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

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

It is vital that the next generation of workers have the necessary skills to meet the industrial challenges we face, whether it is constructing new homes, developing our infrastructure or meeting our environmental targets. Most importantly, however, we must ensure that the next generation of young people is provided with the skills and opportunities to develop their potential and pursue their ambitions. I will be glad to join my colleagues in voting against the amendments in front of us tonight.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

If I may, I will start by joining my colleagues on the Government Benches in my opposition to new clause 1, new clause 4 and amendment 6. Well-meaning they may be, but I am impatient for change.

Stoke-on-Trent has one of the highest rates of youth disengagement in education, employment or training in the country. As always, when we look at those heat maps, we see the big yellow splodge in the middle of the midlands, which is Stoke-on-Trent, showing that we have one of the highest numbers of workers in the country with no form of formal qualification whatever. Our young people tend to find themselves unable to access any form of training or support that they need to make a future career for themselves.

I declare my interest as a governor of the City of Stoke-on-Trent Sixth Form College, as we offer T-levels. Even though I do not have an apprentice in my office like my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), as of next week a T-level student will be in a placement there for the next 18 months, to help their advancement.

My impatience stems from the necessity of identifying the skills that we need in the city I represent and of making sure that the next generation of young people coming through education have them. That is the only way I can see for us to fulfil our desire and ambition to rebuild our economy and attract those higher quality, well-paid and long-term jobs into the city that will mean higher wages and the ability to dig ourselves out of our city’s economic troubles. I do not expect or hope any Government to come over the hill like a cavalry, with a big sack of cash, saying, “Here you go—here is what you need.” It is partly on us to do that, by matching up the skills that we have and the skills that we need in the city to do the jobs of today and the future jobs of tomorrow. That is really important. The local skills improvement plan put together by our chambers of commerce and colleges has gone some way to achieving that. However, as always, it is a bit like wading through treacle, because we get to where we think we are going to be and all of a sudden something appears that makes it more difficult. Then, the people who struggle with that are the young people.

I am afraid that anything that seeks to delay the advancement of this Bill, such as new clause 1, new clause 4 and amendment 6, will not get my support this evening. I do, however, wish to spend a few minutes on my own new clause 2, which is a probing amendment. It is not intended to cause any frustration or Divisions; I say to the Whip that I am not seeking to test the House’s opinion on it. However, when we consider what apprenticeships will look like in the future and what they mean for cities such as Stoke-on-Trent, it is important to understand that level 7 apprenticeships, funded by the apprenticeship levy, are a genuinely important part of the educational offer available to young people in my constituency.

The week before last, I visited DJH accountants in Stoke-on-Trent, which is a significant regional player that is training its own generation of chartered accountants at level 7 using the apprenticeship levy that would otherwise just disappear into the Treasury. People there explained to me quite succinctly, and I agreed, that through their own means they simply would not have the available capital or cash to fund the quantity of training courses that they run. The apprenticeship levy allows them to grow a group of young people into chartered accountants. The people I met were all young. They were not at the mid or tail-end of their careers looking for a final bump before they got to their pension; they were young people who had come in after GCSEs, done their basic accountancy skills and had their eyes firmly set on a chartered accountancy qualification. The levy was allowing them to do that.

I asked the young people where they were all from, expecting them to be from the city, which they were. I then asked them where they wanted to work once they had their chartered accountancy status and, wonderfully, they all wanted to stay in Stoke-on-Trent and practise the craft that they had been learning. The economic benefit of that to my city is that if it were not for the ability of that company to train to level 7 using the apprenticeship levy, it would have to import that labour from neighbouring areas. So somebody who already had the level 7 qualification, or had been trained somewhere else through a company that could afford it, would come into Stoke, do the level 7 job, attract that level 7-equivalent salary and take it back to where they actually lived. That would mean that the level 7 salaries those young people were going to earn and spend in Stoke-on-Trent would end up migrating to other, slightly more affluent places in the midlands—and, candidly, there are many more affluent places in the midlands than Stoke-on-Trent.

The economic damage done by turning off the apprenticeship levy, or even the skills and growth levy, from level 7 apprenticeships could mean that the places such as Stoke-on-Trent that already suffer from ingrained regional inequality see it further ingrained into their local economies, because the people who have those skills travel in to do the work, or work from home, and the money flows out of the city and is spent in those other local communities.

There is also the message that we are sending to young people in the city. If level 7 qualifications are not available to them, they will be unlikely to have the means to pay for a level 7 qualification themselves. Having a level 7 qualification in Stoke-on-Trent is quite a rarity. You are more likely to find somebody with no qualification than with a master’s level qualification. New clause 2 is a hook to allow the Minister to go away and consider this. I do not believe for one second that it is the determination of the Government to artificially stymie or cap the aspirations of young people in Stoke-on-Trent by suggesting to them that those level 7 qualifications are not available to them.

I appreciate that there are concerns in the system about the levy not being used for its intended purpose, but to take people through higher level qualifications who already have a career behind them. There are obviously organisations and companies that have done that because, rather than send that money to the Treasury, they have sought to upskill their own workers. I understand why the Government want to get tough on that, because it is not what the levy was intended for, but the level 7 learners that I have met are all young. They are people who have a clear idea of the path and trajectory of the career they want to take, and the levy simply makes that more viable and likely to be achieved in an economically depressed and deprived place such as Stoke-on-Trent.

The other side of the issue is that 95% of the apprenticeships at the University of Staffordshire are at level 6, and 5% are at level 7. It provides level 7 training for the Ministry of Defence and a number of public services. Some of that is funded by the apprenticeship levy. That is an invaluable income stream for the university to deliver that training for people who then go back into the public sector to make it more efficient, to crack down on waste and to deliver those skills that we as a nation determine that we need.

That will undoubtedly need to be looked at as we have more defence spending, because we will need people with those level 7 qualifications in the defence sector, in the manufacturing companies, and in the electrical and chemical engineering companies. Ordinarily, companies in places such as Stoke-on-Trent will simply not have the capital or the cash to provide that. Only by drawing down from the apprenticeship levy will they be able to train people locally to do those jobs. If we are not training people to do those jobs, the opportunity that comes from that Government investment simply will not be felt in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, and the regional inequality that is already quite clear in my city will become more entrenched.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) talked about finding people finding career, and that is what all of us want for the young people in our communities. It is certainly what I want for the learners in my city, but that career should take them as far as they want to go. That career should take them, if they want, up to a level 7 qualification that allows them to build a life and a career that they enjoy and are happy doing. My concern is that the unintended consequence of the Government’s decision that level 7 qualifications will no longer be available from the apprenticeship levy will be that in cities such as mine, aspiration and ambition will be capped because the cash and the capital are simply not there to meet those young people’s demands.

