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

Janet Daby Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak in favour of the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. He is right; of course, we have just voted on something quite similar, and that vote was lost by the classic 11 to four margin, with which we have become familiar. But that does not mean the Government cannot do this, and indeed there have been some signs and indications that they might make Skills England a fully independent body on a statutory footing. Most people talk about Skills England in their speeches, but that is not what the Bill, as introduced, does; it abolishes something without actually creating something else, and hands the powers to the Secretary of State, in whose gift it is to hand on.

There was also the question that came up last Thursday about Ofqual, and what the Bill does to that, which I do not think we were 100% clear about. I think the Minister was going to write, but I do not think I have seen that letter—that is not to say it has not come, or been sent, but I am wondering if when the Minister comes to speak, if she could confirm whether that letter has come.

There have always been two fundamental questions about the Bill and the creation of Skills England: the first is about independence, and the second is about who should set the expectations and standards for various occupations—should it be the employers in those organisations or somebody else? There is also a third point, which is relevant to independence, about the heft of this body, putting skills right at the heart of cross-departmental work, and what statutory independence would do to the status of this body.

Particularly in education and training, one of the reasons that we have independent bodies is so that everybody knows that the standards are robust, they cannot be subject to political pressure, and there cannot be a temptation to make it a bit easier to get over a hurdle to make the numbers look better. We have had that system of independence for a very long time, and do to this day, and still will in the future for academic qualifications. As I said the other day, I think independence of this body is important to underpinning parity of esteem. IfATE is legally established as a non-departmental public body, whereas Skills England will be, as things stand, an executive agency. As a non-departmental public body, IfATE does therefore have some independence from the Department for Education because its functions and responsibilities are set out in legislation approved by this Parliament, whereas Skills England, as things stand, will simply be an integral part or unit within DFE.

When Skills England was first talked about in the King’s Speech, it seemed that it would be established as an independent body. As well as my question on Ofqual, the first of my other questions to the Minister is, what has changed? If that was the intent—perhaps we have all just misread the text—what is different now, that it should not be? Finally, if it is right for the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council to be put on a statutory footing, why is it not for Skills England?

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

New clause 2 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to establish Skills England as a statutory body with a separate legal identity. It would transfer the functions the Secretary of State takes on under the Bill to a new body within 12 months.

The new clause would undo significant progress already made by the Government to establish Skills England. It has been operating in shadow form since July of last year. It is ready to take on the functions conferred by the Bill. I reassure Members that we considered different options for the model of arm’s length body for Skills England. It being an executive agency allows us to move fast, much faster than the previous Government did for 14 years. Skills England can take immediate action to plug the skills gaps that this Government have inherited, and we are focused on economic growth. An executive agency balances the independent Skills England’s need to deliver its functions at arm’s length from the Department with being close enough to inform decisions on skills, policy and delivery. That is good practice for all new arm’s length bodies.

The Department for Education will undertake a review of Skills England. The review will take place about 18 to 24 months after it is fully established, and that will align with the requirements of any future Cabinet Office review programme. It will consider how far Skills England is delivering its functions in the way intended; whether its mix of functions is still aligned to Government priorities; and whether there are alternative ways to deliver the Government’s objectives, including a different model of arm’s length body.

Delay, however, is not an option. We need to respond urgently to critical issues in the skills system to drive growth and spread opportunity. To encourage this Committee, in the first set of apprenticeship statistics under the new Labour Government, we saw an increase in starts, participation and achievements compared with the same period under the Tories in 2023. We remain an ambitious Labour Government. We do not dither or delay, and we urgently need reform to deliver the skills and technical education that is needed. That is what the Bill and Skills England will enable us to do.

New clause 3 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report setting out Skills England’s activities in the preceding year. It would also require Skills England to have regard to matters such as the quality of training and education, and value for money when performing its duties.

Well-established requirements are already placed on executive agencies for a high level of transparency and accountability in how they operate. That includes the publication of a framework document which, as I have mentioned, is a core constitutional document. It will be agreed between the Department for Education and Skills England in accordance with HM Treasury’s handbook “Managing public money”. Once finalised, it will be published online and a copy deposited in both Houses.

The Secretary of State, and Skills England acting on their behalf, is already obliged under general public law to take into account all relevant matters when exercising their functions. Those relevant matters are likely to include the ones in new clause 3. While the Bill was scrutinised in the other place, as I have said, my right hon. Friend the Baroness Smith of Malvern, shared a draft copy of the Skills England framework document with peers. She committed to include references to the need for Skills England to deliver its functions efficiently and effectively, and to ensure that training is high quality and provides good value for money.

In response to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire on Ofqual, the letter concerning Ofqual has been sent to the Chair of the Committee, and also addresses other issues raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston last Thursday.

I am happy to repeat the commitments that I have already mentioned, but finally, I would like to say there is precedent for non-departmental public bodies being closed and their functions being reassigned to newly formed executive bodies. For example, under the previous Government in 2011, the Standards and Testing Agency was established as an executive agency taking on functions from the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, a non-departmental public body, which was later closed.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

Report on the impact on T levels

“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on T-Levels.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the involvement of Skills England in the administration of T Levels, including the curriculum and assessment methods;

(b) an assessment of the independence of the accreditation of T-Levels, specifically whether there has been any involvement of the Secretary of State in this process; and

(c) an assessment of the extent to which T-Levels are meeting local demand for skills.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Neil O’Brien.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister said that the letter has been sent to the Chair, but the Chair says that she has not seen it.

[Janet Daby]

The letter addressing the issues that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire have raised has been sent to Sir Christopher, your co-Chair, Ms Furniss, and I am sure it will be shared in due course.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is a shame, as this is the last day of this Bill Committee. I do not know whether the letter could be produced before we finish today, but otherwise, those questions will effectively go unanswered because they have not made their way to Committee members. But this was a minor point about the interaction with clause 8 and the decision to bring Ofqual in potentially for T-levels, so I will turn squarely to T-levels now.

I was encouraged by the positive words about T-levels in the curriculum review, but it is very difficult to get a new qualification going, never mind a whole new system, which is what T-levels were intended to be in their initiation by Lord Sainsbury. After the big long debate on BTecs, Ministers in the end decided to add T-levels into the existing alphabet soup of qualifications rather than use them to replace and rationalise that system, which was the original goal of Lord Sainsbury’s project. I should declare an interest in so far as I worked on T-levels back when they were still known as Sainsbury routes. None the less it would still, despite the Ministers’ decision, be possible for them to grow and become a leading part of the system, but that would require a huge push from Ministers. It is difficult to get a new qualification going, never mind a whole new system, and it is much more likely that in the absence of a big push from Ministers that they will stagnate as an interesting, well-regarded and quality niche, but ultimately a small part of the system, which was really not what was intended.

For several years, the DFE has provided a 10% uplift to the funding rates for T-levels as a new qualification, but a couple of weeks ago the Government implied that they would stop doing that this year. They have not made a decision, and providers are now desperate for certainty on that issue. I ask the Minister directly to respond to this: will the 10% uplift be continued or not after this academic year? The sector is now making decisions about this, and urgently needs certainty. The Minister keeps saying that she wants to move fast: the providers, and I am asking her to move fast to give them the certainty on what the funding rate will be, and whether the 10% will continue, because if not, my strong sense is that many providers will conclude that it is not really a priority any more, and not worth the investment of time and resources, which are significant to get these things going. I hope the Minister can address that point, and I give her a bit of notice: will the 10% continue or not—yes or no?

The Government are notionally in a one-year “pause” on the move to replace BTecs, which should give the Government time at least to make up their mind on how they see the future of T-levels. If they want to preserve the option to be ambitious for T-levels, however, they need to keep supporting them now. Those of us who worked on their development and who still support them are not blind to the challenges. Although drop-out rates fell sharply in the last year, they are still high. Even though T-levels are meant to be a demanding qualification, we want young people to get to the end of them.

Although the huge element of work experience is a key advantage and attraction of T-levels to learners, it is expensive and hard to deliver, particularly in a way that is slick and gives clarity to students up front, rather than gives stress. I do not say this every day, but Gordon Brown was right to press the Government to be more ambitious here—

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I am told by the Clerks that this is an unusual situation. I have to say at the moment that the letter refers to clauses that have previously been debated, so I will not be allowing a debate about it. That is for your information, which you could use on Report, if you chose, to raise the matter again. I do not want you not to have the opportunity to probe further. I call the Minister to respond.

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston for tabling new clauses 4 and 5 and his discussion of them. New clause 4 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a report within one year of Royal Assent, setting out the impact of the Act on T-levels. Specifically, the report would have to include information on the administration and accreditation of T-levels, and whether T-levels were meeting local demand in schools.

T-levels are indeed an excellent technical qualification for students after GCSEs; I concur with the hon. Member on that. On his question about whether the 10% uplift will be continued after this academic year, we will confirm that position in due course, and I will write to him on that point.

Thousands of T-level students have already gone on to jobs, apprenticeships and further study related to the subjects of their T-levels, and we continue to support the qualification’s growth and uptake. Indeed, three new T-levels were launched in September 2024. A new T-level in marketing will be available from September, and we will continue to support providers to deliver and upscale their T-level offers. T-levels are designed by employers based on occupational standards, and Skills England will continue the work that IfATE has been doing to set and maintain the high-quality occupational standards on which T-levels are built. Curriculum content and assessment methods are set by awarding organisations in line with these standards.

The Bill already contains a duty for the Secretary to State to publish a report setting out which of the functions being transferred are to be undertaken by Skills England and the impact on technical education and apprenticeships. The report will provide information on T-levels, given that they are an important form of technical education qualification. Ofqual is an independent regulator for technical qualifications, and is the only body with the power to accredit the qualifications. Through the Bill, we are reintroducing the potential for Ofqual to apply its accreditation power to technical qualifications, when the Secretary of State considers it to be appropriate. That will reopen the door so that the full range of regulatory options is available for technical education qualifications. That will help to ensure their quality and enhance confidence in them.

[Damian Hinds]

Fortuitously, Ms Furniss, we do now have an opportunity to ask about something in the letter, which the Minister is going through now. I am struggling a bit with this thing about, “If the Secretary of State deems it appropriate.” That is not because I question that judgment, but because I do not really understand what the intent is. What does the Minister believe will be the practical change that comes about as a result? For example, is it about more new qualifications coming in? Is it changing the balance between T-levels and other TVET qualifications?

[Janet Daby]

My understanding is that there needs to be the option for Ofqual to decide whether to inspect certain technical qualifications and whether they should be accredited. That option needs to be available. At present, it has not been happening since 2002. We continue to support the growth and uptake of T-levels, in line with identifying skill needs in the economy. Skills England will gather and publish information about local skill needs. Skills England will also assess how far available provision, including T-levels, is meeting those needs.

I turn to new clause 5, which would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish, within one year of Royal Assent, a report on the impact of the Act on the higher education sector in England. Higher education providers play an essential role in meeting the nation’s skill needs and supporting the growth mission. Many of the jobs and sectors that drive economic growth rely on the skills delivered by higher education providers. It is therefore vital that Skills England works closely with and supports the higher education sector as it delivers each of its three key functions. Higher education providers have a deep understanding of local skill needs and growth opportunities. That provides a rich resource for Skills England to draw on, and it builds its authoritative assessment of skills needs in the economy.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am hugely encouraged by the Minister’s recognition of the importance of these higher degree-level apprenticeships to the higher education sector. Will she undertake to write to me setting out what the impact on universities of ending level 7 apprenticeships would be? I mean primarily the financial impact, but also the impact on numbers of students. The information available in the public domain is somewhat patchy, so it would be incredibly helpful to have that at either the point the Government make a decision on level 7 apprenticeships or—even better—before. Will she write to me, so that we are at least on the same page about what the impact on universities of changes to level 7 would be?

