenever we receive petition data, I do what I am sure we all do: I look at where my constituency ranks for number of signatures. For the first time in my three years as an MP—unless I have missed one—my Wantage and Didcot constituency was No. 1 for this petition. I think that reflects the problems going on at Oxfordshire County Council at the moment, as I receive almost daily complaints from parents and schools about emails not being answered, the phone not being picked up and EHCPs returned with the wrong child described on the plan.

While the county council would suggest that that is all about funding, some of those issues are not about that. Putting the wrong child on an EHCP when it is returned to a parent is not about funding. Actually, if the amount of money that is spent on tribunals by the county council was spent on the service, we would have a better service overall. As it happens, there is more money going into the system—an extra £2.6 billion—which will mean 50% higher spending in 2023-24 than in 2019-20. However, the issues are not just about funding.

In any organisation, there is always a debate about specialist versus generalist: whether we should have one person who is responsible for everything, the advantage of which is expert knowledge, or whether everybody should be responsible, so that they do not shirk that responsibility. That is true in this area too. It is right that the Government are reviewing the mandatory requirement for the national award for SENCOs, because parents clearly do not feel it is working in quite the way it should. I also warmly welcome the forthcoming apprenticeship pathway for those with sensory impairments.

However, it is also right to look at initial teacher training. Of course, there is initial teacher training and an expectation that all teachers should have some understanding and be able to handle children with special educational needs. But, again, it is absolutely clear that many parents do not feel that that is the case. While there are children who need specialist schools and other specialist provision, we know that children staying in mainstream education leads to better outcomes: they have better social skills; they have more independence; they have fewer behavioural problems. Having children with special educational needs in the classroom also improves other children’s tolerance and understanding.

The Government are absolutely right to pursue both those tracks. We are fortunate to have in the Minister a great advocate for children with SEND and their parents. She is working with the Department of Health to try to grip these specialist workforce issues, but also to help all teachers to feel more confident about dealing with children who have special educational needs, so that the first resort is not to try to push them somewhere else. I look forward to working with the Minister to achieve the Government’s aim of getting the right support in the right place at the right time.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill

David Johnston Excerpts

2nd reading
Monday 27th February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I very much welcome the Second Reading of this important legislation and the broad principle of extending the Government’s support for further and higher education to more people through a lifelong learning entitlement. It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful and constructive contribution from the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), who raised some genuinely valid questions. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education for the briefing he provided ahead of the debate to members of the Education Committee, which I chair.

The Bill is an important step in the journey to create what my right hon. Friend has often described as the ladder of opportunity, and it should benefit people across our country and at every stage in life. Making level 4, 5 and 6 qualifications more widely available, and encouraging HE institutions to offer greater flexibility to those pursuing them, are both worthwhile aims. This legislation, if done right, should stimulate greater competition and innovation in the market for lifelong learning. It has been welcomed by the Open University, which has been a pioneer in this space, and it has long-term potential to transform the skills landscape for learning through life.

I generally make it a rule not to bang on too much in this House about my predecessor but two as Member for Worcester—my late father—but I will make an exception in this debate. My late father, who never had the opportunity to pursue his studies beyond what we would now describe as level 2, set out an ambition in his Macmillan lecture about 40 years ago for people to be able to pursue education through their lifetimes. He envisaged a society in which people would be freed by the technological revolution then getting under way to pursue opportunities for education and advancement at any stage in their career. He summarised that opportunity under the heading “Athens without the slaves”—a piece of hyperbole that was much ridiculed at the time and that is commemorated in a lovely Times cartoon we have in the downstairs loo at my mother’s house—which I think recognises the intrinsic value of pursuing education.

My father’s was a generation in which higher education was a luxury withheld from the vast majority of the population.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

I am very much enjoying hearing about my hon. Friend’s father’s views, and I look forward to reading his lecture. Does my hon. Friend agree that many people just do not appreciate education when they go through it the first time round, in the years to 16 or 18? They might have bad teachers, or they might have other things going on in their lives, and they cannot see the relevance of what they are doing in the classroom. Many people would like another opportunity at education later in life, which is why this Bill is so important.