I have no truck with or support for the delaying amendments of the Opposition, and I have no intention of doing anything with my new clause other than sitting down in a moment. I hope that the Minister will take back the concerns that I have raised this evening and see whether there is a way, maybe through devolution deals, through reorganisation or through the mayoral strategic authorities, in which certain areas could be able to continue with the levy funding for level 7 qualifications that we so desperately need.

[David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)]

I rise to speak against new clauses 1 and 4 and amendment 6. The simple truth is that we cannot have any more dither and delay. Our starting point in this debate must be the fact that we are in a skills crisis, and one that lies at the feet of the Conservatives. Twenty-six years ago, I worked on the new deal taskforce for the Labour Government of the time, clearing up the mess that the Major Government had left in the skills system. Fast-forward over a quarter of a century, and once again we find the Labour Government having to clear up the mess in skills left by Conservatives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the Bill will help young people to gain the skills that they need—in his wonderful constituency and in many other wonderful constituencies as well.

Amendment 6 tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston would frustrate the complete establishment of Skills England by delaying the transfer for a full year of the functions as set out in the Bill. Members have heard the Government set out already that delay is not an option; that has been repeatedly said. They should not just take my word for it: technology training provider QA has said that this is a pivotal moment for shaping the skills system to meet the UK’s industrial and economic needs, and it is right. The complex and fragmented nature of the skills system is contributing to critical skills gaps in our economy today: opportunities are being missed today, growth is being held back by a lack of skills today, and we cannot afford to be sluggish in our pursuit of a more joined up, data-driven approach.

In the first set of apprenticeship statistics under the new Labour Government we saw an increase in starts, participation and achievement compared with the same period under the Tories in 2023, even in the constituency of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. When the Conservatives were in government, starts in his constituency fell by 13%; almost 100 fewer people were starting apprenticeships on their watch. This Government marked National Apprenticeship Week with a set of reforms going further and faster on growth, whereas under his Government a third of vacancies were due to the lack of skills. We will press on.

The British Chambers of Commerce has urged us to work at pace to establish Skills England, and we are doing exactly that. Since being set up in shadow form, Skills England has got to work. It has got to work by identifying skills gaps in the economy and building relationships with strategic authorities, employers and other groups. Indeed, Skills England has worked with mayoral, strategic authorities and other forms of regional government as well as regional organisations to ensure that regional and national skills needs are met in line with the forthcoming industrial strategy. Skills England will work closely with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council so that we have the skilled workforce needed to deliver a clear long-term plan for the future economy, and with the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure that growing the domestic skills pipeline reduces our reliance on overseas workers. Our constituents will not thank us for sticking in the slow lane. There is no need to wait another year, and we are ready to go now.

New clauses 2 and 3 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) and the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston respectively would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish within one year of Royal Assent reports on the impact of the Act on T-levels and higher education. Members will be aware that we have already included in the Bill a duty for the Secretary of State to report on functions transferred from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education that will be exercised by Skills England, including their impact on technical education and apprenticeships. This report will need to be published not after a year but after six months, which is much sooner. We have therefore already made commitments to transparency in the Bill, and that was welcomed by stakeholders, including the Association of Colleges in its written evidence to the Bill Committee. We all agree that T-levels and higher education are central to fixing our skills challenges and, as I made clear in Committee, the Skills England six-month report will include necessary information on T-levels as well as technical education and apprenticeships delivered in higher education settings. The Conservative party has argued that we must avoid Skills England being overlooked and distracted from its important work. Surely, then, we should avoid forcing it to spend its first year producing more and more reports covering the same issues.

Amendments 1 and 2 were tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central and by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston respectively. These amendments would also place additional reporting requirements on the Secretary of State, this time in relation to degree apprenticeships. As with T-levels and higher education, the report that the Government have committed to providing after six months will necessarily include information on apprenticeships, including degree apprenticeships. Amendment 1 is about funding for those apprenticeships. We are setting Skills England up to build the evidence and the partnerships needed to deliver change, but policy and funding decisions on skills provisions will not sit with Skills England; they will continue to sit with the Secretary of State. That is entirely right and appropriate, and nothing in the Bill changes that. We will set out more information on level 7 apprenticeships in due course.

[Gareth Snell]

If I have heard the Minister right, the first report that will come out will include aspects of the implications for higher-degree apprenticeships, but the funding decisions will still sit with the Department, as they should. Will the report refer to the funding decisions made by the Secretary of State, so that when it comes to the impact of the decisions made, we can see correlation and causation?

[Janet Daby]

I absolutely hear my hon. Friend and his concern for level 7. I do not want to stray too far from the Bill and what it seeks to achieve, but I am very happy to look at that further with him, and to get back to him.

On Sunday, it will be eight years since the levy was introduced, and only now, under a Labour Government, are employers getting the flexibilities they have been crying out for, including on maths and English, and on the length of apprenticeships. That is in response to industry needs, and recognises the needs of jobs, and the need to get young people a foot in the door, so that they can start good careers. After nine months in government, this Labour Government have cut through red tape and are driving the skills that our employers need, showing that Labour is the party of business. We are reforming apprenticeships, tilting the system towards young people most in need of developing skills, and ensuring that young people get a foot on the careers ladder.

Amendments 3 and 5 were again tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. They would create a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the reasonable requirements of employers and individuals when considering whether to approve a standard or assessment plan where it has been developed by a group of persons. As I made clear in my response to the hon. Member in Committee, the Secretary of State is already subject to a general public law duty that requires them to take into account all relevant considerations when making decisions relating to the functions for which they are responsible. There is therefore already a requirement for the Secretary of State to balance the needs of users of the system when executing the functions described in the Bill. In fact, the public law duty is broader than the factors listed in the amendments and includes, for example, consideration of value for money and quality.