[Janet Daby]

I think the shadow Minister is well aware, having asked similar questions many times, that more information will be coming out from the Government.

Staying on level 7 apprenticeships, we are reforming apprenticeships, tilting the system towards young people in most need of developing skills and getting a foot on the career ladder. We are cutting through the red tape by removing the 12-month requirement, to support shorter-duration apprenticeships in key sectors. That flexibility will support apprentices in areas such as the creative industries, where training does not need to take 12 months and is currently putting barriers in the way of getting apprentices into key jobs. The Prime Minister also announced the development of new foundation apprenticeships, which will align to entry-level roles in key sectors and help to bridge the gap between employees, skills, staffing shortages and young people ready to begin their careers.

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

Janet Daby Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Government amendment 1.

Clause 12 stand part.

Government amendment 2.

Clause 14 stand part.

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

Government amendment 1 lets the Secretary of State make regulations that determine the date, or dates, when clauses 1 to 8 and schedules 1 to 3 come into force. The other provisions of the Bill in clauses 9 to 14 come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed.

This amendment seeks to overturn the amendment passed in the other place that places a 12-month delay between the creation of Skills England and commencement of key parts of the Bill, including the clauses that transfer functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to be exercised by Skills England. It was hugely disappointing that, despite broad support for the urgent need for reform, peers in the other place voted for that delay. Reform is exactly what the Bill and Skills England will deliver. After 14 long years of complacency and neglect, this Government are driving high standards, and we have a plan for change. A delay will benefit no one.

Skills England is already operating in shadow form and, once the Bill is passed, it stands ready to become a fully operational arm’s length body. The leadership is already in place, with the chair, the vice-chair, the chief executive officer, the deputy CEO and a full team of senior civil servants already working as one. The work is well under way; Skills England reported on skill gaps in September last year. It is connecting decision making across regional and national Government, as well as working closely with training providers, trade unions and employers. It is collaborating with businesses to develop sector plans for the forthcoming industrial strategy.

Skills England is working with closely with the Migration Advisory Committee to access skills needs to identify shortages in occupations. That will help to identify and grow our domestic skills pipeline over time, which will reduce our reliance on overseas workers. We need to build our own skilled workforce, and Skills England is moving ahead. The Bill gives it some of its key tools, but there is no case for delay, and I commend Government amendment 1 to the Committee.

Government amendment 2 would remove clause 14(2) of the Bill. It is normal procedure for Bills originating in the House of Lords to require the insertion of a standard privilege amendment such as subsection (2). This formally recognises the privilege of this House to control charges on people and public funds. Therefore, in accordance with normal procedure, we now remove the privilege amendment so that any such charge is imposed by this House, rather than the House of Lords. I commend Government amendment 2 to the Committee.

Clause 11 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions contained within the Bill. This is a standard clause for all legislation. Clauses 1 to 7, clause 9 and schedule 2 extend to England and Wales. Clause 8 extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Clauses 10 to 14 and schedules 1 and 3 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I have already touched upon clause 12 as part of Government amendment 1, which states when the provisions of the Bill will come into effect. Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill, as amended by Government amendment 1. Furthermore, as is standard practice, clause 14 gives the Bill a short title by which it may be known once it becomes an Act. The short title given is the

“Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025.”

I commend clauses 11, 12 and 14 to the Committee.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Clause 11 talks about the geographical extent of the Bill, which it says is England and Wales. This is a very small point, but it is worth noting that the Bill and decisions under it will actually affect other parts of the UK as well, not least because they affect degree apprenticeships and higher education. For example, the University of Strathclyde is a leading provider of graduate apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships across Scotland and England; I will return to that overlap later on.

On a more substantive note, Government amendment 1 seeks to overturn the one-year pause inserted in the House of Lords. Why did peers insert that? Why was there so much debate, and such wariness about this Bill? First, because there were good reasons that standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. We heard from all parts of the House of Lords that this Bill is a centralisation and, alongside other changes the Government are making, it will risk directly damaging the status of these qualifications.

Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprenticeships, starting with the Budget. Rather than fixing those problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years. It is abolishing IfATE, which was created only seven years ago—yet more reorganisation, rather than a focus on the real issues.

Thirdly, peers had—and we have—real concerns that the reorganisation of the machinery of Government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues we face. Those concerns are borne out by the Government’s impact assessment, which states that there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while IfATE’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State. It says:

“The transfer of function from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the Bill…This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways for career advancement.”

Fourthly, peers inserted the delay because of concerns about what will happen as DFE tries to absorb all the staff of IfATE. Lord Blunkett, who was one of the most interesting speakers in the Lords, said:

“My fear…is that given the number of people currently transferable from IfATE, full- and part-time, which nudges 200…there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.

When two years ago I led on the learning and skills document that was a precursor to Skills England…we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards.”

He continued:

“A Skills England that has no legislative backing and no parliamentary references but is down merely to the changing face of ministerial and departmental appointments is in danger of losing its birthright before it has got off the ground.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]

That argument is somewhat different from the others. His argument, as somebody sympathetic to the creation of a body like Skills England, albeit outside the Department, is that it needs time to establish its own culture and balance, and to grow and develop some roots, before the IfATE elephant steps into the Skills England rowing boat.

Since we last met as a Committee, we have received further written evidence from the Skills Federation, which brings together 18 employer-led sector skills bodies, representing more than 150,000 employers. They add their voices to the concerns. The organisation warns:

“Transfer of IfATE functions risks disruption and a focus on operational rather than strategic priorities…The movement of functions and the people that carry them out will always be challenging. It is important that the transfer is planned effectively, and the time taken to think through the implications for IfATE staff, but also the impact on the system. Compromises will no doubt have to be made to balance the need for pace with the requirement to retain operational continuity.

However, there is a key risk that transfer of functions from IfATE will become the key focus for the set-up of Skills England and less attention (and potentially resources) placed on achieving the overarching aims.”

That is a direct reinforcement of the argument that Lord Blunkett made in the Lords. It is very sensible advice to take our time.

In contrast to employers’ groups, Ministers say there is no time to wait. In truth, there is no great obstacle to the Department doing all the things it might want to do, and establishing Skills England a little bit more before that big transfer of staff, but Ministers want to take this one-year pause out of the Bill with their Government amendment 1. They would be wiser to listen to the grey-haired people in their own party, such as Lord Blunkett, but it seems they are not minded to do that.

This group also includes Government amendment 2 to remove the Lords’ privilege amendment. For the benefit of those following the proceedings, as the Minister said, the Lords automatically insert these amendments when there is legislation starting in the Lords that involves levies and taxpayers’ money, to avoid formal infringement of the Commons’ privileges over those things.

There is nothing unusual about that, but the privilege amendment is put in as a deliberate reminder that the Bill has a significant impact on spending of both levy and taxpayers’ money. The sums involved here are non-trivial—it is billions of pounds of spending, governed by IfATE today and by the Department for Education in future. The ongoing chronic uncertainty about the Government’s plans to allow employers to take money out of apprenticeships is not just damaging for business—it is damaging on a significant scale.

In the last Bill Committee sitting, the Minister promised to write to me to set out the Government’s position on the 50% flexibility. I hope she will tell me today when that letter is likely to appear, because businesses are starting to raise the alarm ever louder.

Since the Committee last met, even more businesses have come out with criticisms. Jane Gratton, the deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce has said that the lack of clarity about the future of the growth and skills levy was creating “fresh uncertainty among businesses.” She said that some employers had told the BCC that they had put training plans on hold until they heard what alternatives would be funded in future. She called on the Government to lay out a clear timeline for reform and said that threats to cut the levy before it had even been established are “worrying and destabilising”.

Likewise, Simon Ashworth, the deputy chief executive and director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said:

“there’s little room for manoeuvre—scrapping level 7 apprenticeships won’t yield savings for years…Until the programme budget more closely matches the levy take, it’s imperative funding priorities are aimed at maintaining the sustainability of apprenticeship standards, rather than introducing further non-apprenticeship flexibilities.”

That is a very important warning.

This is all happening against a backdrop where other types of technical education covered by IfATE are shrinking too. I am old enough to remember when Labour MPs spent years saying that adult skills spending was not generous enough—yet yesterday we learned that the DFE is to cut adult skills budgets by 6%. Amazingly, that came out at the same time as the welfare reform Green Paper, which overshadowed it and mentioned training 18 times. In the Chamber the other day, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made an argument—a good argument—that it is better to get people into training rather than parking them on benefits; yet elsewhere, at the very same moment, DFE Ministers were cutting the training budget.

Skills England was supposed to bring a joined-up approach to policymaking. There is not much sign of that here. Instead, it will reinforce the concerns of those who want technical education to be more independent and employer-led.

I ask the Minister a specific question on the funding that IfATE regulates. Yesterday, we got an announcement on schools funding. The Association of School and College Leaders and the Confederation of School Trusts are warning that the funding only covers part of the costs of the national insurance increase and is leaving schools with a funding gap ranging from 10% to 35%—but at least schools are getting the funding announcement before the start of the financial year, albeit only days before.

Technical education is not so lucky. Colleges and 16-19 institutions will have to wait. They will be told their allocations this May and will be paid in September, even though they will have to start making the increased tax payments from the start of the new financial year in just a few days’ time. As James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association points out:

“16 to 19 funding is uncertain at the best of times, but this year colleges are also waiting for their post-16 budget grant allocations (scheduled for May) and a decision on the 10 per cent T-level uplift…This is all very late in the day”.

He is right. Once again, technical education is being treated as the poor relation.

We already know that independent training providers and specialist colleges will not get any compensation, and it is unclear how much of next month’s national insurance rise will be covered by the grant. Can the Minister stand up and reassure the sector today that all the additional costs, including those for indirectly employed staff, will be covered by the grant? Or will they, like schools, find that they have been short-changed?

I will not labour the point, but many people, including employer groups and very experienced people on the Labour side, have warned about the rush to bring these powers and functions into the Department and the effect that that will have on the Government’s own plans for Skills England. Ministers would be sensible to listen.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Of course I do, Ms Furniss. The different parts of Government that the new body will deal with include the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a well-established part of the machinery of Government but takes its commissions from the Home Secretary. This is a quote from gov.uk:

“The MAC bases all recommendations on what it sees as being in the interests of the resident population, taking account that migration has different effects on different groups.”

There will be conflicts between that aim and the aims of Skills England, and who will resolve those conflicts?

The new body will also work with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, which is an expert committee reporting to the Business Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is made up of experts, as the name suggests. Interestingly—we will perhaps come on to this in relation to some of the new clauses—the Government will legislate to establish that body

“in statute when Parliamentary time allows”,

which raises the question of why they will do so for that one and not Skills England. It suggests that there is perhaps a hierarchy of these bodies.

There is also the Labour Market Advisory Board. It reports to the DWP’s Secretary of State and its aim is to support the DWP

“to better understand the current state of the labour market, to help design policies and strategies to address key challenges”.

I will not go through all the things that it is supposed to do—[Interruption.] The Government Whip encourages me, but I would not risk your wrath, Ms Furniss, despite her best efforts.

Suffice it to say that there is again a cut-across, because of course, in terms of getting people back into work, which the DWP is focused on, there is some tension. Will Skills England be able to ask, for example, for changes in the conditionality regime operated by the DWP and the jobcentre network, to improve skill matching? Will there be better join-up between DWP work coaches and the National Careers Service?