[Mr Walker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there are those who perhaps did not relish being in the classroom at the time. There are also those who go through their whole lives regretting not having had the opportunity to pursue further studies and feeling that they have somehow missed out on something. This Bill should provide a solution for both groups.

As I was saying, in my father’s generation, higher education was available to the few; it was a luxury withheld from the vast majority of the population. However, his generation also recognised that there should be no limits to where aspiration and hard work could take an individual. In his case, they took the lad who left school at 16 and who took his insurance exams while doing his national service to success in finance, politics, the Cabinet and eventually the House of Lords. However, he always recognised that, in missing out on the higher studies and university education that so many of his peers had enjoyed, he and many of his generation lost out on something of real value. He wanted to create the opportunity for people to study later in life, and to keep open the offer of vocational and academic study to adults throughout their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Education Select Committee, the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr Walker).

Mr Deputy Speaker,

“adult education must not be regarded as a luxury for a few exceptional persons here and there, nor as a thing which concerns only a short span of early manhood, but that adult education is a permanent national necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and lifelong”.

That is not a quote from one of the many briefings that was sent to me ahead of the debate. It comes from Arthur Smith, who was the master of Balliol College, Oxford, in his foreword to a report commissioned by David Lloyd George’s Government in 1919. This Bill is trying to fulfil an ambition outlined more than a century ago by a Liberal Prime Minister—one that, sadly, successive Governments of all colours have failed to deliver.

As we have already heard, there is consensus on all sides of the House about the need for a revolution in adult education. That cannot be understated, given the pace of economic and societal change before us. Research from the Confederation of British Industry predicts that, as a result of changes in the world of work driven by digitalisation and the transition to a green economy, 25 million workers will need to upskill by 2030, and 5 million will need to retrain completely. The 2022 business barometer, which was put together by the Open University with the British Chambers of Commerce, found that 78% of UK organisations suffered a decline in output, profitability and growth as a consequence of the lack of available skills.

Liberal Democrats see investment in education and skills not only as an investment in our country’s future, but much more than that. It is about helping people to maximise their potential, nurture their creativity and develop their interests and talents, so I share the Secretary of State’s ambition that, no matter a person’s background or what path they have trodden, we all deserve equality of opportunity. That is the reason I am a Liberal. The Secretary of State says that it is the reason she is a Conservative. Maybe we can hammer it out over a drink sometime, and I might persuade her to cross the Floor, because as we have seen, it was a Liberal Prime Minister who originally set out that ambition.

However, I fear that the Government’s investment in lifelong learning over recent years does not meet the scale of the ambition that the Secretary of State has outlined. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, total adult skills spending in 2024-2025 will still be 22% below 2009-10 levels. The number of students taking non-degree undergraduate courses at higher education providers fell from 330,000 in 2007-08 to 110,000 in 2021-22, most of whom were part-time learners. We are promised that the lifelong learning entitlement will change that, and that it will be flexible, unified and high-quality, with parity between technical and academic routes. We are promised that this Bill will underpin the LLE scheme by providing a credit-based method for calculating the fee limit for whole courses and individual modules. While I commend the Minister and the Secretary of State for their commitment to the cause, I agree with many of the comments made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western), that it is plain to see that this Bill is not the century-in-the-making panacea we have all been waiting for.

Many questions remain unanswered in what the shadow Minister described as a skeletal Bill. First, we are debating the Bill in reverse. Parliament is meant to debate and approve the policy framework and then let the regulations deal with the technical details. This Bill does the opposite—it sets out the mechanism through which an LLE will be delivered without setting out any of the major policy decisions about how it will work. As we have already heard, the LLE consultation was published more than a year ago, but we are yet to see the Government response. The hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond), who is no longer in her place, asked the Secretary of State how old someone would have to be to access the loan entitlement. How will maintenance support work? There are no details in the consultation. Will the repayment terms for these loans be the same as for 18-year-olds going to university when many of these learners will have only 20, 15 or 10 years left in their working lives? Will the equivalent and lower qualifications rule be abolished?