Turning lastly to amendment 4, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, it is critical that technical qualifications and apprenticeships reflect the needs of employers, and that they have confidence in them. Employers tell us that speed and flexibility are crucial if we are to work together more effectively to plug skills gaps. The precise make-up of “a group of persons” is not currently mandated in legislation. Flexibility is necessary to ensure that the membership of every group reflects the factors relevant to an occupation. Specifying in the Bill that a group must always include a particular voice would introduce new and unnecessary constraints on the structure of groups.

To conclude, this Government are committed to transforming the skills system so that it can deliver the highly skilled workforce that our country needs. Skills will power this Government’s relentless focus on delivering our mission. That is why this Government’s first piece of educational legislation paves the way for Skills England to identify and fill skills gaps.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful question. We absolutely recognise the role of early years education in identifying needs and providing timely support. We have launched the new SEND assessment resources and child development training, and are identifying and supporting communication needs through the early language support for every child programme, along with NHS England. We will continue to work across Government to ensure that children with SEND get the right support at the right time. I am very sorry to hear the tragic circumstances of the case the hon. Gentleman outlined.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. One of the biggest pressures on SEND funding in Stoke-on-Trent are the independent alternative providers that charge tens of thousands of pounds for single places, often with huge profit margins for themselves. We are subject to a safety valve arrangement. Could I therefore ask the Minister to meet a delegation of providers and teachers in Stoke-on-Trent, who are hungry for a new way of delivering SEND provision to ensure that our young children get the education they deserve?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the challenges and pressures on the budget. I have identified the need to improve the situation with school transport by educating children locally and to provide more inclusive mainstream places. Where special school places are required, we need to ensure they are in the right place and available for the children who need them. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to hear the ideas of his friends.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

Of course I agree with my hon. Friend that taking a whole-school approach to tackling sexual abuse and violence is incredibly important. The statutory guidance is very clear that relationship and sexual health education should be delivered through a whole-school approach. Through our safer streets and opportunities missions, the Government are considering how best to support schools in tackling this issue.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. What progress her Department has made on its review of applied general qualifications.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

We are making good progress with the review of qualifications reform, which has focused on the level 3 qualifications that are scheduled to have their funding removed on 31 July 2025. We are working quickly to provide certainty to the sector, and will publish the outcomes of the review before the end of the year.

[Gareth Snell]

I draw the House’s attention to my declared interests: I am the governor of a sixth-form college. I thank the Minister for that answer, but she will know that the certainty that she hopes to give is simply not there. Colleges have had to put off printing prospectuses. They have had open evenings and assemblies for schools at which they have not been able to confirm what they will teach. There are staff allocation issues, and they have even been asked to make projections about T-level funding for T-levels that they are not sure they will have the pupil numbers for, because they do not know which equivalent BTecs will be stood down. They will enter 2025 not knowing what they can teach. Does she think that is acceptable? What support will there be for colleges that will have to turn things around very quickly, whatever the outcome of the review?

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for really pushing me on this issue, and for explaining the situation so well. I acknowledge to him and the sector the uncertainty and difficulties in this area. Following the election, we moved quickly to pause the defunding that was scheduled for 31 July 2024. I fully appreciate that colleges need time to plan their provision, and that students need time to plan what courses they will take. We are working as quickly as possible to conclude the review, and we will publish the outcomes before the end of the year.

Government and Democracy Education

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[John Slinger]

I agree that we need to embed this learning in our system in a far more concrete fashion.

To truly empower young people we must go further than merely teach standard subjects. We must ensure that they both understand and value our government and democratic system. For example, young people draw on their knowledge of standard subjects at work, but an enhanced understanding of government and democracy would make them aware of how the economy, and hence their job, is affected by the decisions that politicians take in this House.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous with his time. He will know that one of the most successful areas of the economy and politics in this country is co-operatives and mutuals, but it may also be the case that within the wider subject, it is the area about which knowledge is lowest. The Co-operative party and the co-operative movement are keen to see co-operatives as part of young people’s political and economic education. Does he agree that that could help young people to meet their potential to learn about different models of ownership and of democracy that can help our communities thrive?

[John Slinger]

I should state that I am a proud member of the Co-operative party. Indeed, should more learning about our democratic system take place, I would hope that it would include more information about the co-operative movement and the co-operative models that I believe will help us to build a better Britain.

To add practical experience of our democratic system would be a catalyst for increasing the agency of our young people. In its submission to the Government’s ongoing curriculum review, the Association for Citizenship Teaching sets that out clearly:

“Citizenship education fosters critical competencies, such as information evaluation, deliberation, advocacy, and oracy, which are vital for civic engagement.”

Apprenticeships and T-Levels

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher, in an incredibly important debate about the future of our young people. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on his tenacity on the issue. I remember his time as Secretary of State for Education in the Government of Mrs May, and he had a genuine passion for the issue. To see him still banging the drum many years later is testament to his character.

I agree with a lot of what the right hon. Gentleman has said over the many years that he has been talking about the importance of technical education—that is, about the need to understand that technical education is not the younger sister of A-levels and academic qualifications. It is not the less important member of the family of opportunities presented to young people.

I declare an interest. I am the governor of a sixth-form college in my constituency, which provides T-levels—one of the outstanding providers in the west midlands. I also have a daughter who will soon be thinking about GCSE options for next year, so where she goes and what she does is very much on my mind.

As the hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) said, it is incumbent on us all to say to young people who are looking at their options that whatever they choose to do, the routes available will help them to be the best they can be—whether through A-levels, T-levels or the remaining applied general qualifications, once the pause and review process is finished. We sometimes find ourselves in a false dichotomy of talking about academic studies on one side and vocational and technical studies on the other. Actually, we present a breadth of opportunity to our young people, in a simplified and accessible way, which will be the determination of whether they are successful or not.

I have two colleges in my constituency—City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college and Stoke-on-Trent college. Under the leadership of Mark Kent and now Lesley Morrey, City of Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college provides region-leading qualifications, including T-levels, BTECs and A-levels. Under the former leadership of Lisa Kapper, and now interim principal Antoinette Lythgoe, Stoke-on-Trent college demonstrates what can be done at all levels of potential learning.

