Education Provision: South Buckinghamshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 14th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Joy Morrissey]

The way that the hon. Member and I have been working cross-party is an example of how to move forward past council boundaries. I just point out to the Minister that Burnham is a large town that historically was its own entity, but uniquely is now part of two local authorities. The numbers are often looked at through the lens of one local authority or the other, but we need to combine those two, work together and submit a joint local authority bid to the Department for Education. That is the way to demonstrate the numbers and get the secondary school provision we need.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on bringing forward this debate. Does she not agree that by putting secondary schools out of reach of local populations, we close the door to character-building, to skill-learning and to socially imperative after-school programmes? That must all be weighed when considering educational provision, because if you close a school, you lose a generation of young people.

[Joy Morrissey]

I thank the hon. Member for always making such excellent contributions to every Adjournment debate. He is a true champion for Back Benchers.

The people who lost out in the school closure are the young people of Burnham and the surrounding areas. Moving forward, we want to see that problem rectified. Since 2019, the young people of Burnham who are not in selective education find themselves caught in excessively long journeys to schools in Maidenhead and other parts of Buckinghamshire and Slough, as my friend the hon. Member for Slough so eloquently pointed out. It is unfair for our residents, and it is having a significant effect on their mental health, physical wellbeing and finances.

The situation is absurd and almost intolerable. We have a site that housed a secondary school up until 2019, and it is now hosting the occasional Netflix filming. Meanwhile, young people waste hours travelling to school. The situation needs to change. I was equally robust in challenging our previous Schools Minister, and I spent much time speaking to Nick Gibb in the Tea Room. I am sure that the hon. Member for Slough can follow in my footsteps and finding the current Minister in the Tea Room to continue to press the point, formally and informally. Will she consider meeting me and him jointly after the debate, so that we can take this issue forward?

I pay tribute to the campaign group for Burnham secondary school. Since my election in December 2019, I have been pleased to work alongside the group and local families to try to right this wrong. They are at the epicentre of what makes community campaign groups so inspiring. They are totally dedicated to making their community better. I thank the local councillors, parish councillors and the hon. Member for working together to put the needs of our residents first.

Let me set out why the case for a secondary school in Burnham is clear, compelling and urgent. We know that education is the single silver bullet that can determine the life chances of young people, but we are placing an enormous barrier in the way of the young people of Burnham and south Buckinghamshire. Long journeys are impacting their mental and physical health and placing them at higher risk of educational disengagement.

We also know that south Buckinghamshire is significantly underserved in special educational needs and disabilities provision. Just before the election, I was delighted by the Department for Education’s announcement of a new SEND school for Buckinghamshire. I hope that the Minister will recommit to that school tonight and support my calls for it to be placed in south Buckinghamshire—it would be for the whole county, but I would love to see it in south Buckinghamshire. A reopened Burnham secondary school would represent a perfect opportunity to provide not only 11 to 16-year-olds with non-selective education, but increased SEND provision and a thriving sixth form.

Sixth-form College Strikes: Sussex

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Alison Bennett]

I agree that sixth-form college teachers do a huge amount of good, supporting students from a vast variety of backgrounds, including disadvantaged backgrounds.

This evening, I was pleased to meet in Parliament my constituent Amelie Lockhart, a year 13 student at Varndean, and Fleur Hemmings, a philosophy teacher at Varndean. Amelie told me that the strikes are limiting the time left for year 13 students to finish their subject content, and she and her friends are worrying about hitting their grades for university. Sam, a BHASVIC student from Haywards Heath, said:

“I’m worried about learning all the content for my A-levels at this crucial point in my life but I support the teachers in this strike.”

Similarly, a year 12 double maths student from BHASVIC told me that because they complete A-level maths in just one year, the strikes mean that he has already missed out on the teaching of several full topics of learning crucial to his exams in June. In addition, BTec students started exams last week just as three days of strikes took effect, and university applicants who need extra support—often students from more disadvantaged backgrounds or with special educational needs—have been impacted just before the end of January application deadline.