Those are basic questions about the nature and structure of the LLE that the Government do not seem to be any closer to answering as yet, but they will make huge differences to the effectiveness of the programme. The lack of any detail on how to support students with living costs, particularly during a cost of living crisis, seems to me a significant oversight, which is made even more unforgivable by the fact that the Department is increasing undergraduate maintenance loans by just 2.8% next year, when inflation is running at more than triple that rate.

I question whether the Government have correctly identified the major problem they are attempting to address through this Bill, because I am not sure they have made the case that the LLE is something that aspiring learners actually want. The Department for Education sought to prove its concept by making student finance available for 104 courses, yet according to Wonkhe, just 26 of those courses are advertising a future start date and just 33 students have applied for student finance as part of that trial. That was backed up by a survey last year by Public First, which found that telling people about the LLE made no statistically significant difference to whether people would retrain. I do not believe that reveals a lack of demand for lifelong learning, but it does show a considerable lack of interest from the public in this mechanism for financing it.

The most commonly cited reason for not showing an interest in the scheme is not wanting to take on debt. Seeing as talking about our predecessors is in vogue, I will say that was the conclusion my predecessor, the former Member of Parliament for Twickenham, Sir Vince Cable, came to in 2019 when he commissioned an expert panel of university, college and adult education leaders to explore alternatives for financing lifelong learning. They found that most mature students have work, a mortgage or family responsibilities, and so are unlikely to be attracted to a scheme requiring them in effect to pay a higher rate of tax for the rest of their working life to participate in further study.

The commission recommended giving every adult a personal education and skills account—what the Liberal Democrats have nicknamed a skills wallet. The skills wallet is not about just bolting modular learning on to the existing higher education fees system, as this Bill proposes, but would offer central Government grants throughout life to incentivise learning at all levels and would leverage private and public investment from employers, local government and learners themselves.

The Government’s consultation says that a learner’s account will show their learning balance “like a bank account”, so why not operate it like a bank account with tax breaks to incentivise individuals to save for retraining? Many short courses are being paid for by employers, so why not make employers’ contributions as commonplace as a workplace pension? Local, regional and central Government could also incentivise retraining during a downturn or following the collapse of a large local employer by topping up the accounts of affected workers.

Tom Bewick, the chief executive of the Federation of Awarding Bodies said:

“The LLE Bill has the potential to be the most radical entitlement to adult education, skills…and retraining…ever introduced.”

But he goes on to say:

“Grants and maintenance support will also be required.”

I fear that the ambition of Education Ministers for the Bill and its scope have been shackled by the Treasury.

[David Johnston]

The hon. Lady is making an interesting case, but does she accept that some people do not want further or higher education and will not benefit from it? People talk about the archetypal bus driver who has not done such courses—of course, sometimes they will have—and ask why he should have to pay for other people to do them. I can see that the measure could be important for low-income families, but does she accept the principle that people who want to do the course should have to contribute themselves?

[Munira Wilson]

I see where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but equally, we are ambitious about making sure that the whole population, or many parts of it, are reskilling and are ready for the jobs of the future, and for people from low-income backgrounds, loans are a real barrier to putting themselves forward for additional courses. The skills wallet, as in our 2019 proposal, would be a grant given at various points of someone’s lifetime between the age of 25 and 55, with top-ups from local or national Government or employers and some tax breaks to go with it. That is an innovative and pluralistic way of funding that ambition, particularly given the challenges that we face as a country to fulfil the skills that we need for us to thrive and grow, which seems to be a cross-party ambition.

I fear that the narrow scope of the Bill will prevent amendments that probe the big policy choices that await the Government before LLEs are rolled out in 2025, but I hope that Ministers will answer the following questions as the Bill progresses. Will the Secretary of State consider putting the notional hourly value of a credit in the Bill so that modules cannot be devalued by a future Government looking to save money? Universities UK and other stakeholders have raised concerns that clause 2 may allow the Secretary of State to set differential fees based on subject of the course. Ministers should bring forward amendments in Committee to ensure that that is not possible and protect universities’ institutional autonomy.