A city like Stoke-on-Trent—not that dissimilar to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash)—is a city that has challenges. The opportunity provided to young people at FE can be the greatest social mobility driver there is—it can unlock their potential—but there is a challenge in making sure that they are on the right path.

T-levels have been excellent for my city—again, I commend the right hon. Member for East Hampshire on the programme that he brought in when he was Education Secretary. That is about not only the uplift in funding for each young person, which better reflects the necessity of the work from the excellent staff, but the capital funding available for those institutions in the first wave to take T-levels up, which has allowed us to expand our college to create new and incredible facilities that mean that the learning experience for those young people is brilliant.

I believe that the Government are right to continue looking at this breadth, but I would say to the Minister—I have written to her noble Friend in the other place, Baroness Smith of Malvern, about this—that, while the pause and review is doing a job of work in looking at what BTECs are available, the colleges in my constituency are now trying to plan what they can offer in September 2025, much as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn). They do not currently know what they can offer. They have been asked to submit their projected T-level enrolment numbers now, but they do not know whether they will be offering an equivalent BTEC for the same course. Therefore, they are having to either overinflate their numbers and worry about in-year clawback, or worry about lack of lagged funding for the AGQ. I would urge the Minister to take that back to the Department.

In the remaining time that I have left, I will say that, while this debate has been excellent for talking about young people, there is a conversation that we have to have as a nation about adult education and ensuring that people in places such as Hartlepool and Stoke-on-Trent having to change careers because of changes in the way that industries work have the same opportunities as others to retrain, get new skills, get those well-paid, secure and hopefully unionised jobs that come with that, and make a meaningful contribution to where they live and to our country.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

It is a privilege to speak with you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this important debate, and I thank him for sharing his wide and comprehensive knowledge of past and present qualifications and awards. I am also grateful for the challenge that he and many other Members have brought to this debate. This Government are ambitious for young people, and we are excited and optimistic about what can be achieved.

As Members have rightly stated and spoken about, apprenticeships, BTECs and T-levels can offer incredible opportunities for young people. We have heard from many Members about the superb colleges and students in their constituencies, such as the hon. Members for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) and for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) and for Dudley (Sonia Kumar). My hon. Friends the Members for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) and for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) both mentioned an invite to their respective colleges, and of course I will pass those on to my noble Friend the Minister for Skills.

[Gareth Snell]

Will the Minister also take back an invitation to Stoke-on-Trent to our noble Friend?

[Janet Daby]

Very smart and clever indeed—I will of course pass on that invitation to Stoke-on-Trent as well. We have also heard from the hon. Members for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford)—it was great to hear about his brother’s achievements, so I thank him for that. There were contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), the hon. Members for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and for Wokingham (Clive Jones), and the shadow Minister—the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien).

Members have spoken about many issues in this debate, such as greater diversity in the workforce, including both women in STEM and the representation of people from diverse backgrounds. Concerns have also been raised about BTECs, apprenticeships and T-levels—for example, the apprenticeship levy, the teaching of further education, the reform of qualifications, and colleges needing certainty in the future about specific courses. I hope to address as many of those and other remarks as time allows, including the points raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire.

It is this Government’s mission to drive and increase opportunity for young people across the country. Working with Skills England, it is also this Government’s mission to support employers to train people up and identify and develop the skills they need to grow, helping to kick-start economic growth. Early investment in young people pays off for employers. We want young people to be enthusiastic, energised and passionate about learning and developing in their work. That will benefit employers, industry and our wider economy, which will be galvanised by a new generation who are willing to work hard and progress in their careers.

It has been concerning in recent years that young people have seen their apprenticeship opportunities disappear. We ask ourselves, “Why is that?” It may be helpful to remind the shadow Minister that following apprenticeship reforms made by the previous Government, including the introduction of the apprenticeship levy in 2017, apprenticeship starts by young people under 25 fell by almost 40% according to the Department for Education’s published data. It is also concerning that so many workers and employers have told us that they find it difficult to access the skills they need. UK employers report that more than a third of UK vacancies in 2022 were due to skill shortages. That is what we have inherited.

According to a stark statement from the OECD, 26% of the UK workforce are underqualified for their job, compared with an OECD average of 18%. There are widespread skills shortages in areas such as construction, manufacturing and health and social care. We desperately need workers in those areas. That is why meeting the skills needs of the next decade is central to delivering our Government’s five missions, which, I remind everybody, are economic growth, opportunity for all, a stronger NHS, safer streets and clean energy.

This Government will create a clear, flexible, high-quality skills system with a culture of businesses valuing and investing in training that supports people of all ages and backgrounds, breaking down the barriers to opportunity and driving economic growth. We are bringing forward legislation to enable Skills England to work with key stakeholders. Skills England will make sure that we know where our skills gaps are to ensure that a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications is aligned with those skills gaps and the needs of employers.

I have heard concerns that Skills England will not have the independence or authority it needs. I would like to dispel those concerns today: Skills England will have an independent board that will provide leadership and direction, as well as scrutiny to ensure that it operates effectively and within the agreed framework,

Growth and skills are essential. We have listened to employers, who have told us that the current apprenticeship system does not work. We must do more to support them in accessing the training they need to fill their skills gaps and spread opportunity. Our growth and skills offer will provide employers and learners with greater flexibility and choice and create routes into good, skilled jobs in growing industries aligned with our industrial strategy.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Thursday 24th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

As the hon. Member is aware, we are looking at the whole system in the round to ensure that we have the inclusive mainstream provision that the vast majority of children will not only benefit from but do better in, and that we have specialist places where they are needed. We are working at pace to ensure that we have the right places for the children who need them as fast as possible.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw the House’s attention to my registered interest as a governor of a special educational needs school. The Minister has rightly pointed out the failure of the SEN system over many years, but it is important that we recognise the herculean effort made by teachers and support staff in schools, and it is not those individuals who have failed young people. Further to her answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Ben Goldsborough), could the Minister outline how she will engage with representative bodies of teachers and support staff in schools to ensure that they are included in the rescue plan?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We in government cannot deliver any of the change we want to see; it will be delivered by the teachers, the support staff, the education professionals and the health professionals in our system. He is right to draw attention to their valiant efforts in a system that has been letting down them and the children and families they serve. We will be legislating to bring in the school support staff negotiating body to ensure that the support staff in our schools, who are the lifeblood of so much of what is provided to our children, have their voice as part of the national conversation.