Lily from Haywards Heath, who studies at Collyer’s, says:

“These strikes disrupted my learning during mocks week. I didn’t have the proper class time to prepare for my exams. Of course I support the teachers. I think they should get the proper salary they deserve.”

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. I spoke to her beforehand to mention an example and support her position. There have been similar strikes in Northern Ireland, and teachers’ strikes are approaching. The main thing my constituents tell me is that students, who are already under enormous pressure during exam periods, must not be left struggling under undue duress and pressure. When it comes to sorting out these problems, does she agree that, although wage increases for teachers are important, the issues facing students must not be ignored?

[Alison Bennett]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and agree that the impact on students is at the centre of the debate.

Emma, a parent from Hurstpierpoint, has said to me that it is madness for the Government to think that they could agree a deal with one set of teachers and exclude another. Meanwhile, a BHASVIC parent told me that they support the teachers but are frustrated that their children, who were let down during covid by a Conservative Government, are now being let down by a Labour Government, too.

So it is that teachers such as Fleur decided to go on strike, with a heavy heart. They are mindful that students get just two short years at college to study and prepare for their futures and that every day counts. For our year 12 and year 13 students, this is just the latest round of disruption that their education has been subject to: they were in years 7 and 8 when the first covid lockdown was announced and did not get back into school for six months. That had a profound impact not just on their learning but on their social and emotional development, with soaring rates of mental ill health and school absenteeism still being widely reported five years later. Then, during 2022 and 2023, there were further rounds of strikes in those students’ schools.

As Arianne from Haywards Heath, who is a BHASVIC student, said this week:

“The most frustrating thing is the loss of routine. The strikes have made it hard to integrate back into college after Christmas. We can’t get as much support from teachers for coursework, which might affect our grades. It feels very disengaging. None the less, I still support the teacher strikes and understand that if change is going to happen you have got to do something disruptive.”

Workplace Pay Gaps

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I thank the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) for leading today’s debate. She has worked incredibly hard on this issue. It is good that we can discuss its effect across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I wish to add a Northern Ireland perspective to the flavour of the debate, and to give some examples from Northern Ireland of where there has been a shortfall, where it has been addressed and what we can do better.

With regard to geography, ethnicity, gender and so on, the UK has witnessed, in the past and presently, pay gaps in certain industries. This debate is important to get a full perspective on the situation in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. For example, there was a large disparity in teachers’ pay in Northern Ireland, which coincided with the failure of the Northern Ireland Assembly to meet for some time. There was a clear problem of unfairness to teachers working in Northern Ireland. In April last year, a formal offer on teachers’ pay for 2021, 2022 and 2023 was accepted by Northern Ireland’s five main teaching unions. The pay settlement agreed by the Teachers’ Negotiating Committee included a clause on a starting salary of £30,000 for teachers in Northern Ireland.

That is really important because for too long the teachers in Northern Ireland had lagged behind in pay negotiations and pay awards. That 24.3% increase in starting salary is to be warmly received and it makes that salary equal to England, as it should have been for a long time. The title of this debate is “Workplace Pay Gaps” and those are for both males and females, although I will refer to where women have been disadvantaged in other ways, but there should be absolutely no pay disparity anyway. Equality for teachers in Northern Ireland has eventually been achieved after four years. It is absolutely to be welcomed, but waiting on it for four years is hardly fair.

Additionally, there have historically been issues in Northern Ireland and further afield in the United Kingdom regarding the pay gap between men and women. The Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland has revealed that, as of 2023, the overall gender pay gap in Northern Ireland stood at 7.8% in favour of males. The hon. Member for Brent East referred to that issue, and I thank her for it. It has to be addressed by companies across Northern Ireland.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) have both alluded to the gender pay gap. Whatever the justification or otherwise might have been 30, 40 or 50 years ago, when there were different roles in society for males and females in employment, does my hon. Friend agree that those days have long passed? There must now be no distinction of any kind, whether it is based on gender or on any other differential. There needs to be pay equality right across the spectrum.