How will Ministers ensure that learners have access to high-quality careers advice before they get their loan entitlement? David Cameron promised Islamic-compliant student finance in 2013. It is unacceptable that, 10 years later, it has still not been introduced. Will the LLE also be blocked off to Muslim students? Will the equivalent or lower qualification rule be abolished to give learners more flexibility in what they study? Will the Government support the Liberal Democrats’ plan to restore maintenance grants so that university graduates from low-income backgrounds are not punished by having to pay back more of their loans for longer?

This is a pivotal opportunity to shape lifelong learning in this country, and it is desperately important given the digital and green revolutions that are already under way. If we want to ensure that we as a country are at the forefront of capitalising on these opportunities, we need to equip people with the right skills, so these plans need further thought and further detail. We will rue the day if, in another 100 years, Arthur Smith’s ambitions have still not been fulfilled.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) and for Waveney (Peter Aldous). There have been a number of good speeches, but I was struck in particular by a couple of things said by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who is no longer in his place. First, he spoke of FE having been a Cinderella service for a long time, and secondly, he addressed the risk of affluent people using the Bill’s provisions to get a qualification additional to those they already have. I will talk about the issue of access, which I think chimes well with my hon. Friend’s comments.

Before I entered this place in 2019, I ran charities for disadvantaged young people. Those charities pretty much worked with young people aged 16 to 25—a couple of them went all the way down to age 10, but the bulk of young people I worked with in the 16 years before becoming an MP were aged 16 to 25. I am therefore quite familiar with how the system pushes people to do three-year university courses at the age of 18. Indeed, they are set on that path before they even get to that point, because at 16 they have to choose the courses that will set them up for their desired university course. For example, if someone is not studying chemistry at A-level, they will not be admitted to a medical course. We put people on a narrow track at a very early age.

There are all sorts of debates about the international baccalaureate and whether we should study a broader range of subjects. If students are to follow the university track at 18, however, they have to pick subjects at 16, and school visits will often be to universities rather than to colleges and employers. The UCAS system—I am really glad that we are changing this—makes it incredibly easy for people in year 12 and moving into year 13 to apply to university. There is one form, on which they list five universities. The process could not be much simpler, although there are difficult things to do to put the form together. Everything says to young people, and to adults, “There is a slip road at this point, but if you miss your junction”—to mix metaphors slightly—“that is it. You will be set on an incredibly long road without the opportunity to come off at the next junction or go back and find that junction again.” That is what our whole system has done for a long time, and it has been quite instructive.

I do not say this as a criticism, but the two big influencers of young people—parents and teachers—reinforce that message. That is not a criticism, as I say, because we all have to do better in that regard. Parents often want their children to go to university, even if they did not go themselves. My parents wanted me to go to university, but I was the first generation in my family to do so. For many people, going to university is held up as the aspirational thing to do, and the alternatives are not seen in the same aspirational way, which they should be.

Most teachers did exactly what we are talking about: they got to 18, went to university, did a teacher training qualification, and joined the profession. So it is the thing that they are most familiar with, too.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the influencers —be they teachers or parents—who inspire individuals to go to university. A point that needs to be considered relates to the initial teacher training market review that the Department for Education has just carried out, affecting teacher recruitment. Twelve universities—including Greenwich University, which covers Universities at Medway, and the University of Durham—have been removed from teacher training opportunities, affecting more than 4,492 future teachers. If we are to inspire the younger generation to go to university, we need outstanding teachers and a spectrum of universities from across the country providing that training. Does he agree that it is absolutely right not only that we get the right teachers, but that such reviews take into account the excellent work already being carried out by teachers across those institutions?

[David Johnston]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I do not know enough about why those universities have been removed, so I will not comment on that, but a point to which I will come later is the importance of outcomes for young people and adults. Whatever the qualification that they are studying, we have to judge the outcome that they go on to, rather than just saying, “Well, you have to go to university or you will have to do this sort of thing instead.”