Finally, the third thing the new body is to be responsible for is potentially the biggest and most controversial of all. In the rubric that the Government put forward, they said the new body would “identify the training” that is accessible via the growth and skills levy. I do not think they actually mean “identify”; I think they mean it will specify what is available to be paid for through the growth and skills levy. I will not go through all the arguments about the levy, but the new body will have to, and the 12 months envisaged under clause 12 would be a good time to do that. It will have to think about the levy’s real purpose and the distinction between firm-specific skills and training, sector-specific skills and training, and generic transferable skills and training. The levy’s purpose was to increase the total amount of investment in human capital in this country, to help our productivity gap and fill job vacancies, and the new body will need carry on with that purpose.

I hope I have given us a flavour—there is more—of the enormous strategic challenges and the enormous job of work for these very good people. There are some very encouraging signs in the appointments the Secretary of State has made, but what these people have to take on is enormous, and we want and need them to succeed in this endeavour. It would be far better to stage the approach, so that Skills England is established first, then takes on the great strategic roles working across Government and throughout the economy, and then, 12 months later, subsumes IfATE.

[Janet Daby]

The right hon. Member speaks of the enormous challenges; might I point out that the enormous challenges were left by the previous Government, which he was part of? The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston were both previously in the Government, so it is only right that I set the context of the failings of the previous Government before I attempt to respond to the many, many points, views, opinions and ideas that were offered.

To put it into context, the previous Government had 14 years to deal with the skills problems and the crisis we are facing today. UK employers reported that more than a third of UK vacancies in 2022 were due to skills shortages. Would Members from the previous Government like to respond?

[Damian Hinds]

That is not really the way we do it in Parliament. You respond for the Government.

[Neil O’Brien]

We ask you a bunch of questions. I do not know whether you have noticed, but you are the Minister.

[Janet Daby]

I did not expect the Members opposite to respond anyway.

[Damian Hinds]

I am very happy to—

[The Chair]

Order. Calm down. Sit down, please.

[Janet Daby]

Across the UK, almost one in 10 of more than 2.5 million roles in critical demand—

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I am going to make some progress first, then I will give way.

[Neil O’Brien]

She was asking us to intervene.

[Janet Daby]

More than 90% of those roles require periods of work-related training or education.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister take an intervention?

[Janet Daby]

The point I am making is that the last Government did not solve the skills shortages. The last Government held back growth and opportunity. This Government are moving forward. We want to boost skills through Skills England. The last Government prolonged uncertainty.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister encouraged us to intervene. One of the things Labour complained about a lot in opposition was what happened to the adult skills budget. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have just announced a 6% cut in the adult skills budget? Can she explain how that fits with the Government’s constant rhetoric—as in the welfare cuts debate just the other day—about getting people out of unemployment and into training? How will a 6% cut help to move people from welfare into training?

[Janet Daby]

Ms Furniss, I fear we are straying far away from the purpose of the Bill and what needs to be achieved.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will you answer the question? You invited the question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I will continue to respond. Skills will power this mission-driven Government.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will you answer the question?

[The Chair]

Order. Please speak through the Chair.

[Janet Daby]

This mission-driven Government have a plan for change. The need to boost Britain’s skill is crucial. We need skills to drive growth, to build homes, to deliver energy security and to build an NHS fit for the future. We want to move forward and make sure—

[Damian Hinds]

The question is how.

[Janet Daby]

Oh, there is how.

[Damian Hinds]

Go on then.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I am sorry, Ms Furniss. This is very flustering.

As I said, we have had 14 years of complacency and neglect from the previous Government. Following the reforms they introduced, including the apprenticeship levy, apprenticeship starts have fallen by more than 30%. It is concerning that fewer young people are benefiting from apprenticeships. Apprenticeship starts for those under 25 are down by almost 40%. That is why, since the Prime Minister announced it in July 2024, Skills England has been operating in shadow form in preparation for full establishment.

The teams responsible for Skills England’s broader strategic functions are already operational and are establishing links with their counterparts in IfATE. By combining the analytical and regional functions, it is already delivering in shadow form. Detailed transitional planning has taken place to ensure that the functions moving to Skills England from IfATE will transition smoothly with no break in service. The planned continuity in staffing and team structures will ensure that occupational standards, apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications will continue to be approved, and T-level contracts will continue to be delivered, supported and monitored.

This approach will also ensure that Skills England maintains the vital links with employers and other partners that IfATE teams have previously established. The Minister for Skills in the other place recently met many peers and went through many of the processes and functions under the Bill. He has outlined that in a letter that is available for the Committee.

The Government are focused on establishing a coherent skills system with more flexible training options to support employers to fill skills gaps while driving growth and spreading opportunity. Businesses are backing the Government’s mission to grow the economy by breaking down barriers to opportunity for young people through our planned reforms.

[Neil O’Brien]

Speaking of gaps, I wonder whether the Minister will answer my question. Will she stand up and reassure the sector that all the additional costs, including those for indirectly employed staff, will be covered by the forthcoming national insurance contributions grant?

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to proceed further, because there is so much to say.

We have announced £300 million of additional revenue for further education, with £50 million available to sixth-form and further education colleges from April, to help to respond to priorities including workforce, recruitment and retention. We are offering up to £6,000 annually through the targeted retention incentive to attract and retain new teachers in critical subjects. We continue to support recruitment and retention through teacher training bursaries worth up to £31,000, tax free, in certain key subject areas. We are providing support for industry professionals to enter the FE teaching workforce through our Taking Teaching Further programme.

On Skills England’s relationship with the devolved Governments in the UK, its territorial scope is England only. The devolved authorities will be essential partners for it to ensure that our skill systems meet the skills needs of the whole UK labour market. It will be vital for us to work together openly and collaboratively. The Department for Education and shadow Skills England have engaged with the devolved Governments and the territorial offices, and there will be regular meetings.

In devolved areas, strategic authorities will play a stronger role in local skills improvement plans, working with a designated employer representative body. We are currently in the process of reviewing the geographies of LSIPs to ensure that, where possible, they align with the boundaries of devolved areas.

[Damian Hinds]

The Minister may be about to come to this, but what will be the relationship between LSIPs, and whatever strategies they draw up, and Skills England?

[Janet Daby]

As I have already said, the devolved areas will work on LSIPs with ERBs and maintain a close and strong relationship with Skills England.

LSIPs provide ongoing mechanisms through which local employers, strategic authorities, providers and other stakeholders come together to identify and address skills needs and issues. This supports Skills England’s aim to have the skilled workforce the economy needs at a national, regional and local level.

In response to the question about the impact of national insurance costs on skills and education, the Government have agreed that public sector employers will receive support in recognition of the increase in their national insurance contributions from April 2025. We are also providing £155 million for post-16 schools, academies and further education colleges. That is an increase of over £1 billion in the financial year 2025-26 for the education sector.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister promise to publish the methodology of how the figure of £155 million was arrived at? Can she reassure the sector that that sum is enough to cover all the costs of the national insurance increase, including the costs for indirectly employed staff?

[Janet Daby]

I hear what the shadow Minister is saying and will endeavour to get more information to him on those points. He asked about the flexibility of apprenticeships and levies. I wrote to the Chairs of the Committee yesterday addressing his question, but I understand that that was only yesterday.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Please, show some respect.

[Janet Daby]

Government amendment 1 is crucial to ensure that Skills England is not unnecessarily held back. Transformation is under way—businesses and employers cannot afford to wait. Government amendment 2 is a normal procedure for Bills originating in the House of Lords. I urge the Committee to support the Government amendments and clauses 11, 12 and 14.

[Neil O’Brien]

I meant no disrespect, Ms Furniss, but the Minister promised in the previous sitting that she would write to me. She may say that the letter has been sent, but it has not arrived. It is telling that the things we are debating will be written into law and I have still not—

--- Later in debate ---

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Janet Daby]

Clause 13 contains provisions to ensure continuity and consistency of functions that are transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State. This will allow functions already performed by IfATE to be treated as having been done by the Secretary of State. It includes a provision enabling the Secretary of State to continue things that are in the process of being done in relation to IfATE, immediately before the function was transferred. These will also ensure smooth commencement of the new legislation and transition from existing legislation. These functions may only become clear closer to when the functions are transferred.

Therefore, clause 13 includes a power to address this by way of regulations. Without this clause, there will be no statutory way of ensuring the smooth transition of the functions carried out by IfATE under the current legislation, to the Secretary of State under the new legislation.

[Neil O’Brien]

This clause is just a reminder that we are trying to make major changes to the engine of our skills system, while the engine is still running. I have already quoted from the Government impact assessment, pointing out that the impact of transition will be to slow down apprenticeship approval numbers—I will not recapitulate that. I will come back later to the challenges these changes to the engine while the engine is still running will cause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

Short title

Amendment made: 2, in clause 14, page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (2).—(Janet Daby.)

This amendment removes the Lords’ privilege amendment.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 1

Draft proposals for establishing new executive agency

“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must produce a report containing draft proposals for the establishment of a new executive agency, to be known as “Skills England”, responsible for the powers transferred under this Act.

(2) A copy of this Report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.

(3) Within forty days of a Report under subsection (1) being laid, the Secretary of State must ensure resolutions are tabled, and moved, in both Houses of Parliament to approve the Government’s draft proposals.

(4) If the draft proposals are rejected by either House of Parliament, the Secretary of State must, within a period of six months, lay a report containing revised proposals before Parliament, and, within a period of forty days after laying the revised proposals, table a motion before each House of Parliament to approve the revised proposals.

(5) The Secretary of State may not establish an executive agency to carry out the functions transferred under this Act until it has secured, through a motion under subsection (3) or (4), the consent of both Houses of Parliament.

(6) If a motion under subsection (3) or (4) is approved by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make an annual statement in each House of Parliament on the work of the agency.

(7) Within twelve months of a motion under subsection (3) or (4) being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report evaluating the effectiveness of the “Skills England” governance structure in delivering on the organisation's aims and objectives.”—(Ian Sollom.)

This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for the executive agency, to be known as Skills England, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for tabling new clause 1, which would require the Secretary of State to lay draft proposals for a new executive agency, to be known as Skills England, before Parliament within six months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent.

Complexity and fragmentation within the skills systems are contributing to critical skill gaps in our economy. We need to urgently reform the delivery of skills and technical education without delay—I cannot stress that enough. After 14 years of inaction, we really need to get on with the job and build back the foundations. We plan to establish Skills England as an executive agency requiring a robust and rigorous process. That process applies across Government for all executive agencies. As with all new executive agencies, the approval of the creation of Skills England will be announced to Parliament in a written ministerial statement to both Houses. In line with other executive agencies, Skills England will be required to have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability, including to Parliament. Ministers, the principal accounting officer and the chief executive will all be accountable to Parliament, and could appear before Select Committees if invited.

The broader governance and accountability framework in which Skills England will operate will be set out in the framework document. All arm’s length bodies have such a core constitutional document, which must be approved by the Treasury. The framework document will detail how Skills England will regularly report on its functions and performance, including by publishing a corporate plan and annual report.

There is a high level of interest among Skills England’s stakeholders, such as the Association of Colleges, which has expressed strong support for the plans to establish Skills England, recognising the critical role it will play in the Government’s broader post-16 education and skills agenda. We have listened to and acted on the contributions of peers in the other place, which is why we have provided even greater transparency about what Skills England will do. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to report within six months of IfATE’s closure. The report will detail which functions are being exercised by Skills England and the impact on apprenticeships and technical education in England. The new clause is therefore not necessary.

We need to address the urgent skills challenges in our economy. There is already a robust approach to establishing and running an executive agency, and the Government have included in the Bill a legislative commitment to a report on Skills England’s functions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to reconsider.

[Ian Sollom]

I thank the Minister for her response. In the interests of time—and lunch—I will not go into detail. I wish to press the new clause to a vote.