[Jim Shannon]

I wholeheartedly agree. For instance, apprenticeships are available at Thales in the armament and military production line in Belfast, and young girls and ladies have the same opportunities as young fellas and men. The same applies at the shipyard and at engineering firms across Northern Ireland, especially in my constituency. I have seen the advantage of those apprenticeships. My hon. Friend is right to raise that point.

For every £1 earned by men, women earn only 92p. That has to be addressed: we need wage equality. Where employers are perhaps reluctant to provide it, the Government need to step in legislatively. The gender pay gap favours females when we consider full-time and part-time employees separately—there are gaps of 3.5% and 1.7% respectively—so there are some anomalies to be addressed.

The gender pay gap has narrowed over the years. It has decreased from 22.4% in 1987 to 8.7% in recent analysis: over 27 years, there has been a great drop in the disparity. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) compared the historical position with where we are today. I believe that the trend reflects ongoing efforts towards gender pay equality.

UK-wide, we have witnessed further pay disparities that certain ethnic minority groups experience in comparison with white employees. The hon. Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) was absolutely right to highlight that clear gap, and the clear evidential gap to be addressed. For instance, in the 10-year spell between 2012 and 2022, black, African, Caribbean and black British employees consistently earned less than their white counterparts.

Furthermore, studies by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency have identified pay disparities between disabled and non-disabled employees in Northern Ireland. I think the hon. Member for Brent East referred to that disparity in her speech. Goodness me! If they are doing the same job to the same ability, they should be getting the same pay. There should be no disparity just because someone happens to be in a wheelchair, have a visual or hearing disability or have a mobility issue. That cannot be ignored. For example, employees reporting fair health, which is a proxy for disability, experienced a gender pay gap—wait until you hear this one—of 16.8%. Those who reported very good or good health experienced narrower gaps of 8.1% and 8.4% respectively. There is a real gender pay gap for disabled people.

Perhaps the Minister can give us some idea whether she has had any discussions with the Minister back home. There is no doubt that much progress has been made in addressing these issues, but there is still a long way to go. There is significant work to be done to ensure full pay equity across all demographics, not just in Northern Ireland but further afield in the United Kingdom. Has the Minister had a chance to raise that issue with the Northern Ireland Assembly?

There is hope that legislation can be introduced to address these issues. I look to the Minister today for a commitment to ensuring that they are resolved. I understand that many of the issues are devolved, but the Government here have a responsibility, centrally, to ensure fairness in pay across all employment sectors.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Equalities (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East (Dawn Butler) on securing this important debate. I thank her, as other hon. Members have, for her long-standing advocacy and campaigning on the issues, which she demonstrated deeply in her speech today. I am proud to have worked with her on them. I also acknowledge the contributions made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, which were summarised well by the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Ben Obese-Jecty). I am pleased to see the support for our direction of travel, and I see that we need to go further and faster.

I hope to comment on as many of the issues as possible that colleagues have raised. I thank the Opposition spokesperson for his comments, but I will say that if there had been as much passion for and commitment to some of these issues over the past 14 years, and such a focus on the Conservative party’s record, there would have been greater change than there was. I hope that he will continue to be a strong voice on these issues, not just in Parliament but in his party.

Today’s debate is a welcome opportunity to reaffirm and highlight the Government’s commitment to workplace fairness. I am incredibly proud that the work we are taking forward in this Parliament comes on the back of a long history of commitment to equalities legislation, whether that is the Equal Pay Act, the Race Relations Act 1965, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Equality Act.

One of the key ways that we can measure fairness in the pay that workers receive is by looking at pay gaps. Pay gaps look at the differences in the average pay between groups—for example, the average earnings of women compared with men—while equal pay is a direct comparison of the pay of individuals doing the same or similar work. We have had a number of contributions today on the ranges of and differences in pay gaps.

Pay gaps do not necessarily mean that pay discrimination has taken place, but frankly, they often do. They can point to opportunities not provided and processes that lock people out. Those are issues of fairness and workplace security. Pay gaps can also mean that employers are missing out on the talents and skills of a diverse workforce and all the benefits that come with that. Closing pay gaps of all kinds is in everyone’s interest, which is why we want to go further and faster in this Parliament to reach that ambition. It makes sense for business, society, employers and our economy.