Apprenticeships, as well as higher technical qualifications, which I know the Bill will enable people to do through the lifelong learning entitlement, do things that teachers and parents are not familiar with, which is quite important. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney and others have talked about the importance of careers advice. The truth is that there are very few examples of good careers advice anywhere—be it in the state sector or the private sector, for the young or the old. A lot of our decisions are based on anecdote, or being told what not to do rather than what to do, without understanding the full range of available options. One thing that we have to do is to help parents and teachers understand the range of options that are available to young people. If they knew about them, they would probably be more open to promoting them.

[Aaron Bell]

My hon. Friend speaks with great authority on these matters. I completely agree with his point about careers advice. Does he agree that what is perhaps needed at the ages of 16 to 18 is better advice about what courses to take and what will open up the most doors? A lot of people aged 16 to 18 have no idea what career they want to take up. I know that I, for one, did not.

[David Johnston]

My hon. Friend makes another important point, and it leads me incredibly nicely to the point that I was just about to make.

I understand the motive behind the Labour party’s desire for 50% of young people to go to university. It was not a malign motive. Labour believed that that was aspirational and that it would help us compete, but it has clearly had a number of negative consequences. One of the most important—this goes to my hon. Friend’s point—is that we have told people, “The most important thing you can do is go to university at 18. It doesn’t particularly matter where you go to university or what you study. The most important thing is that you go to university, because we want all young people to go to university.” Thanks to a whole range of organisations, including the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which has done great work on this issue, we now know that people who graduate from a number of institutions will earn less than they would have done had they just got a job. In 2020, the IFS found that about 20% of people who go to university—one in five—earn less than people with similar grades who just get a job.

We might dislike that that is the case—we might wish that every university or subject gave people the same earnings outcome—but when I worked in this field, people could choose from 60,000 university courses, which of course do not all give the same outcomes. Certain universities—particularly Russell Group ones—give people higher earnings, as do particular courses, such as medicine, engineering and maths. The charities I worked with overwhelmingly supported disadvantaged young people, and the truth is that it is usually those people who do not get the advice they need and who pay large amounts for courses that do not add to their employability outcomes. They do not get good information, advice and guidance at a young age from school or from parents, in the way that a middle-class child might. That is one big way in which the 50% target has prioritised quantity over quality.

[Sir Julian Lewis]

I thoroughly endorse the direction of my hon. Friend’s thoughtful argument. Does he agree that, even at the Russell Group university end of the spectrum, there has been a serious issue with grade inflation? So many people—a large majority, I think—are now awarded first and upper second-class honours in institutions where, 20 years ago, one in 10 might, if they were lucky, have got a first-class degree, that it becomes difficult for employers to pick out people for the right reasons and for the right jobs.

[David Johnston]

I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. Part of the reason why that has happened is that young people feel, “I’m making an investment here. I’m paying £9,000 a year. I’m not doing that for you to give me a 2:2 or a third at the end of it.” There has therefore been this pressure on universities—often, unfortunately, with the threat of legal action from parents who can afford it—to inflate the grades people are given. This is another unintended consequence.

People will say, “Look, it’s not just about the money you can earn after your degree,” and that is the case, but because we as individuals are making that investment at that age, we understandably want to see an impact on our earnings. However, another problem is that lots of people will never pay back the money they have borrowed, and that is a huge liability for the taxpayer. Some taxpayers have been to university themselves, and some have not, but they will all incur this cost. We lend money to people to go to university, but if they do not earn enough to be able to pay it back, the taxpayer will not get a return on that investment. At the moment, we are on course for only a quarter of people to fully pay back their student loans. That is a huge amount that the taxpayer is investing unnecessarily in something that I hope we will change through this Bill.