Higher Education: Staffordshire

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 9th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Adam Jogee]

Another example of the great decisions the people of Staffordshire made is that my hon. Friend is now sitting on the Government Benches as the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, which we are all grateful for. He raises an important point for two reasons: first, Danny Flynn is a constituent of mine, in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and has spent many years doing amazing work with his team at the North Staffordshire YMCA, based in—

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Based in my constituency.

[Adam Jogee]

I was just about to say that it is based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). Secondly, the organisation has an undiluted and clear commitment to ensuring that people from many different backgrounds are able to access the opportunities they need and deserve in order to meet their full potential.

--- Later in debate ---

[Adam Jogee]

I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for such an important point. Stability, certainty and structure are what we all want in our lives. I expect that is why our party received such a mandate from the people. But on a serious note, making sure that our higher education institutions have that stability and focus will benefit all of us.

In Staffordshire, students of black African ethnicity have, at 81%, the highest progression rate to higher education. Progression rates for students eligible for free school meals have increased in Staffordshire over the past 10 years, from 13.3% in 2011-12 to 19.3% in 2021-22.

In 2021-22, students with special educational needs in Staffordshire were also much less likely to progress to higher education than those with no identified special educational needs. Both those figures were lower than the national average and, in my view, speak to the need to get a grip of SEND provision in Staffordshire and across England. The system is broken and it is leaving our young people and their families behind.

During the election, I met many of the young people who studied at Keele. I mention Molly, Martha, Olly and Bayley, who were just a few of the young people who had the wisdom both to study at Keele and to help on my campaign. From all my visits and meetings with the students, it was clear just how much they had made a home in north Staffordshire, and that is something we all want to hold on to.

[Gareth Snell]

I find myself somewhat conflicted, as a graduate of the wonderful Keele University but also representing its rival in the local varsity in the University of Staffordshire. My hon. Friend’s point about young people going to university and making their home in the area is absolutely right. I am a testament to that. But does he agree that one thing we now have to do collectively, as a group of MPs representing that part of the world, is ensure that those high-value, good-quality jobs are then brought to the area, so that the graduates we have can stay in north Staffordshire after they graduate and make a life and a family there?

[Adam Jogee]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is something that we have discussed and that we will keep working on together. Keele, which is a subject for another debate, is home to many brilliant local businesses, and we want to facilitate more such businesses. I hope those on the Treasury Bench will look favourably on us as they look for places in which to invest in the coming months and years.

At Keele, the number of higher education staff stands at about 2,000. Like all our public services, we rely on brilliant public sector workers, and I want to pay tribute to all the wonderful people who educate, inspire and support the leaders, the vets and the doctors of tomorrow. I would like to acknowledge my constituents. It is always dangerous to start naming people, but I just want to say a couple of things. Madam Deputy Speaker, your eyes are on me, so I shall be brief. My constituents are: Rosi Monkman; Professor Peter Lawrence; Ant Sutcliffe, who is also chair of governors at St Luke’s primary school in Silverdale; and Dr Robert Jackson, who, after almost 40 years working at Keele, has just retired—a good stint that certainly demonstrates more career stability than most of us will have in this House. Our thanks also go to all those who work at Keele and at Staffordshire University. Through Professor Trevor McMillan, the vice-chancellor at Keele, and Professor Martin Jones, the vice-chancellor at Staffordshire, I want to extend our real and meaningful gratitude to all of them for the work they do.

The future of our country is in many ways dependent on the future of our universities. Although I do not expect the Minister to second-guess the Chancellor ahead of the Budget, I do want to say on the Floor of the House that we must give serious consideration and thought to our universities as final decisions are made on the Budget. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), the current situation sees universities launching voluntary redundancy schemes and carrying out constant restructurings as they seek to balance the books. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) noted, the issue is also about our young people: the household income level at which a student qualifies for the maximum level of support has remained unchanged in cash terms since 2008. That means a real-terms fall of about 39%, making students from lower household income levels less likely to be eligible for a full loan and more likely to be pushed to the brink.

When those of us in this place were students, some longer ago than others, most people were able to scrape by, but now our young people are being forced to rely on food banks or worse—go hungry if the bank of mum and dad is not an option. That should never be an option, in my view; our country should work properly, fairly and decently.

I congratulate Keele University on its 75 years of groundbreaking research, thought, ideas and change. It is an important milestone that I did not want to pass the House by. Thanks to the staff, the communities and most importantly our young people, higher education in Staffordshire is in good shape, but it can and should be made much better, and that is where this new Labour Government must come in. They will have my full support.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) on securing this debate on the valuable contribution of the higher education sector in Staffordshire. This is personal, given that this year Keele University—as we have heard, the first new university of the 20th century—celebrates its 75th anniversary. I would also like to mention the many significant interventions from my hon. Friends the Members for Lichfield (Dave Robertson), for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams), for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), and from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I appreciate all those contributions, and I will address many of them in my speech.

It is right that we celebrate the success of our higher education sector, the value it brings to our economy, the valuable skills it gives to people who choose to study at our universities and colleges as well as the people who choose to work in the sector and within the regions they serve. Our universities are autonomous, vibrant and independent. We value that, as does the sector. The Government are committed to ensuring a sustainable funding model that supports high-value provision, powering opportunity and growth and meeting the skill needs of the country.

Staffordshire is home to some of the most dynamic and innovative universities in the UK, as I am sure my hon. Friends agree. Each contributes significantly to the academic and social fabric of the community. They have also played a pivotal role in shaping the future of countless students. The University of Staffordshire and Keele University foster environments where creativity and critical thinking thrive, preparing students to tackle the challenges of tomorrow. That is due to the dedication of universities and their staff in maintaining high academic standards and nurturing a culture of continuous improvement. Those universities play pivotal roles in driving local economic growth and innovation. Through strategic partnerships and initiatives such as those in Stoke-on-Trent and elsewhere in Staffordshire, these institutions collaborate closely with local industries, fostering advancements in the medical technology, healthcare and digital sectors. Those partnerships not only offer valuable learning experiences for students but have contributed significantly to the prosperity of the area.