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

Families First Partnership Programme

Janet Daby Excerpts

Thursday 20th March 2025 Written Statements

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

Today, I am launching the programme guide for the families first partnership programme, which will begin delivery from April 2025. This represents a major milestone in the Government’s commitment to rebalancing the children’s social care system through earlier intervention—and ensuring that we break down barriers to opportunity and provide all children with the best start in life.

The publication of the programme guide confirms our expectations of statutory safeguarding partners—children’s social care, police and health—and relevant agencies, including education and childcare settings, when it comes to implementing reforms to family help, multi-agency child protection and family group decision-making. We are building on a body of evidence about what we know works to support families to stay together and thrive.

The programme guide is just one aspect of the wider implementation support offer we are providing through the programme. It includes sharing learning from the families first for children pathfinder, which has been testing reforms in 10 local areas, along with the best practice and best evidence from across children’s social care.

The families first partnership programme is backed by over £500 million of funding in financial year 2025-26, via the local government finance settlement—nearly doubling investment in preventative services. Over time, we expect this investment to safely reduce the number of looked after children.

Our ambition is for high-quality local services that place children and families at the centre of their design and provide meaningful and appropriate support and protection for families as their needs change over time. We will only achieve this if our journey of change is taken as a team, using a multi-agency approach to enact whole-system reform. We envision a transformed system where practitioners from social work, police, health, education and beyond collaborate to promote the wellbeing of children and keep them safe from harm.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all staff across children’s social care, police, health, and education for their tireless efforts in ensuring all children receive the support and protection they need.

Together, we can create a system which provides children and families with the right support at the right time, ensuring more children can grow up with the right love and support around them.

[HCWS539]

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

Janet Daby Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Welcome, everybody. I call the Minister to move the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee.

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I welcome the opportunity to further discuss and scrutinise the Bill following Second Reading, and I thank the Committee for its time and expertise. I am also grateful to Members of the other place, who have already provided considerable scrutiny while also supporting the Bill.

I rise to speak to clauses 1 to 3. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which transfers statutory functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships—

[The Chair]

Order. I think the hon. Lady has got the wrong end of the stick on this one. She just needs to move the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee.

Ordered,

That—

(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 13 March meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 13 March;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 20 March;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clause 2; Schedule 2; Clause 3; Schedule 3; Clauses 4 to 14; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 20 March. — (Janet Daby.)

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Janet Daby.)

Clause 1

Transfer of functions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I will begin again, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to clauses 1 to 3. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which transfers statutory functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to the Secretary of State and makes minor and consequential amendments. It is our intention that functions currently delivered by IfATE will largely be exercised by Skills England on behalf of the Secretary of State. The functions are in chapter A1 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and include the duty to map occupational groups, and the duty to approve and publish standards and apprenticeship assessment plans.

Under the terms of the 2009 Act, the Secretary of State will also have the power to delegate functions to other persons. We intend to establish Skills England as an executive agency of the Department for Education. Despite IfATE’s success in embedding employees in the processes for designing technical qualifications and apprenticeships, the wider skills system remains too fragmented and complex. It is insufficiently responsive to the present and future skill needs of the economy, and we have major skill gaps. Employers report that more than one third of UK vacancies in 2022 were due to skills shortages. To address this, and unlock the potential for skills that drive growth and widen opportunity, we will create a new and more ambitious organisation: Skills England.

Clause 1 will enable Skills England to take on and deliver functions currently delivered by IfATE, giving it some of the key tools it needs to tackle these challenges as part of its wider remit. Skills England will provide an authoritative assessment of skills needed in the economy, and use those data and insights to develop and maintain a comprehensive suite of technical qualifications and apprenticeships, as a result of some of the functions transferred by the Bill. It will then work with key stakeholders to ensure that the identified needs for available training are reflected in regions across the country. That will ensure that the system becomes more responsive and better able to quickly and efficiently supply the skills most needed by the economy.

Skills England will work closely with the Industrial Strategy Council, so that we have the skilled workforce needed to deliver a clear, long-term plan for the future economy. It will also work with the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure that growing the domestic skills pipeline reduces our reliance on overseas workers.

To summarise, clause 1 will enable Skills England to take on and deliver the functions currently held by IfATE, where appropriate, alongside other functions. That will address the fragmentation that is holding the skills system back and restricting improved workforce development and productivity gains. Without this clause, it would not be possible to transfer functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State so that they can be exercised broadly by Skills England in the service of employers, learners and others.

Clause 2 introduces schedule 2, which makes provision for the transfer of IfATE’s property, rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State. It will ensure the functional continuity of property, rights and liabilities, including the many contracts that are critical to the operation of the skills system. The transfer scheme that the clause makes possible will mitigate the risk of delay and a lack of service continuity, which is essential for a smooth transfer from IfATE to the Secretary of State and the subsequent creation of Skills England.

Without this clause, the co-ordination of the transfer of IfATE’s property, rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State would be less straightforward and more burdensome. Without a transfer scheme, each matter, including contracts and licences, would have to be considered and transferred individually, which would be more time-consuming and could have an impact on value for money, the continuity of services and the delivery of skills products. That could mean the reduction in the quality of service received by employers, learners and others with an interest in the skills system. The transfer scheme that the clause makes possible will mitigate the risk of delay and a lack of service continuity, creating the minimum possible disruption for system users.

Clause 3 abolishes IfATE and introduces schedule 3, which makes consequential amendments to existing primary legislation that are required as a consequence of abolishing IfATE. It essentially closes IfATE so that the Government can establish and empower Skills England. Skills England will build on IfATE’s work with employers in all sectors to shape technical education and apprenticeships.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

I recently had the pleasure of visiting some fantastic apprentices at Hertford Regional college’s campus in Ware. I know that the college will be excited about the prospect of Skills England. Can the Minister say more about how soon we can expect it to come forward?

[Janet Daby]

It sounds as though that college is doing excellent work. The Bill is part of the process of delivering Skills England. It is our intention, following the Bill’s Royal Assent, to make commencement regulations promptly to bring into force the provisions that transfer IfATE’s functions, as well as the powers to transfer its assets and liabilities to the Secretary of State and to deliver those services through Skills England.

Skills England will be very different from IfATE, as I have mentioned. It will bring IfATE’s functions together with others that are not currently in statute to identify skills needs and to work with regional partners to ensure that they are being met. By bringing together those different functions in a single organisation, we can make a more responsive skills system that acts fast on the evidence to address skills gaps, uninterrupted by organisational boundaries, administrative hurdles and imperfect data flows. That would not be possible if the key functions were split across Skills England and IfATE. Clauses 1 to 3 are essential to achieving that transformation, so I commend them to the Committee.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The Opposition have three main concerns about the Bill, which are all relevant to this group. First, there were good reasons why standards setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. As we heard from Members on both sides of the House of Lords, this Bill is a centralisation. Alongside other changes that the Government are making, it risks directly damaging the status of the qualifications.

Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprenticeships. Rather than fixing the problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years. The Government are abolishing IfATE, which was created only seven years ago. This is yet more reorganisation, rather than focusing on the real issues. IfATE will now follow a long list of predecessors, including the Manpower Services Commission, the Learning and Skills Council, the Skills Funding Agency, skills advisory panels, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, training and enterprise councils and more, into the lengthening history of skills acronyms. We have a bad history of institutional churn in this country generally, and particularly in this area.

Thirdly, we have real concerns that this reorganisation of the machinery of government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues that we face. Those concerns are in fact borne out by the Government’s impact assessment.

As the Minister just said, the first three clauses are all about abolishing IfATE. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which transfers functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State. It does not transfer them to Skills England, but to the Secretary of State.

The words “Secretary of State” appear, amazingly, 90 times in this short Bill. That is one reason why the Bill has come in for criticism from a number of different sides of politics. Instead of setting up Skills England as an independent body, which is what a lot of people—including many in the Labour party—assumed it would be, it is going to be part of the Department for Education.

In its briefing on the Bill, the Construction Industry Training Board noted that this was

“contrary to the previous characterisation of Skills England that was outlined in the…King’s Speech…and contrary to the vision for Skills England to be an independent body, established in law, with a cross-governmental role”.

Obviously, those two points are linked. If it is going to be cross-government, it is easier for it to be independent of the DFE rather than part of one Department.

The CITB makes an important point. IfATE existed to serve all employers, both public and private, and across every Department. In contrast, Skills England will be firmly part of the DFE. The chief executive officer of Skills England will be a job share between the two civil servants who currently run the post-16 skills bit of the DFE.

Likewise, the Institute of the Motor Industry, representing employers and professionals across the UK automotive sector, says in its evidence to this Committee that it has

“significant concerns about the abolition of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education…and the transfer of its functions to Skills England.”

--- Later in debate ---

I have grave reservations about what the Government are seeking to do and what they really, ultimately, are seeking to do. As with so many things that we talk about in these Committee rooms, there is a lot of commonality in what we would like to see. We would like to see every individual in our country being able to fulfil their potential. We want growth in the economy; we want productivity gains. However, I have serious doubts that this new body, which is not even a quango, is the way to get there.

[Janet Daby]

Hon. Members have given me much to think about and feed back. I remind Opposition Members that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, a third of vacancies in our country are due to a lack of skills, and many people are in jobs for which they are underqualified. Young people need to know that when they undertake skills training, there will be a guaranteed job at the end of the process. We are committed to ensuring growth in this country. We want to get young people into work to ensure that they succeed and progress in life. We absolutely know that what we are trying to achieve with Skills England is the right thing to do.

I will attempt to respond to the various points that hon. Members have made. There have been previous arm’s length bodies with functions partially linked to those intended for Skills England, but none provides a direct comparison, given Skills England’s distinct remit.

Establishing Skills England is a manifesto commitment, and will support the delivery of the Government’s missions. As an Executive agency, Skills England will be subject to clear requirements on governance, transparency and accountability, and Ministers will be accountable to Parliament. The Government have put in the Bill a duty for the Secretary of State to publish information about matters they will take into account in deciding whether to prepare a standard or apprenticeship assessment plan without a group of persons. This new power will therefore be subject to the same level of transparency as existing powers being transferred from IfATE.

An Executive agency is a widely used model of arm’s length body. It has a clearly defined status and must be established and governed in line with official Cabinet Office guidance. Executive agencies are appropriate for the delivery of specialised functions separate from a primarily policy-focused Department, but within a policy and resources framework set by the Department, and for delivery of services to other parts of central Government using specialist skills. The Executive agency model will give Skills England the independence to focus on the delivery of its functions at arm’s length from the Department for Education, while ensuring sufficient proximity to the Department that Skills England can quickly and efficiently inform decisions on skills policy and delivery.

Skills England is operating in shadow form and is working extremely closely with IfATE, which also currently has a base in Sanctuary Buildings—the Department for Education. Following a vigorous recruitment process, in line with civil service guidance, we have appointed Skills England’s chief executive officers. Tessa Griffiths and Sarah Maclean have been appointed co-CEOs. They are senior leaders with long-standing experience in the public sector. Tessa and Sarah have been leading Skills England while it has been in shadow form, since last summer. They have driven the rapid progress that has seen Skills England start to deliver its important work ahead of the passing of this Bill. We do not believe in delay; we want to get on with establishing Skills England as an arm’s length body.

Skills England’s being run by CEOs at civil service director level is consistent with the approach taken by IfATE and other Executive agencies of the Department for Education. It is really important that I make those points so that there is a clear understanding of what is happening.

We considered, but ultimately decided against, expanding or otherwise retaining IfATE. We want to set Skills England up to build on IfATE’s work with employers, and to shape technical education and apprenticeships, but it will be very different from IfATE. It will have a much broader remit and will be more ambitious. It will bring IfATE’s functions together with others that are not currently in statute. We need to go further and do more to identify skills needs and work with regional partners to ensure they are being met. By bringing together those different functions into a single organisation, we will really be able to accelerate change. That will help the skills system to be more responsive to emerging skills needs. We need a flexible system that acts fast on the best available evidence to address the skills gaps that threaten to hold back our country. I am sure none of us wants to do that.