As has been touched on, it is also the case that the three-year, full-time model for people aged 18 does not suit every young person. Lots of the young people I used to work with at the charities I ran had caring responsibilities, either for younger siblings or ill relatives. Perhaps a member of their family had unfortunately died, and those young people therefore had greater responsibilities, or they needed to work alongside study in order to supplement the family income. As such, again, we need greater flexibility, and that is before we come on to the technological change that we are expecting. We will see some of the most radical technological change that the country has ever known, and lots of the jobs that we train people for today will become obsolete. A person might make a decision at 18 about the particular course they want to study for a particular job, and in 20 years find that that job is obsolete and that they need to retrain for something else. That is why the Bill will be so important.

As an aside, lots of jobs should not need a degree anyway—we have slipped with the 50% target, I am afraid. In order to make the lives of employers easier, we have applied a higher and higher degree threshold to weed out people when we make selection decisions. If everybody has a degree, we end up starting to ask for master’s degrees, so we have entry inflation, not just grade inflation. Above all, that target has contributed to the disparity of esteem between academic and vocational courses. As has been touched on, this is a limited, smallish Bill, so giving people the equivalent of £37,000 in today’s money to enable them to train themselves across their lifetime, at some point in the future when they decide that they need to study for qualifications that they do not yet have, is so important for what we are trying to do: create that parity of esteem.

The Bill will promote lifelong and modular learning, and set limits on course and module fees based on credits. It will also achieve subtle things. Going back to the point about the whole system being geared towards one particular model, changing from an academic year to a course year is hugely important, because when everything is geared towards academics, we are continually reinforcing the message that the academic model is the only one for people.

We know that lifelong learning has a huge number of benefits. We know it will help with earnings; for some considerable time only about one in eight of the people who are in low pay have escaped that low pay a decade later. That has been true for decades, and part of that is about progression. By the way, that is partly the job of employers —they need to have good strategies for progression —but it is also about allowing adults to train in things they are not able to do, so that they can get more skills and therefore get more money.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I came into the Chamber after the hon. Gentleman had started his very good speech, so I hope he will forgive me. Is he trying to reinvent the individual learning accounts, which were an early attempt by Tony Blair’s Government to create that lifelong pattern of learning and open up opportunities? I was Chair of the Education Committee at the time, and unfortunately that Government found out very quickly that that scheme could be scammed, and it collapsed. Everyone said that the Government should have brought it back, even Mr Deputy Speaker, who used to be one of my students. Even he believed in that scheme, but it has never been resurrected.

[David Johnston]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am a politician, so I would never try to reinvent the wheel, but I think what we are trying to do in this Bill is learn from some of the problems that the Government at the time had with that situation, because lifelong learning is so important and people will need to retrain. People cycle in and out of work, and we will need to train people for jobs that none of us has even considered. Developed economies such as ours are historically bad at retraining people for new technology—it is not just a UK problem; it is a US problem too. All the developed economies find that difficult, so the Bill is an important way in which we can help people. That is before we consider the health and wellbeing advantages of lifelong learning, which are also well documented.

The Bill is set in the context of a couple of problems with which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education is familiar. One is access. It is still the case that access to certain universities is not what it should be. Disadvantaged young people find it difficult to get into certain universities, and we have to make better progress on that—some universities are still dominated by those from private schools, and that matters for everything we are training people for—and ditto the situation with international students. Some universities have made much better progress on getting international students rather than low-income students. They do that because it gives them a lot more money, but universities need to be making a good contribution to social mobility at home.

With this lifelong learning entitlement, I hope the Minister will, as with everything else, be applying two tests. First, what are the outcomes for people who undertake certain courses? I am agnostic about whether it is level 4 or level 8 and whether it is academic or vocational; the thing I care about most is whether the course helps someone get a better outcome than they otherwise would have had if they had not done that qualification. That unfortunately has not been the case with lots of the university courses that people have done at 18. The second test is simply this: do disadvantaged young people or older people who have been disadvantaged get their fair share of the courses that will really help them to have those better outcomes? Across degrees and apprenticeships, too often it is the most affluent and the most privileged who take most of the spaces on the things that will give the best outcomes. All that being said, this is an important Bill that is trying to get us to that parity of esteem, and I am very pleased to support it.