Too many people across the country do not get the opportunity to succeed. We will act to address that. We will support the aspiration of everybody who wants to attend higher education. Higher education providers registered with the access and participation plans outline how they will support under-represented and disadvantaged student groups.

[Gareth Snell]

Keele University hosts the Uni Connect hub for North Staffordshire Higher Horizons. On average, 18% of our young people go to university; for those who have interacted with Higher Horizons, the figure jumps to nearly 64%, yet the funding for the scheme is questionable for the next year. I know that the Minister cannot comment on the Budget, but could she take back to her colleagues in the Treasury the importance of securing the funding for that scheme, so that the young people she talked about in north Staffordshire get the opportunity that they deserve?

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for his significant contribution and for advocating for students and for the university. I will bring the issue to the attention of my noble Friend the Minister for Skills in the other place and I am sure my hon. Friend will receive a response.

Interventions can include tutoring, summer schools and student bursaries. Both Keele University and the University of Staffordshire have revised their access and participation plans, implementing new ones in September 2024. They have addressed risks identified in the Office for Students’ equality of opportunity risk register and through assessment of local risk. We see that reflected in their initiatives, such as Steps2Medicine at Keele and the Staffordshire Children’s University. The Steps2Medicine initiative provides aspiring medical students with the support they need to pursue a career in medicine, ensuring that students from disadvantaged and deprived backgrounds can explore and prepare for medical education. Equally, the Staffordshire Children’s University engages young learners outside the traditional classroom, fostering a passion for learning and academic ambition early on.

Meeting the skill needs of the next decade is central to delivering the Government’s mission across all regions and nations. That is why we are building a flexible and high-quality system that breaks down the barriers to opportunity and drives growth. We have established Skills England and tasked it with providing authoritative assessments of skills needs. We envisage Skills England’s role in higher education closely mirroring its role in the wider skills system. Skills England will ensure local, regional, and national systems, including higher education providers, are meeting skill needs. It will work with those providers and other partners to ensure it is aligned with our industrial strategy.

All that will be backed by a new post-16 skills and initiation strategy that will set out a coherent vision for the skills system. It will support adults and young people, ensuring they have access to valuable work experience, giving them access to opportunity through our youth guarantee and supporting their ambitions to access higher education.

This Government are transforming the apprenticeships levy into a new growth and skills levy, which will offer greater flexibility to employers and learners, help more people to develop high skills at work and fuel innovation in businesses across the country. As a key step, the Prime Minister announced shorter-duration apprenticeships and new foundation apprenticeships for young people in areas such as construction, green skills and digital.

Those measures will support our mission to break down barriers to opportunity and to help to get young people to achieve. That is why I am delighted to see the work of Keele University and the University of Staffordshire in delivering degree apprenticeships. Keele collaborates with a diverse range of employers, including the NHS and Unilever, and has been recognised as outstanding by Ofsted for its climate change skills bootcamps, while the University of Staffordshire, through its state-of-the-art, £40 million Catalyst building, supports more than 2,000 apprenticeships, partnering with more than 150 employers, including police forces and the NHS.

Both universities are receiving significant funding from the Office for Students degree apprenticeship development fund, which will help them do even more to improve access. Skills England will work closely with employers, training providers, unions and other key partners to identify priority skills gaps, helping to ensure that levy-funded training, including degree apprenticeships, delivers value for money, meets the needs of businesses and drives economic growth.

Mental health and wellbeing have been mentioned and are extremely important. The Office for Students is providing £15 million in funding for mental health support this year. Many higher education providers, including the universities of Staffordshire and of Keele, have demonstrated their commitment to student mental health by joining the universities mental health charter programme. But we need to go further and that is why the higher education student support champion Edward Peck is working closely with students, parents and mental health experts and the sector through the higher education mental health implementation task force to drive meaningful change in mental health practice and improve the lives of students. We must do all we can to support our students and to prevent tragedies.

Both Keele and Staffordshire universities maintain robust partnerships with local industries. For instance Keele’s science and innovation park is home to numerous businesses and promotes collaboration between academia and industry. This synergy not only stimulates the local economy but offers students valuable work experience. The value that these collaborations provide to regional economies cannot be overstated and we would encourage all universities to pursue them.

We should not forget the valuable contribution of further education providers such as Burton and South Derbyshire College. These institutions play a crucial role in ensuring that every person who meets the requirements and wishes to pursue higher education can do so.

Finally, I thank all the Members who have contributed to this debate and again congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme on securing it. I hope, as I have explained, that it addresses the issues that have been raised but also celebrates the success of higher education in Staffordshire and shines a light on the sector throughout our country.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 9th September 2019 Commons Chamber

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

6. If he will hold discussions with Stoke-on-Trent City Council on its plans to fund services for children with higher needs.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mrs Kemi Badenoch)]

Next year local authorities, including Stoke-on-Trent City Council, will share in an increase of more than £700 million in higher-needs funding. We will hold separate discussions with the authorities that have raised specific issues with us.

[Gareth Snell]

The Minister will be well aware that, as part of its higher-needs recovery plan, Stoke-on-Trent City Council proposes to plunder classroom budgets by £14.5 million over the next four years. The headteachers in the city are opposed to the plan, which will require a sign-off from the Department in order to go ahead. Will the Minister make a commitment today that rather than signing it off, she will convene a meeting of the headteachers in Stoke-on-Trent, so that alternative arrangements can be found that do not necessitate robbing Peter to pay Paul?

[Mrs Badenoch]

We are aware of the issues that have arisen in Stoke-on-Trent. The commissioner is due to submit a report to the Department today, and officials will review it and submit recommendations to me in due course. Once a decision has been made, the report will be published.

Children’s Social Care Services: Stoke-on-Trent

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd April 2019 Westminster Hall

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered children’s social care services in Stoke-on-Trent.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. It is not a pleasure to be having this debate. Children’s services, and the role that councils play in protecting the most vulnerable children in our societies and communities, should be taken away from the party political arena. The Ofsted report that was received by Stoke-on-Trent City Council, showing the failures across the local authority area to help the most vulnerable people, is worthy of discussion with the Minister in order to work out how we can put that system back together. The report is one of the saddest things that I have had the displeasure of reading in my short time as a Member of Parliament.