IfATE has worked with employers to design over 700 occupational standards. Skills England will build on that important work and retain a strong role for employers. But the skills system in England has matured since IfATE was created in 2017, and the scale and urgency of the skills challenge that we face means we need a new approach.

The Government are committed to delivering skills for the sector, as I have already pointed out, and we are listening to the needs of employers. This can be seen in our reform, growth and skills offer. Skills England will build on the work of IfATE and employers will continue to play a critical role in the design and delivery of apprenticeships and technical education. Indeed, that is already happening. The changes being brought about through the Bill have been designed in response to employer feedback and will simply mean that employers are not overburdened by repetitive and drawn-out processes, which we know can lead to disengagement.

I welcome the written submissions from the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Association of Colleges, JTL Training and the Royal Society of Chemistry. I thank those organisations for contributing to this important debate. I completely agree with the Institute of the Motor Industry’s view that Skills England must maintain an “employer-led ethos” with “strong industry collaboration”. That is why Skills England is already working, and will continue to work, closely with industry, while also building a clear picture of the challenges facing employers, including regional skills gaps, in order to support growth in our skills sector.

It is pleasing to hear the Association of Colleges, which represents more than 98% of further education colleges, express strong support for plans to establish Skills England and recognise the critical role that Skills England will play in the Government’s broader post-16 education and skills agenda.

Although many Members of the other place support the aims of Skills England, it is disappointing that peers voted for an amendment that would delay its full establishment. The Government are clear that employers need a fully formed Skills England now; they cannot wait. That is why we have tabled amendment 1 to overturn that amendment made in the other place.

Gaps in our economy are holding back growth and opportunity. We need the Bill to give Skills England the key tools that it needs to tackle them now, and not in 12 months’ time. Skills England has been operating in shadow form since July. Due to extensive transition planning over several months, it is ready to move fast to deliver the functions made possible by the Bill. Delay simply is not an option.

With regard to whether employers can spend up to 50% of levy funds on non-apprenticeship training, I do not want to put a target or limit on flexibility. It will be led by what employers need and driven by Skills England analysis. We have already introduced flexibility through new foundation and shorter apprenticeships, and we will continue to work with employers to understand where future flexibility will be most helpful.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister says she does not want to set a limit, but there was a commitment from the Secretary of State that employers would be able to spend up to 50% of their funds on non-apprenticeships. That was a Labour commitment. If I understand her, it will no longer be up to 50%; it will be some other number. Or is she saying that it will be up to 100%? Which of those things is she saying?

[Janet Daby]

What I am saying is that we have already introduced flexibility and we will continue to work with employers to understand where future flexibility will be most helpful. That will be worked through with Skills England. I am happy to get the hon. Member some further information.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Janet Daby]

No, I think I have said enough on that point.

[Neil O’Brien]

But we are completely unclear.

[The Chair]

Order. The Minister is not giving way. As the shadow Minister knows, in Committee people may speak more than once in a debate, so if he wishes to come back after the Minister has sat down, he is free to do so.

[Janet Daby]

We are not centralising regulation of technical qualifications akin to IfATE. Skills England will operate independently of the Department for Education and will continue to work with IfATE to develop occupational standards. Skills England will have a new and transformative role in the skills system and will work closely with, but not duplicate, the role of the Department or regulators such as Ofqual or the Office for Students.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

We have mysteries wrapped in mysteries here. As well as the lack of clarity about the future caused by the Bill, even in this debate on one group of clauses, we have had an extraordinary statement by the Minister. Businesses would like to know how, in just a few months’ time—next year—they will be able to spend a couple of billion pounds of their own money. This is employers’ money. Labour have oscillated between, “We will let 50% of this go on other things”, “No, we will not” and, since being in government, “We are reviewing this. This is not our policy any more.” On the Floor of the House, the Secretary of State has been saying, “No, it is absolutely our policy—50%. That is the number.” That is what she has told the House. Now we have another position—a fifth—on the spending of this money: “No, that is not the number any more.”

Employers will be jaw-to-the-floor agog at what is going on in the DFE. What is the policy? This is billions of pounds of employers’ money, in a difficult economic situation, being spent imminently, and yet the DFE cannot say—the Minister literally would not take a further question on it—what the policy is. What an extraordinary situation. What a shameful situation. Unbelievable.

We have been saying that, down the line, there might be some things to worry about in this transfer of power away from an employer-led and independent system towards the tender mercies of the DFE, but employers have got something to worry about right now. The Government do not seem to know what their own policies are. On that basis, I really do want to press clause 1 to a vote, and we will vote against it.

[Janet Daby]

We have been listening to businesses and employers, and they are absolutely telling us that they want greater flexibility in our apprenticeship systems and in how employers can spend their levy funds. We are reforming apprenticeships to deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers, including through shorter and foundation apprenticeships. I have attempted to answer the shadow Minister’s questions, but he is not satisfied. I have also offered to ensure that we get some more information. I want to make one more point: we are not putting a target or limit on flexibility; this will be led by what employers need.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am not asking for a target; that is a complete mischaracterisation. I am asking for clarity on the Government’s own policy. The Government said that that they would allow employers to take up to 50% of the money and spend it on things that were not apprenticeships. Either that is still the policy or it is no longer the policy. Which of those two things is the truth?

[Janet Daby]

I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. I will make sure there is a written response.

Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025

Janet Daby Excerpts

Tuesday 11th March 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025.

This draft order was laid before the House on 5 February. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Allin-Khan.

The scale and urgency of the skills challenge, which my noble Friend the Minister for Skills and I have been debating with Members in this House and the other place over recent weeks, are clear. It is also clear that the solution lies not just with the Government, but in working in partnership with everyone who can scale up the necessary skilled workforce to deliver the growth, opportunity and homes needed by all.

The Construction Industry Training Board is one of those essential partners. I say “essential” because Mark Farmer’s recently published independent review of both remaining industry training boards reinforces the need to continue with the levy-funded model of construction skills provision. The levy remains important to a fragmented industry that is characterised by high levels of self-employment, contracting and project work, which often create a disincentive for employers to train and develop their workforce.

If approved, the draft order will generate almost £224 million in 2025-26, which will be ringfenced for construction training and will support an estimated 67,000 assessable employers. Established in 1964 with a remit across England, Scotland and Wales, the CITB is energised by our ambition to build 1.5 million homes, provide up to 5 million home upgrades and provide a skills system that provides opportunity for all.

I thank the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for its detailed review of the draft order. Little has been amended in the previous 2022-23 year order: levy assessment rates, which were heavily consulted on, remain the same. Companies that directly employ workers will continue to pay 0.35% of those employee earnings. It is right that companies that contract workers, and so do not bear associated staffing costs, pay a greater share towards the pool of trained individuals. Their levy rate remains at 1.25% of the contract payments paid to indirectly employed workers.

What have changed are the thresholds that ensure that smaller organisations that employ fewer people are exempt from the levy or given a 50% reduction in levy fees. The increases in exemptions and reductions in thresholds are designed to avoid penalising companies whose staff wages have increased since the previous order in 2022. Employers with an annual wage bill below £135,000—the CITB estimates that this is 69% of in-scope employers—are exempt from paying any levy at all. A further 15% of employers will be eligible to pay just half of their levy rate, and this applies to companies with a wage bill between £135,000 and £449,999.

A laudable feature of the CITB levy is that exempt employers, or those that pay reduced levy rates, are still eligible to claim full CITB support. The few larger construction companies support the many sole traders and small and medium-sized enterprises that make up the majority of the sector. Put simply, 84% of in-scope employers are either exempt from paying the levy or will pay just half of the levy, but they can still benefit from the full training support available.

I know hon. Members will be keen to understand how those in scope of these payments feel about the additional levy that the law puts upon them. Last year’s general election delayed the publication of the much-anticipated Mark Farmer review, which I have mentioned. The CITB felt it was unreasonable to complete its usual engagement with the industry through its in-depth and lengthy consensus process while the outcome of the review was still unknown. Instead, the CITB sought views on the one-year proposal from its 14 prescribed organisations, sector federations representing around 30% of all levy-paying employers and the nation councils for England, Scotland and Wales. The vast majority were supportive, and neither the CITB nor my Department has encountered opposition since that targeted engagement. With the ITB review and the CITB’s “Strategic Plan 2025-29” now published, the industry is in a much stronger position to reach a consensus on the 2026 proposals and make informed decisions.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

The draft order’s preamble mentions that the Government have consulted Scottish Ministers. Can the Minister say whether the Scottish Government support these proposals? Did they make any contrary suggestions?

[Janet Daby]

I can confirm that both the Scottish Government and the Welsh Government were consulted, and neither objected.

This draft order will enable the CITB to continue raising extra revenue from those in the construction sector who benefit most from its growth. This will be reinvested into our skilled construction workforce to support the sector to build Britain’s future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I will endeavour to answer those four questions. As the shadow Minister has suggested, if there are any questions I am unable to answer, he is welcome to write to me, or I can write to him.

This mission-led Government are kick-starting economic growth, delivering on net zero commitments and breaking down barriers to opportunity. The Government have committed to building 1.5 million homes in England during this Parliament for the growth mission, delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation.

In 2023, as the shadow Minister is aware, Mark Farmer was commissioned to carry out an independent review of the two remaining industry training boards, the engineering construction ITB and the construction ITB. That was part of the standard cycle of Cabinet Office reviews of public bodies. As I have said, the review’s publication was delayed until 30 January 2025 due to a lengthy fact-checking process and the need to consider our response in the light of our missions following the general election. A headline finding was that the construction and engineering construction sectors face common strategic workforce challenges. The review recommended merging the ITBs to focus on improving workforce resilience across both sectors.

As we press ahead with delivering 1.5 million homes, now would be the wrong time to distract the construction sector by consulting on changes to legislation. What the sector needs now is continued investment in skills and training to create a larger and more effective workforce. We are driving that through increased voluntary collaboration between ITBs, initially focused on the commonality of purpose in infrastructure, as demonstrated by the recent signing of the skills charter by both ITBs and Sizewell C. There is no immediate plan to legislate to merge the ITBs.

The CITB levy is specific to the construction industry. It has a wider remit on the types of training that can be funded, such as providing grants to deliver training to existing staff to meet any construction-related training needs, as well as setting sector occupational standards to assure the quality of qualifications.

The CITB has also used its levy funding to address barriers specific to the construction industry, including the creation of a new entrant support team. This mainly supports smaller businesses to identify appropriate training, and it provides mentoring and other support for learners. In less than a year, NEST has supported 2,506 distinct employers and 5,230 apprentices. Of those apprentices, 96.6% remain on their training or have achieved their apprenticeship, which is an excellent result. The ITBs are working with the Department for Education as the growth and skills offer is further defined, to ensure that ITB levy-funded training complements that provision. As I have already said, there are no immediate plans to legislate to merge the ITBs.

The CITB’s running costs are currently at 15% and include the cost of administering the levy, grants and funding schemes for employers. Its underlying corporate costs—including human resources, finance and other back office services—are at 10%. The 2023 ITB review recommended that there should be more transparency on the ITBs’ funding costs, that their corporate service costs should be benchmarked against suitable comparators, and that both ITBs should look to make 5% efficiency savings. In 2023-24, the CITB made efficiency savings of 11.3%. The Government agree with those recommendations, and a steering group will be convened to monitor their implementation.