Reform of Children’s Social Care

David Johnston Excerpts

Thursday 2nd February 2023 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

I assure the hon. Lady that we will report back within a year on the pathways that we are exploring; that is a priority. I welcome her words about how we all care about doing this. It is not that people have not tried before, but I am proud of our work because this is the first time that we have had a whole-system reform of our children’s social care service. That was in our manifesto, and we are intent on doing it properly. It is very complex, it requires lots of people to work together, and we have to ensure we do it right. This is a two-year programme; Josh MacAlister set out a five-year programme. We are at the start, laying the foundations for the further work that we will bring forward.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State and the Children’s Minister—the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Claire Coutinho)—for all their work. There is a lot in it that will help to protect children, keep families together where possible and support social workers. I specifically welcome the increase in the apprenticeship bursary for care leavers. Does the Secretary of State agree that we need more universities and employers to take on care leavers? Although they may have had a very difficult start in life, they have huge potential, but it often goes unfulfilled.

[Gillian Keegan]

Absolutely. It is vital that we support care leavers as they journey into adulthood. We are increasing bursaries for care leavers from £2,000 to £3,000 and increasing the apprenticeship bursary that my hon. Friend mentions from £1,000 to £3,000. That comes on top of the existing bursaries for further education and university. It is also very important that we support access to work. We have a care leavers board, and we will be working to ensure that many more businesses take their duties to care leavers as seriously as the excellent businesses that have been mentioned, such as John Lewis.

Oral Answers to Questions

David Johnston Excerpts

Monday 16th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

3. What steps she is taking to improve support for (a) children with special educational needs and disabilities and (b) their families.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

10. What steps her Department is taking to support schools with pupils with special educational needs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Claire Coutinho)]

All children, no matter their special educational need or disability, deserve the right support to be able to succeed. We will be publishing a full response to the SEND and alternative provision Green Paper in an improvement plan early this year, and we continue to work closely with children, families and education, healthcare and local government sectors on this very important issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Claire Coutinho]

I can assure the hon. Lady that we are working incredibly hard, and we will be publishing a response imminently. In the meantime, we are rolling out training on mental health to all schools across the country, and I am working very hard with my counterparts at the Department for Health and Social Care to make sure that, when we look at the proposals on SEND, they are brought fully into the picture as well.

[David Johnston]

Many parents in Oxfordshire are unhappy with the county council for a variety of reasons—from emails that are never answered, to education, health and care plans that come back with wrong child’s details, to long delays in receiving EHCPs. My hon. Friend will know that many parents want an EHCP because it has become the only way to get support for their children, though this might not have been necessary had they received support from the school at an earlier stage. What steps is she taking to address this?

[Claire Coutinho]

My hon. Friend has raised this issue with me several time. One key part of the reforms set out in the SEND Green Paper will be clear standards about what help children with different SEND needs should be getting at school. That will give parents greater transparency and accountability regarding what their child should reasonably get, and also means that children will get the early help that my hon. Friend so rightly talks about.

Fair Taxation of Schools and Education Standards Committee

David Johnston Excerpts

Wednesday 11th January 2023 Commons Chamber

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. First things first, let me say that I went to the comprehensive school at the end of my road, which had a 21% GCSE pass rate in the years I was there. That was before the inclusion of English and maths, and had they been included, it would probably have been a school with a single-digit pass rate. I do not have any children so I am not sending any children to a private school.

I think we obsess too much about private schools in this country. They provide an excellent standard of education and that appeals to parents in not just this country, but internationally. I think some of these schools do lots to justify their charitable status whereas others do not do enough and should be doing more. I think that our leading professions should not contain a huge proportion of people who are privately educated, given that such schools educate only 7% of the country. But that is as much about those professions as it is about the schools.