We know that when it comes to engaging and working with young people, Stoke-on-Trent is now a city of two tales. The Minister will be acutely aware of the excellent work being done by Professor Liz Barnes and Carol Shanahan under the opportunity area, and I am sure he will agree that they are exemplars of good practice across the country, and of how people can achieve very impressive things when they get their act together. The flipside of that—the other side of the coin—is a children’s services department that has now been rated “inadequate” in all four areas of the Ofsted report, which has highlighted some shocking outcomes that prompt the question whether the local authority is fit to continue running that service, and whether the individuals who are responsible for running it at cabinet level are fit to continue in public office.

I do not wish to draw too much on the politics of it, but I want to read out a few of the findings from the Ofsted report, which will set the context for what we are discussing this morning. It starts by saying:

“Children are not being protected…Vulnerable children are not safeguarded in Stoke-on-Trent…There are insufficient fostering placements to meet local need and many children are placed in unregulated placements. The local authority knows that some of these placements are unsafe.”

It states:

“Too many children come into care in a crisis or wait too long to be reunited with their families.”

It also says:

“As a result of poor leadership, management oversight and an absence of clearly evaluated performance information, services for children have seriously declined since the last full Ofsted inspection in 2015.”

That is a damning indictment of a children’s services department, regardless of who is running the council. As a result of those shortcomings, young people are suffering in my constituency and across Stoke-on-Trent.

[Ruth Smeeth (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. The reality is that very few Ofsted reports—thankfully—are as bad as the one that has been written about Stoke-on-Trent City Council. However, I want to praise the individual social workers. It has been made clear that they are working extraordinarily hard and achieving good things, but are not being well managed and are not being supported to deliver. Their casework involves over 25 cases. Does my hon. Friend agree that this shows that there has not been the appropriate management or political leadership focus on this area, and that they have abandoned the professionals, who are trying to do their best?

[Gareth Snell]

I could not have put it better myself. My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that, as a local authority, Stoke-on-Trent has a level of casework that is higher than the national average. Each individual within that team is managing more cases than the British Association of Social Workers would deem acceptable for any authority, let alone one such as Stoke-on-Trent, where demand is higher than the national average.

The part of the report that I found most shocking stated:

“Support for vulnerable children, including those at risk from child sexual exploitation, going missing…private fostering and extremist ideologies”

was failing. The report basically says that young children in our city are at risk of being groomed for child sexploitation and criminal exploitation. I do a lot of work in this place on modern slavery, and I am appalled to know that not only is it happening in my city, but it is happening in my city because the one authority that is ultimately responsible for dealing with that has failed. I hope the Minister will pick up on that later, not because I want to kick about the council—we will do that in the forthcoming local elections—but because, fundamentally, something must change in Stoke-on-Trent so that we are no longer rated “inadequate” across the four areas when the Ofsted inspectors next come in, and so that I can look into the eyes of my constituents and say, “Yes, your children—if they ever end up in the care system—will be safe and looked after.” That is something that I cannot do currently.

[Ruth Smeeth]

Although my hon. Friend may not want to bash our councillors, it is important to make it clear that we did not have that rating when we were last inspected in 2015. In fact, we were rated “good”. As Ofsted has made clear, these services have seriously declined since the last full Ofsted inspection in 2015. The majority of recommendations made at that inspection, and at a focused visit in 2018, have not been actioned. It seems that the council has actively disengaged from the process and not followed the Government guidance in this area.

[Gareth Snell]

Again, my hon. Friend makes an excellent point; I agree wholeheartedly. The report makes it quite clear that there has been a marked decline in the provision of children’s protective services in Stoke-on-Trent since 2015. That coincided with the last round of local elections, in which the City Independent group took control of the local authority. If we are being honest, its record of attendance at the corporate parenting panel demonstrates its disinterest in this area. Of the 16 meetings that one councillor could attend, she attended zero, and she is responsible for the funding of children’s services across the council—eight apologies, and eight non-attendances.

We should make it clear—I will ask the Minister later on—whether there is anything that the Government think they can do to ensure that councillors that have responsibility for these very important areas, including both adults’ and children’s social care, are compelled to attend those meetings, to further their understanding of what is going on. From councillors who have been on the corporate parenting panel, where they have heard from caseworkers who feel under pressure and stretched, I know that information was available at that time to the local authority members who make these decisions, had those members chosen to attend. The fact that they chose to attend none of those meetings shows the interest they have in that service. As a Parliament, we should talk collectively about how we can reinforce to people in decision-making roles their responsibilities.

I want to touch briefly on another comment in the report, which said:

“The response to children and young people who may be at increased risk due to contact with extremist ideology is not robust”.

Stoke-on-Trent is a city in which we have had our problems with both the far right and organised Islamist terrorism, and we need to ensure that we protect our young people from both extremes. The report clearly states that young people are not being protected from extremism activity in a place where we know it is taking place. I do not understand how any local authority or councillor can stand up and defend the report in the way that Councillor Janine Bridges did by saying that things are much better under her watch than they have ever been.

The report sets out in black and white one of the starkest arrangements for protecting young people anywhere—not only in the west midlands, but in the country. I wonder whether the Minister could help me better understand at what point Government step in to start to resolve some of this directly. Frankly, I have no faith that the City Independent group that currently runs the council with Conservatives has either the political ability or the determination to resolve this, other than saying that everything is all right. That has been made quite clear in the leaflets that are being delivered around the city ahead of local elections, which say how wonderful children’s services are. It beggars belief that there is this lack of connection between what is written in black and white by the authorities that are responsible for this, and what is written by the people who have taken decisions that led to this chronic failure in the first place.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this very important debate to the House; it is vital that this issue gets debated. I understand that Stoke-on-Trent City Council is in quite close contact—particularly through the multi-agency safeguarding hub—with Staffordshire County Council and other excellent councils, such as Leeds. Has he seen a determined effort by the leadership to ensure that—even now—the deficiencies pointed out in the report are beginning to be addressed?

[Gareth Snell]

The hon. Gentleman points to the MASH system in Staffordshire County Council, which is one of the areas where Stoke-on-Trent City Council has made a rod for its own back. Across the border, in Staffordshire County Council—literally on the doorstep—is a system that is more robust and much better than the one that Stoke-on-Trent City Council operates. A lot of the agencies that are involved in it, including the police and some of the third-party organisations, work with both authorities, so it is not as if it was not possible to tap into that system to see how it works.