The Department for Education’s response to the ITB review is on the Government website. We have accepted the majority of the review’s recommendations. Where the Department has partially accepted the recommendations, or accepted them in principle, it is because the recommendations are complex and are likely to require additional scoping of form and function. In some cases, consultation with the industry is likely to be required.

We must see a step change in construction skills delivery to achieve many of the Government’s infrastructure and housing ambitions. Over the next 12 months, we will work with ITBs and other Government Departments through a cross-departmental steering group to scope the different ways of implementing the more complex recommendations. All that work will need to be carried out before final policy decisions can be made on whether to fully accept and implement the recommendations. I am happy to write to the shadow Minister on his other financial points.

This draft order is designed to enable the CITB to concentrate on its job at hand, which is turning the dial on the provision of a growing and skilled construction workforce, alongside everything else this Government and industry will also bring to the table. The CITB levy ensures that the construction industry invests in training and skills. It provides businesses of all sizes with access to ringfenced funding estimated at almost £224 million over the next financial year. Hon. Members will know that we cannot afford to turn down such investment, given our ambition for growth and our ambition to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.

[Neil O’Brien]

I think the hon. Lady has already covered this, but is she happy to write to me about the level 7 apprenticeships?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that again—I had it in my notes. Further information on the level 7 apprenticeships will shortly be made available to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Janet Daby Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress she has made on determining the future of the institutes of technology.

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

The Department values the approach of the institutes of technology, which bring together education and industry to develop and deliver curriculums related to local employers and create sustainable pathways for talent development. We will continue to work with IOTs —including Swindon and Wiltshire IOT—in developing our strategy for post-16 skills.

[Will Stone]

I thank the Minister for her response. Would she consider meeting me so that we can work together on growing IOTs like Swindon, especially given their degree-awarding powers?

[Janet Daby]

IOTs bring together further education and higher education providers to deliver higher level technical qualifications including degrees and apprenticeships. I could offer to meet my hon. Friend, but I am sure he would much prefer to meet my noble Friend the Skills Minister from the other place. I will raise his request with her.

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

The Stimulating Physics Network has been working to improve the knowledge, skills and confidence of non-specialist science teachers in secondary schools, with outstanding results: in schools that take part, there are 6% more A-level physics entrants, and 29% more girls taking physics. That compares with 13% in schools that do not take part. However, funding for the scheme has been cancelled from 31 March, which is a considerable problem for constituencies like mine, which has a need for science, technology, engineering and maths—STEM—skills, due to the needs of the defence sector. What plans does the Minister have to fill the gap left by the SPN, in order to ensure that the value of physics teaching in schools is maintained, and to reassure teachers, including my constituent Thom, who have been committed to delivering the SPN?

[Janet Daby]

We absolutely support girls and young women to take STEM subjects. It is interesting that the Conservatives did funding mid-year, which is unusual. As I am sure that they will be aware, hard decisions need to be made because of the difficult fiscal situation inherited by this Government. We will continue to do more to get girls into STEM subjects; we are absolutely committed to this.

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to increase the number of children and young people who read for pleasure.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

15. What steps she is taking to increase funding for agricultural education and training.

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

Land-based colleges receive higher funding per student to support delivery of programmes in agriculture, horticulture and forestry, and animal care and veterinary science. The 16 to 19 national funding rate will rise by 3.78% in 2025-26, increasing the funding for those programmes.

[Edward Morello]

Kingston Maurward college in my constituency of West Dorset provides essential training in agriculture, offering degrees, apprenticeships and short courses to equip the next generation of farmers with critical skills. What measures will the Minister take to ensure that farming courses are not underfunded compared with other vocational courses, and that agriculture is promoted as a viable career path?

[Janet Daby]

This Government are committed to education for 16 to 19-year-olds, and beyond. Extra funding is available for all important skills in high-value and high-cost areas, including manufacturing and farming. We value farmers hugely and we are committed to investing £5 million in the farming budget over two years.

[Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)]

17. What steps she is taking to increase the number of construction apprenticeships.

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

Where the previous Government failed, Labour is getting Britain building again. Our pioneering new homebuilding skills hubs will deliver fast-track training, meaning more opportunity, new homes and stronger growth. Some 32 hubs across the country will create 5,000 more construction apprenticeship places and play a part in getting Britain building again. A homebuilding revolution requires a skills revolution, and Labour will provide more homes, greater opportunity and stronger growth.

[Mr Dhesi]

Having worked in construction for a couple of decades, prior to being elected, I am glad the Government recognise the importance of the industry and are firmly committed to house building, especially social and affordable housing, to make the dream of home ownership a reality once again for our young people. The Conservative Government ducked the difficult decisions for too long, so will the Minister outline exactly how the Government plan to create the skills and apprenticeships that we need so that the homes that Slough families deserve can finally be built?

[Janet Daby]

I assure my hon. Friend that this Government are not ducking or diving the tough decisions that need to be made. Homebuilding skills hubs will create more apprenticeships in occupations where there are shortages, such as bricklaying and groundwork. The changes that we have introduced to English and maths will support thousands more apprentices to achieve each year, including in construction. This Government of action are building the skilled workforce this country needs, including in Slough.

[Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Level 7 apprenticeships play a vital role throughout our economy, including in the construction industry, and support social mobility. I recently met young, hard-working apprentices in Mid Bedfordshire who would not be able to achieve their ambitions without level 7, but there are concerns about the future of those apprenticeships. Will the Minister take this opportunity to reassure employers and apprentices that she understands the value of level 7 apprenticeships?

[Janet Daby]

This Government have an extremely challenging fiscal inheritance. There are tough choices to take on how funding should be prioritised to generate opportunities for young people to start fulfilling careers. Learners who have started will be funded to completion and we expect to make a final decision on effective apprenticeships shortly. We are committed to level 7 apprenticeships and to people continuing their education to a good standard.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

18. What recent progress she has made on school building programmes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)]

T4. The Prime Minister’s welcome announcement over the past couple of weeks of an increase in defence spending creates both an opportunity and a challenge for the Department, as well as for the whole skills system in this country. Will the Secretary of State please outline how she will work with the Ministry of Defence to ensure that gap is filled? In particular, how will she ensure that the Scottish Government in Edinburgh take proper action on defence skills, as they have failed to do over the past 17 years?

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

My hon. Friend is right. The first set of statistics released under the Labour Government shows that apprenticeship starts, participation and achievements are all on the up, compared with the same period under the Tories. We have celebrated by going further and faster to cut red tape, so that up to 10,000 more apprentices can achieve each year. That is a clear contrast to the failures that we saw under the Tories for 14 years and the continued failure of the SNP. It is time for change in Scotland, and only Labour can deliver that change.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Yesterday afternoon, a group of five and six-year-old special educational needs children had great fun running circles around their Member of Parliament on the football pitch at Matthew Arnold school in my constituency. Can Labour Front Benchers please use their good offices to encourage Surrey county council to continue to fund the star player programme, which provides great fun for the children and great respite for the parents?

--- Later in debate ---

[Gill Furniss (Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

T6.   I have often raised the importance of further education and the transformative impact it can have. I know that the Minister and the Secretary of State share my belief in excellent education for all, instead of the broken skills system that the Tories left behind. To that end, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that students without the necessary qualifications to get on to T-levels do not end up falling through the net?

[Janet Daby]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to demonstrate her concern. We want a skills system that provides opportunity and delivers growth. The curriculum and assessment review is looking at how we can ensure that high-value qualification pathways are available for 16 to 19-year-olds. As we continue to reform qualifications, we will consider the review findings and publish them later in the year.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

After some delay, the admirable Hounsdown school in my constituency has been promised a letter by the middle of March releasing funds for the replacement of its crumbling reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete roofing. If that letter fails to materialise within the next week, may I appeal to a Minister to intervene?

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T10.  Wednesday is Young Carers Action Day. Will the Minister join me in thanking young carers for all that they do, and commit herself to ensuring that there is greater awareness of them in schools? I must say that schools in my constituency do very well in that regard.

[Janet Daby]

My hon. Friend is right to mention young carers. The Government are committed to increasing their visibility and ensuring that they have the support that they need, at home and in education. We champion initiatives such as Young Carers Action Day and the young carers covenant, which further highlights the needs of young carers and the support available to them.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

What resources are being provided to schools to support restorative justice initiatives in relation to knife crime, especially victim-led approaches such as workshops or peer mentoring to engage young people in conversations about its prevention?

Future Skills Programmes: Universities

Janet Daby Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) on securing a debate on the Government’s support for future skills programmes at universities. I also thank him for speaking positively and passionately about the excellent contribution of Kingston University and, in particular, its navigate, explore and apply programmes. I also want to acknowledge the interventions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley (Tahir Ali) and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos).

I heard clearly the invite from the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, and although I will not commit my noble Friend Baroness Smith, the Minister for Skills, I will draw the invitation and the date of 18 June to her attention. It may surprise the right hon. Member that I undertook a post-qualifying course at Kingston University, so I can testify that it is one of the many outstanding universities in our country.

I will set out the Government’s position in response to the right hon. Member. This debate addresses the need for our educational institutions to evolve and adapt to the demands of the modern workforce. By focusing on future skills, we aim to ensure that our universities are not only centres of academic excellence, but hubs of innovation and practical training. Doing so will equip our students with the necessary skills to thrive in an ever-changing global economy and drive the nation’s growth and prosperity.

Skills are crucial to implementing the plan for change. This Government’s manifesto outlined our commitment to developing a comprehensive strategy for post-16 education and skills. Our aim is to dismantle barriers to opportunity, cultivate a skilled workforce and stimulate economic growth. This strategy will address how we can provide the skills our country requires, both now and in the future.

Our objective is to establish a robust skills system in which everyone is empowered to succeed in life and work, with appropriate support for reskilling to adapt to the evolving economic landscape. That involves fostering a culture of lifelong learning, creating clear and coherent pathways for learners of all ages, and enhancing collaboration among skills partners within a framework of well-defined roles and responsibilities. We will release a vision paper for this strategy soon, and engage with all stakeholders across the system.

A crucial element of the strategy is the reform of higher education, which will ensure that our universities play a pivotal role in supporting the development of future skills. By aligning higher education reforms with our broader skills strategy, we can create a cohesive and comprehensive approach to education and workforce development.

As hon. Members will know, in November the Secretary of State announced five priorities for reform of the higher education system. We will expect our higher education providers, first, to play a stronger role in expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students; secondly, to make a stronger contribution to economic growth; thirdly, to play a greater civic role in their communities; fourthly, to raise the bar further on training standards to maintain and improve our world-leading reputation and drive out poor practice; and, finally, to drive a sustained efficiency and reform programme.

The Government are committed to setting out a plan for reform of the higher education sector in the summer. Department for Education officials are currently working in partnership with the sector, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, UK Research and Innovation and the Office for Students to shape the changes to Government policy that will be needed to support that reform. Taken together, the changes will drive through reform in these areas, put our world-leading higher education sector on a more secure footing, and ensure that the sector is able to provide the skills required to deliver economic growth for the industrial strategy and support the wider change that the country needs in the years to come.

In addition to higher education reform, the establishment of Skills England is a key component of our strategy. It was disappointing that the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and his party chose to vote against our transformation of the skills system yesterday, especially given the purpose of this debate. Skills England will play a crucial role in transforming our skills system, and will ensure that our workforce is equipped with the necessary skills to meet the demands of the modern economy. It is currently set up in shadow form within the Department for Education, and there are plans for it to be fully established in 2025. The Education Secretary has appointed Phil Smith CBE as its chair and Sir David Bell as its vice chair.