So I do not stand here as a great advocate or champion of private schools, but I know that the people who have engaged in this debate have made a strong case that this policy from the Labour party would not save any money to be distributed elsewhere—it might even cost the state more than it is being charged at the moment. Sir Peter Lampl, from the social mobility charity the Sutton Trust, has said that if we want to increase the inequities inherent in the public school system, we could not devise many quicker ways of doing it than this. Many people have commented on the complications it might provide for other areas of education that are also not being charged these taxes.

I also know why the Labour party is doing this. It is doing it because it fires up Labour Members, although it does not fire them up as much as I thought given the empty Benches opposite. They think it is a way of also getting at the Prime Minister, the leader of our party. That is curious, because when we go through the history of the Labour party, we see that only three Labour leaders have won an election in the post-war period and two of them were the products of boarding schools. When we go through the key figures in the Labour party, over and again we find that they were privately educated. I am thinking of people such as Gaitskell and Foot, and the Leader of the Opposition went to a school that became a private school. So although private schools have not played any role in my life, where would the Labour party have been without the alumni of our private schools? Labour would have won even fewer elections.

We talk about this policy, but my main problem with it arises not because I am a great defender of private schools, not because it will not save us that much money, and not because it might make the problem worse or make the Labour party’s electoral history worse. My problem with this policy is that we have waited three years for education policy from the Labour party and this is what it has come up with. If we want to talk about records and 13 years of Conservative government, I will gladly stand by this party’s record on education in those 13 years. I know that the Minister of State, Department for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Nick Gibb) is going to set it out in great detail when he sums up.

If we want to talk about records, let us talk about the Labour party’s record on education in the past three years. The Labour party wants us to forget that everyone elected on that side of the House stood on a manifesto to abolish standard assessment tests, academies and Ofsted, all of which have done a huge amount for disadvantaged children in this country. Labour Members want us to forget that when schools closed and their allies in the National Education Union said that teachers should not teach a full timetable or routinely mark work in this period, the Labour party said nothing about that. It said nothing about that when it produced a 200-point checklist for schools to reopen. Labour Members want us to forget how long it took them to say that schools are safe. Does everybody remember that? Every Front-Bench spokesperson used to say, “Come on, Leader of the Opposition, come on shadow spokespeople, say that schools are safe and that children can go back to them.” It took them so long to do so. We wait three years for policy and this is all that the Labour party can come up with. I did not believe that this was the only policy, so I went to the party’s website, because I thought that other education policies must be on there, but the website is bare. The only thing remotely relating to education is about breakfast clubs in primary schools. I support breakfast clubs in primary schools; the schools I was a governor of had them and they are very effective, but that is not a big enough policy for the whole of our education system. We have undertaken big reforms in this period and we have still face big challenges, some of which are decades old and some of them post covid. We need more than this, so I thought I would look at the Leader of the Opposition’s speech from last week. Both he and the Prime Minister set out what they wanted for the country in their speeches last week. The Prime Minister referred to education 12 times in his speech last week. Tony Blair used to say, “Education, education, education”. I counted up the number of times the Leader of the Opposition said “education” in his speech last week setting out for the country what he wanted to do. Guess how many times it appeared? The answer is: zero; it did not appear once. Not once in a speech telling the country what his priorities are and what he is going to do for the country does the word “education” appear. And zero is precisely what the Labour party has to offer the country on education.

Awarding Qualifications in 2021 and 2022

David Johnston Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2021 Commons Chamber

[Nick Gibb]

This is all as a result of the consultation on level 2 and level 3 qualifications. There will be a process that exam boards, with employers, will go through before decisions are taken.

[David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s commitment to exams going ahead in 2022. Does he agree that they are particularly important for disadvantaged students, as we know from a number of studies that their potential is often underestimated by their teachers and it is only with their exams that they show what they are capable of?

[Nick Gibb]

Yes, my hon. Friend makes a very good point, and his example is one reason why exams are the fairest system of assessing students. But we are also aware that disadvantaged students have suffered disproportionately compared with the average in terms of disruption to their education, which is why the recovery premium and the 16 to 19 tuition fund are designed for and targeted at students from disadvantaged backgrounds in particular.