The officers that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Ruth Smeeth) North and I have spoken to understand the severity of the report and want to fix the problem. The officer corps desperately wants to resolve it, and the social workers we know are heartbroken. They have taken it personally, because it is young people entrusted to them who have been let down. However, I have not seen any element of acceptance from some parts of the political leadership that there is a problem that needs to be resolved. They took to the airwaves on the day the report was published to dismiss it and say that it was the Government’s fault for not giving them enough money, local MPs’ fault for not shouting about it previously, and in some cases the families’ fault for having the audacity to find themselves in need of social care in the first place.

I do not have the sense that the cabinet member responsible and the leader of the council understand the gravity of the report that is in front of them. If I am being honest, I do not believe that they have any interest in resolving this problem, because this is not the sort of politics that they want to do. They are not interested in rolling up their sleeves and dealing with the difficult parts of civic life in Stoke-on-Trent. They like to do the fun, happy stuff, such as cutting ribbons in front of new car parks, filling potholes and having their pictures taken—but children’s social care is the sort of stuff that matters to people on a day-to-day basis.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

The hon. Gentleman and I have joint concern for the city, which is important to the whole of Staffordshire, not just its residents. I understand that an improvement board has been set up to deal with the situation. What is his understanding of its work and its effectiveness so far?

[Gareth Snell]

There is an improvement board, but unfortunately, given the timing of the report and the purdah period for the local election cycle, no one will tell us what is going on with it, what actions it is taking and whether it is looking to Staffordshire County Council, which I hold up as an example—it is run by a good Conservative administration, which has taken responsibility for these issues and is dealing with them. This is not about Labour and Conservative party politics. There are perfect examples around the country of good Tory councils doing this well, and examples of Labour councils doing it well. This is an example of a council doing it badly, and the leadership refuse to accept that.

[Ruth Smeeth]

Does my hon. Friend agree not only that the council is doing it badly and has dismissed the report, but that it has failed to acknowledge the impact on families in our city and has not said sorry? Councillor Janine Bridges and Councillor Ann James have acted as if this has nothing to do with them, despite the fact that both of them have been responsible for delivery for the past four years. During that time our children, including homeless children, have not received the support that they are due under statutory provision. Homeless 16 and 17-year-olds do not always receive a timely or thorough response to meet their needs. We have young people on the streets and a political leadership that will not even say sorry.

[Gareth Snell]

That sums up why there is so much frustration with this process. Our city has problems. None of the MPs who represent it, including me, my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), who would have been here if he was not restricted by his Parliamentary Private Secretary role, would hide that fact. We saw the same when the Care Quality Commission did a system-wide review and found that older people were being left in their beds covered in urine for days because of a social care failing in Stoke-on-Trent City Council. Our frustration stems from the fact that, unless the problem is so stark and is written in black and white in a report that is so damaging that it requires a political intervention at this level, or is splashed in the headlines of our newspapers, nothing gets done and nothing gets changed. There is no remorse, no apology, and no sense that anything that the council was responsible for was its fault. It is always the fault of the Government, of everybody around them, and of the agencies not doing their bit. It is about time that people such as Councillor Bridges, Councillor James and their partners in the coalition took responsibility for the decisions that they have taken over the past four years, which have led us to this place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North is right. We are highlighting some of the starkest parts of our society. It is a constant badge of shame for me that, when we highlight the awful parts of our society, they always manifest themselves in Stoke-on-Trent in a way that is even worse than they had to be. If we got the basics right—if we got the bread-and-butter politics right and had given a damn about the people we are there to serve—some of this would not have happened.

I am sure the Minister will say that every child service department is now stretched because there is increasing demand. He will say that it is a demand-led service, and the local authority has no immediate control over the demand. I accept that, but if we know the demand is there—if there is a constant reporting system that says, “There is a problem with this system”—and people choose not to act on it, choose not to attend corporate parenting panels, choose to divert funding to other departments, choose not to engage with the Local Government Association, choose not to participate in county-wide programmes, choose to defer the decisions that they should be making to officers, choose not to turn up to reports, and choose not to say sorry, that is a pattern of behaviour of failure. That is not a coincidence or a coalescing of misfortune; it is a pattern of behaviour that has led to systematic failure.

I sincerely hope that the work being done by officers, the social work team and the people who are coming into the local authority is effective. A commissioner has been appointed to establish whether this should stay with the local authority or whether it should become a trust. For what it is worth, even though it is an appallingly run service, I hope the Minister will take heed of what we suggest: we think it should stay with the local authority. We genuinely believe that, once the election is out of the way—whatever the outcome—there will be a renewed appetite to fix this. I have always been a believer that local authorities should clear up their own messes. I appreciate that that is his decision, not mine, and the commissioner’s report will guide him. We have some responsibility for this. We will hold whichever political party is running the council responsible for fixing this, and we know that the Government will do so, too.

I ask the Minister to address these points. Where there are clear examples of councillors not engaging in their executive-level functions, what can we and the Government do to ensure that they take those responsibilities seriously? This is not just a matter of funding; there is clearly a cultural issue. What can the Government do to help change the culture in Stoke-on-Trent? If there is a plan, I will happily work with them to deliver it. Importantly, what does the Minister believe we can do to ensure that when Ofsted comes in next time, it does not give us a catalogue of failures that shows that young people in Stoke-on-Trent have been let down?

Oral Answers to Questions

Gareth Snell Excerpts

Monday 4th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Damian Hinds]

I will. In fact, about 200 employers have already been involved, in one way or another, in their development. Business is at the heart of this major upgrade to our technical and vocational education, including T-levels.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Obviously T-levels are still a couple of years away, and colleges are expecting funding now. What can the Secretary of State do to assure me that when T-levels do arrive, colleges such as Stoke-on-Trent sixth-form college, which will be delivering them, will not have to use some of that additional money to cross-subsidise underfunded courses in other parts of the colleges? Is not the best way to stop that money being misused simply to raise the rate for everyone else?

[Damian Hinds]

The money that the Treasury has committed to T-levels is new money to finance more hours for young people studying these subjects. I think that that is incredibly important, but, as the hon. Gentleman says, there are other people studying for other qualifications, in Stoke and elsewhere, and they too must be properly resourced.