Skills England will transform the skills system to make it truly world leading. It will help to build a high-skill, high-productivity workforce that is matched to employers’ needs to ensure that everyone, regardless of their background, can access the opportunities they need to thrive. Universities and colleges are already responding to the opportunities and challenges posed by artificial intelligence, and are considering those issues very seriously. Technology works best as a tool used by great teachers, and it is important to take a joined-up approach. Cheating of any kind is unacceptable. It threatens to undermine the reputation of our world-class higher education sector and devalues the hard work of those who succeed on their own merit.

Through Skills England, the Government will build the highly trained workforce that employers need. That will drive economic growth and deliver the national, regional and local skills needs of the next decade. We are doing that because skills will play a critical and crucial role in the industrial strategy, driving growth through increased productivity and creating well-paid jobs, which increase opportunities for everyone.

[Tahir Ali]

Does the Minister agree that the skills agenda should not be left simply with universities and colleges, but should start at secondary school and continue all the way through? There should be no barriers to opportunity for young individuals who want to access it.

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. No one is too young to learn a skill. Skills should be learned throughout a child’s educational journey, and they should begin at home.

Higher technical qualifications and universities go hand in hand in developing essential skills for the future for learners from all backgrounds. HTQs have been introduced to champion the quality available at levels 4 and 5, with qualifications that have been independently approved as providing the skills that employers need in specific occupations. They are helping to open up new opportunities for young people and are enabling adults to get the benefit of a university education.

For example, Tarza undertook a level 5 HTQ in healthcare practice at Newcastle College university centre, and is now at the University of Sunderland completing her adult nursing bachelor’s. The HTQ at the university centre gave her the clinical skills she needed and allowed her to learn as a mature student, despite being out of education for so long beforehand. That is one example of many. The Government’s support for the future skills programmes at universities is a comprehensive and forward-thinking strategy designed to meet the evolving needs of the economy and society.

[Gideon Amos]

Where a major international investor is coming into the country—such as Tata, where 4,000 new employees will be needed—does the DFE support colleges and universities to set up the new apprenticeship and training programmes that they need in preparation for that massive international investment?

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

The hon. Member has pre-empted my next line: I am delighted in the steps that Kingston University has taken and is taking nationally and internationally.

By implementing the post-16 education and skills strategy, reforming higher education, establishing Skills England and introducing the lifelong learning entitlement, we are laying the groundwork for a robust and dynamic skills system. Those initiatives will ensure that our educational institutions are not only centres of academic excellence, but hubs of innovation and practical training. They will provide individuals from all backgrounds with the opportunities they need to succeed, fostering a culture of lifelong learning and continuous development.

As we move forward, it is essential that we continue to engage with all stakeholders, including educational providers, employers and learners to ensure that our strategies are effective and inclusive. Together, we can build a high-skill, high-productivity workforce that drives economic growth and social mobility, ensuring a prosperous future for all.

[Ed Davey]

I have listened to the Minister’s speech. I was really impressed by all that she and her colleagues are doing, and I am delighted to know that she studied at Kingston University—she would be welcome back. I know that she is going to extend the invitation to her noble Friend, but could she also extend it to the Secretary of State? Part of the reason why Kingston University wants to partner, work and roll these programmes out with other universities is that it knows that there are a number of potential partners in the north and the north-east, which would be particularly pleasing to the Secretary of State.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)]

Order. Interventions should be brief.

[Janet Daby]

I thank the right hon. Member again for his tenacity, perseverance and pushiness—in the most polite way. Indeed, I will bring the invitation to the attention of the Secretary of State as well. Kingston University is doing some incredible and outstanding work, and that cannot be denied.

Question put and agreed to.

Financial Education

Janet Daby Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) on securing a debate on this important subject. I also thank the all-party parliamentary group on financial education for young people for highlighting the importance of financial education through its focused inquiries, and I absolutely recognise that it is an esteemed APPG. I will endeavour to respond to the points that the hon. Member has made, but I also wish to acknowledge the many points made by hon. Friends and hon. Members from across the Chamber.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) spoke about people’s confidence in making the financial decisions that are right for them, and highlighted the fact that she mentioned financial education in her maiden speech. The hon. Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) spoke about online purchases and the importance of making sure that we fully understand what is happening in that space. My hon. Friend the Member for Swindon North (Will Stone) spoke about self-employed people and the need to understand pensions. The hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) spoke about the importance of financial literacy from an early age.

Many other hon. Members—my hon. Friends the Members for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack), for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson), for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and for York Outer (Mr Charters)—spoke about investments, banks, parents, and various things to do with financial education for children and young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), a teacher himself, spoke passionately about financial education, and I should add that the alarm that went off was a school alarm. Of course, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), also spoke about this important topic.

The skills, knowledge, attitudes and behaviour that help people to manage money and achieve good financial wellbeing begin to develop from an early age and continue to develop through childhood and the teenage years. Research shows that financial education in schools has a positive impact on children’s and young people’s financial capabilities. The Money and Pensions Service’s survey of children and young people found that those who recall learning about money at school were more likely to be active savers, have a bank account that they used, be confident with money management, and have positive attitudes towards money. It is so important to teach those things at the right time, and it is never too early to start. Young people may be making financial decisions about digital transactions and in-game currencies, and they need to be aware of the issues and potential dangers.

Maths underpins effective financial management, understanding of financial risk and the confident and competent application of financial skills and tools. The Programme for International Student Assessment shows a strong correlation between results in financial literacy and in maths, with an average correlation of 0.87 across OECD countries. The primary maths curriculum includes arithmetic knowledge that supports pupils’ abilities to manage budgets and money, such as knowledge to do with calculations involving money and percentages.

In secondary maths, pupils are taught topics such as how to calculate compound interest, which is relevant for personal finance.

The non-statutory primary citizenship programme of study at key stages 1 and 2 equips pupils to understand the sources and purpose of money and the benefits of savings. It makes it clear that financial contexts are useful for learning about making choices and exploring social and moral dilemmas. The national curriculum for citizenship at key stages 3 and 4 prepares students to manage their money well and plan for future financial needs. Key stage 3 covers the functions and uses of money, day-to-day money management, budgeting and managing risk. Key stage 4 covers income and expenditure, credit and debt, insurance, savings, pensions, and financial products and services. However, more obviously needs to be done to embed learning and ensure that children and young people fully understand it.

The computing curriculum provides the fundamental e-safety knowledge and thinking skills that empower children to make well-informed decisions about technology, which may include using it in a financial context. Through statutory relationships, sex and health education, pupils are taught about internet safety and online harms, such as the risks associated with online gambling and the accumulation of debt. Pupils also learn how debt is generated, collected, shared and used online.

Moving to the curriculum and assessment review, which has been mentioned by Members across the Chamber, high and rising school standards are at the heart of the opportunity mission for this Government. That is why we have established an independent, expert-led curriculum and assessment review, covering ages from five to 18, chaired by Professor Becky Francis CBE. The review seeks to deliver an excellent foundation in core subjects, including maths, and a rich and broad, inclusive and innovative curriculum that readies young people for life and work. The review group will publish an interim report in early spring setting out its interim findings and confirming the key areas for further work, and it will publish its final report with recommendations this autumn. We will take decisions on what changes need to be made in the light of those recommendations.

Ofsted inspections currently consider whether pupils are receiving a rounded education and evaluate the quality of education, including pupils’ achievement over time, behaviour and attitudes, personal development, and leadership and management. All schools, regardless of category and phase, are inspected for their ability to deliver a broad and balanced curriculum. Ofsted inspectors evaluate the quality of education, and elements of financial education may be in scope when Ofsted conducts a deep dive into mathematics.

The Government’s Money and Pensions Service is an arm’s length body of the Department for Work and Pensions, with a statutory duty to co-ordinate the UK strategy for financial wellbeing. It published the UK strategy for financial wellbeing in January 2020, which is a 10-year framework to help UK citizens make the most of their money and pensions. One of the key themes of the strategy is supporting the financial wellbeing of children and young people. It set a national goal to ensure that 2 million more children and young people receive a meaningful financial education by 2030.

As a Government, we will consider further the suitability of the support available to schools in the light of the curriculum review outcomes. However, it may be helpful to the House if I set out what is already available by way of support. The Money and Pensions Service has published guidance setting out how schools can improve the financial education they deliver, and signposting to services and resources. The financial education quality mark, funded by the Money and Pensions Service and delivered by Young Enterprise, quality-assures resources for teachers and others to support the provision of financial education. Resources with the financial education quality mark are freely available on the Young Money resource hub.

Support for curriculum delivery is also available through optional, free and adaptable resources from Oak National Academy. Oak has completed its initial curriculum resources for maths, and it will be producing additional lessons on financial education and applying maths in real life contexts across key stages 1 to 4. Those are expected to be available from spring 2025, and lessons on finance and the economy also featured in Oak’s new citizenship curriculum, launched earlier this academic year. Teaching resources for those lessons will be released by autumn 2025.

His Majesty’s Treasury works closely with the financial services sector to ensure that providers play a role in supporting people to manage their money. In 2021, financial services organisations were the largest funders and providers of financial education programmes, with 46 programmes reaching 4.7 million children and young people, and a total spend of £7.5 million. In 2023, members of UK Finance, including banks and other financial service providers, provided financial education lessons to more than 4.1 million children and young people in schools and community settings.

On 5 December it was announced that the Government will develop a financial inclusion strategy, alongside a supporting committee to tackle the problem of financial exclusion. The Government will work with consumer groups and industry on the development of that strategy, which will aim to tackle barriers to individual and household ability to access affordable and appropriate financial products and services. As part of that, the committee will consider the role played by financial capability in consumer use and understanding of products.

In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham for securing this debate, as well as those who have contributed to it so knowledgeably and articulately. Many schools already have high-quality financial educational provision in place, but every child and young person should have every opportunity to achieve and thrive. The reforms I have set out will ensure that every child is set up for the best start in life, including a curriculum that is rich, broad, inclusive, innovative, and that readies young people for life and work. There is always much that needs to be done, and we must and do take responsibility. We will build on our early efforts and work at pace to ensure that every child has the qualified expert teachers they need.

We recognise that training needs to evolve so that teachers remain competent and confident to teach and adapt the curriculum. That is why the work of the Money and Pensions Service, through its data collection, national strategy and delivery plans is so important. We must continue to work closely across the Government and in partnership with others to ensure that we approach challenges in a co-ordinated and evidence driven way. We will consider what more we can do in the context of the curriculum and assessment review, with workforce reforms to ensure that the financial education pupils receive is relevant and taught with passion by confident and committed teachers.

Children’s Social Care: North-east England

Janet Daby Excerpts

Wednesday 5th February 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham (Mark Ferguson) on securing this debate. He is absolutely right that early intervention is best. In this significant Adjournment debate, I have heard other hon. Friends talk about kinship care, mental health, breakfast clubs, early help and care leavers, and of course I will be responding to my hon. Friend himself.

I was thrilled to hear that Gateshead council achieved a “good” rating across all areas of its children’s services in the Ofsted report published last week. The report highlights the strength of Gateshead’s early help service, its robust multi-agency collaboration, its strong leadership and its effective support for care leavers in their transition to independence, including a focus on education, employment and training alongside their wellbeing and aspirations. The report was published only a few weeks after another north-east council, North Tyneside, secured an “outstanding” rating across all areas of its children’s services, which is a phenomenal achievement.

Two thirds of council children’s services in the north-east were rated either “good” or “outstanding” at their last Ofsted inspection. Although this aligns with the national average, it is impressive given the north-east’s economic backdrop.

Two thirds of local authorities in the north-east are classified as highly deprived, making it the most deprived region in England. The link between high deprivation and high demand clear, so it is no surprise that demand for children’s social care services is high in the north-east. Roughly a third more children per 10,000 are subject to a child in need plan or a child protection plan, or are looked after, compared with the national average. That is the highest of any region in England.

The number of children in care has also grown faster in the north-east than in any other region. That said, it is worth noting that the whole country has seen the number of children in care rise significantly under the previous Government, with more than 80,000 children and young people in care across England on any given day.

[Sam Rushworth]

I thank the Minister for highlighting the rise in the number of children in care. Will she acknowledge the link between the growing number of children in care and the effects of 14 years of austerity?

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

My hon. Friend is right that when money is consistently taken out of public and voluntary services, and when investment is not made in public workers, then our public services—especially our children’s social care—are driven down. I could not agree more.

Many children in care live far from their homes, families and communities, and the costs of care have spiralled in recent years. It is crucial to understand that the challenges facing the children’s social care system extend beyond financial issues. These problems were highlighted in a 2022 review led by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). The Competition and Markets Authority also reported on deficiencies in the children’s social care market in that same year. Both reports called for action, yet two years later no significant changes have been made.

Within four months of being elected, this Government outlined their vision and approach to reform in the document “Keeping children safe, helping families thrive”. Our reform strategy aims to dismantle barriers by shifting the focus of the children’s social care system to early support, preventing crises and keeping families together. Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham stated, early intervention is the best—I think that is going to be one of my new favourite sentences.

Our plans will ensure that children can stay with their families, support more children to live with kinship carers or foster families, and fix the broken care market to tackle profiteering and prioritise children’s needs. We are pleased to see that local authorities across the north-east have been so active in exploring new reforms and policies through their involvement in a wide range of pathfinders and pilots.

We recognise that young people leaving care often experience poor outcomes in various aspects of their lives. We are committed to ensuring that they have stable homes, access to health services, support to build lifelong, loving relationships and opportunities for education, employment and training. There are many things that this Government aspire to do in this space, and we are getting on and doing the job.

We are also providing funding to local authorities to support care leavers who wish to stay living with their foster families up to the age of 21 in an initiative called Staying Put. We have increased support for young people leaving residential care through the Staying Close programme. Additional funding has also been given to local authorities to provide extra support for care leavers at high risk of rough sleeping.

In response to questions about school uniform, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill includes measures to limit the number of branded uniform items that schools can require. School uniform should be affordable for parents, and branded items are often more expensive than non-branded equivalents, so it is right that we will limit the number of branded items that schools can require. It is encouraging to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham talk about Caedmon, which sounds like a wonderful school. I am sure there are many other wonderful schools in his constituency, as there are in all our constituencies.

With regards to breakfast clubs, the Department is working intensively on the delivery plans. We will work with 750 early adopter schools from this April to ensure we get implementation, funding and support resources right before a national roll-out of new breakfast clubs. We published our funding methodology alongside guidance for early adopters on 16 January and we will work closely with schools on the rates to ensure the funding was sufficient for the ask. Funding for national roll-out is, of course, subject to the next spending review. As we learn from more early adopters to help develop our statutory guidance and support packages, more information will be made available.

With regards to mental health, it is absolutely right to mention the wellbeing of children—it is a prevalent and relevant conversation. The Government are determined to make sure that children have the mental health support that they need in our schools and being delivered by our health services.

Let me turn to kinship care. Kinship carers take on a role at a time when they were least expecting to raise a family, and we recognise the serious challenges they face, including financial ones. We recently announced a £40 million package to trial a new kinship allowance to test whether paying an allowance to cover the additional costs of supporting the child can help to increase the number of children taken in by family members and friends. That is the single biggest investment made by any Government in kinship care to date. We are also legislating to mandate all local authorities to publish a kinship local offer, ensuring transparency and accessibility of information for kinship families. There is much more we need to do in this space, and I recognise all the organisations that work in the kinship space, whether charities or businesses. However they support kinship families, they have my support and encouragement.

I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead Central and Whickham for speaking so eloquently about children’s social care. Early intervention and prevention work is needed, including through family hubs, and making sure that children at a young age and their families get the support they need. Keeping families together as much as we can is crucial to how this Government will continue to work.

The social care system is a subject that means a great deal to me and to which I have dedicated so much of my working life. I am honoured to be in this position in Government. Our opportunity mission is focused on breaking the link between children’s background and their success. I am determined to improve the life chances and support for children from deprived and disadvantaged backgrounds. This Government set out an ambitious plan to reform children’s social care, backed by new funding and legislation. By prioritising the voice of the child and working in partnership with local government, we will deliver lasting change for the most vulnerable children in our society.

Question put and agreed to.

Apprenticeships

Janet Daby Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a privilege to speak with you as Chair, Ms Jardine. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing a debate on this subject and on his thoughtful speech. Whether in debates like today, or in his role as co-chair of the APPG on apprenticeships, he is an excellent ambassador for apprenticeships. I appreciate his enthusiasm and drive, and I was extremely impressed to hear that he has visited over 100 businesses since being a Member of Parliament.

As we have heard, I have a good many questions to respond to and I will endeavour to do my best. It is refreshing to hear from the many Members on the Government Benches about their grassroots experiences; there are those who have held jobs, been apprentices and are well connected to their communities, and we appreciate them all.

I want to set the record straight when it comes to what the Government have inherited. As well as inheriting the £22 billion black hole, we also inherited the fact that one in eight 16 to 24-year-olds are not in education, employment or training. Indeed, UK employers have said to us that a third of vacancies are due to skills shortages under the previous Government. Technical training at level 4 and 5 in the UK is at only 4% of adults, compared to Germany at 20% and Canada at 34%. What we have inherited is absolutely staggering. This is a Government for change—we are investing in our people and their future careers, and I will continue to speak about these issues.

I acknowledge everybody who has spoken: my hon. Friends the Members for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), for Barrow and Furness (Michelle Scrogham), for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre), for Rugby (John Slinger) for Coatbridge and Bellshill (Frank McNally), for Leicester South (Shockat Adam), for Derby South (Baggy Shanker), for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor), for Carlisle (Ms Minns), for Hexham (Joe Morris), for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy), for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling), for Rossendale and Darwen (Andy MacNae), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Barking (Nesil Caliskan), for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), and for Tipton and Wednesbury (Antonia Bance), as well as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton), and the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) and for Reigate (Rebecca Paul). I thank them all for their contributions.

National Apprenticeship Week promises to be the best yet, with more than 1,000 events across the country showcasing all that apprenticeships have to offer, as well as the wonderful apprentices taking to social media, including Instagram, to share their stories to inspire the apprentices of tomorrow. I thank all the apprentices, employers and providers who have worked so hard to provide these opportunities and to make apprenticeships such a success.

We know that right now the system is not working for far too many young people who have the most to gain from apprenticeships, but who have too often been locked out of accessing these opportunities. Apprenticeship starts by young people under 25 fell by almost 40% between 2015-16 and 2023-24. We are committed to changing this and to rebalancing the system to support more young people. That is why we are introducing new foundation apprenticeships in targeted, growing sectors. These will give more young people a foot in the door at the start of their working lives, while supporting the pipeline of new talent that employers will need to drive economic growth. We are working closely with employers and providers to design these new offers and ensure that they have the opportunity to develop their infrastructure before training and assessment starts.

We also want to make sure that apprentice wages support the attraction of talented individuals into apprenticeships. We are increasing the apprenticeship minimum wage by 18% this April, from £6.40 to £7.55, which will boost the hourly rate for thousands of young apprentices across a range of sectors and those in their first year of an apprenticeship.

We will continue to support care leavers to undertake apprenticeships. Apprentices under the age of 25 who have been in local authority care can claim a bursary of £3,000 when they start an apprenticeship. We will continue to pay £1,000 to both employers and training providers to support them to take on apprentices aged under 19, or 19 to 24 if they have an education, health and care plan or have been in care. Employers are exempt from paying towards employees’ national insurance for all apprentices aged up to 25 when the employee’s wage is below £50,270 a year.

As we work to support more apprenticeship opportunities for young people, it is vital we make sure they are aware of these opportunities. We are promoting career starter apprenticeships, suitable for those leaving full-time education, and targeting young people through the Skills for Life campaign. We have committed to improving careers advice and guaranteeing two weeks of work experience for every young person, as well as to establishing a national jobs and careers service to support people into work and help them to get on at work.

We are also taking action to support employers who want to build the skilled workforce they need for long-term success but who have told us they have not been able to find the right training options. In recent years, UK employers have said that over a third of their vacancies were down to skill shortages. That is why, as a key step of our levy-funded growth and skills offer, we will be introducing shorter duration apprenticeships. These will allow employers to benefit from high-quality apprenticeship training for valuable, in-demand roles that need less than 12 months’ training to be fully occupationally competent, offering more flexibility where that is right for the employer and the learner. We will continue to listen to employers as we deliver the greater flexibility they have called for, and to work with them as we build a vigorous and responsive skills system that will support employers to fill skills gaps that are holding back our economy.

After the Conservatives left us with a collapsing apprenticeship system as well as skills shortages, Labour is listening to employers and redrawing the system through Skills England, a new growth and skills levy, and new foundation apprenticeships. Apprenticeship starts by young people under 25 fell by almost 40% between 2015-16 and 2023-24. The Government are focusing on establishing a coherent skills system, with more flexible training options that support employers to fill skills gaps by driving growth and spreading opportunity. We are introducing foundation apprenticeships to get young people into work-based training and employment, as well as delivering shorter duration apprenticeships to provide flexibility for employers and learners.

SMEs are incredibly important to the economy and to apprenticeships. They are more likely to employ younger apprentices and apprentices from disadvantaged areas. We pay 100% of the training costs for young apprentices aged 16 to 21 and for apprentices aged 22 to 24 who have an education, health and care plan or have been in local authority care where they have undertaken apprenticeships with SMEs. As I have mentioned, we also pay £1,000 to employers and providers for apprentices aged 16 to 18 and those aged 19 to 24 who have an EHCP. We will ensure that we consider the needs of the smaller employer as we develop our levy-funded growth and skills offer.

The Government’s first mission is to kickstart economic growth. Across the country, skills gaps are holding back business growth, so we will support employers to invest in skills training. That brings me on to Skills England. We know that right now the skills system in England is complex. There is no shared national ambition on skills development. There is a need to bring together in one place a range of functions, currently scattered across different organisations, to better support the delivery of the skills that the economy needs and to further our industrial strategy, and growth and opportunity missions.

We are setting up Skills England to address these problems by bringing coherence and efficiency to the system, for the benefit of learners, businesses and local areas. Skills England will ensure that we know where our skills gaps are, and the training needed to fill them now and in the future. Skills England will combine the best available statistical data, with insights generated by employers and other key stakeholders. It will also ensure that there is a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications that are aligned with skills gaps and the needs of employers.

The first Skills England report highlighted employer demand for levels 4 and 5—high technical qualifications; those qualifications have been independently approved as providing the skills that employers need. Skills England will work closely with employers, providers, trade unions, Government Departments, combined authorities, regional bodies and other agencies, all of which will help deliver our mission to drive economic growth and to open up a world of opportunity for young people and adults. The Government have an ambitious plan to rebuild Britain. We will deliver 1.5 million homes in England in this Parliament. Around 5,000 more construction apprenticeship places will be made available per year by 2027-28, thanks to an £140 million industry investment to get Britain building again.

We welcome Peterborough’s commitment to breaking down barriers to opportunity by being part of one of eight youth trailblazers that will launch in April 2025. Peterborough and Cambridgeshire have just announced the formation of their youth forum to shape the youth guarantee, to ensure that the voices and perspectives of young people are included in decision making. That pilot will address the needs and challenges faced by the young people in that area. It was wonderful to hear from many MPs about the work in their constituencies. I thank everybody for championing the work that the Government are doing in this area.

[Jim Shannon]

On a point of order, Ms Jardine. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) has not wound up the debate.