The timing of this debate is welcome, given that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent East said—Ethnicity Pay Gap Day falls tomorrow, on 8 January. I acknowledge the work of Dianne Greyson and other campaigners. Since 2018, the campaign has highlighted the need for decisive action to tackle ethnicity pay gaps. Like Disability Pay Gap Day, which was marked on 7 November, and Equal Pay Day on 20 November, the date serves as a reminder of just how far we have to go. We know that ONS data shows that black, African, Caribbean and black British employees have consistently earned less than white employees, when looking at median gross hourly pay. In 2023, the pay gap between disabled and non-disabled employees was 12.7%, and in 2024, the gender pay gap still stood at 13.1%.

A number of issues have been raised—not just by my hon. Friend—in relation to accountability, enforcement, regional variation, the right to know, and so on. I will make a few remarks before addressing those points, although I recognise that there may be a shortage of time to address all the points that have been raised today, so I will also be happy to pick them up with hon. Members afterwards.

I am proud that in the King’s Speech in July, we strengthened our plans to introduce legislation to root out inequalities and strengthen protections against discrimination. As part of the King’s Speech, we announced the equality (race and disability) Bill, through which we will introduce mandatory ethnicity and disability pay gap reporting for employers with 250 or more employees, building on the requirement to publish gender pay gap data. That is a major next step in equalities legislation.

The debate on the publication of an ethnicity pay gap report has had the engagement of a range of key stakeholders, including the Runnymede Trust, the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Business in the Community, ShareAction, Unison and many others. We also know that many ethnic minority workers still face barriers to progression in the workplace. For example, in March 2023, over 26% of the workforce across NHS trusts in England, but only 11% of those at senior manager level, were from an ethnic minority background.

Similarly, although there has been growth in employment rates for disabled people in recent years, there are still significant gaps, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) laid out. As we know, disabled people have, on average, lower incomes than non-disabled people, and I want to make a couple of comments about the disability pay gap and employment issues. I know that my hon. Friend, who has expertise in this area, has met the Minister with responsibility for disabled people, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), to discuss the disability employment charter. We are taking those comments into account in our response to the Public Services Committee that I hope will be coming shortly. We also remain committed to publishing the findings of the disability workforce reporting consultation 2021-22.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am conscious of time.

[Seema Malhotra]

Thank you, Sir Roger. I will give way.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her contribution; she will know that my questions to her will never be adversarial. She has referred to disability action. Has she had an opportunity to discuss these matters with the equivalent Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly? That was the thrust of my contribution, as it is really important that we in Northern Ireland follow the same line of thought as happens here.

[Seema Malhotra]

I understand that we are engaging with our colleagues in the devolved Governments, and across the country in relation to mayors playing a part, and I am very happy to pick that point up with the Minister for Disability. It is a priority for this Government to engage much more with our devolved Governments and work together to ensure that the voice of the whole UK is heard in the legislation that we are bringing forward.

I want to make a couple of comments about parental and shared leave and employment rights. Our plan to make work pay included a commitment to review the parental leave system alongside our wider plans to boost family friendly rights, so that workers and employers can benefit from improvements in productivity and wellbeing. The Employment Rights Bill will make existing entitlements to paternity leave and unpaid parental leave available from day one of employment, and will enable parents to take their parental leave and pay after their shared parental leave and pay.

We are improving access to flexible working, which will be extremely important in how we move forward further in this space.

Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 19th December 2024 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the statement on Qualifications Reform Review on 12 December 2024.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am minded of that old adage—I suppose I am old enough to remember all these things—that when you ask a fish to climb a tree, it does not make the fish stupid; it just cannot do it. My concern with the qualification review is that we will not have the breadth of scale that allows for student choice and accessibility, and it will try to pinpoint people into roles that they cannot be successful in. How can the Minister ensure that those gifted in academia will have that clear path, and those gifted with job skills will find their place as well, alongside those still searching for their calling who are looking for wide subjects to keep many doors open for their future?

[Janet Daby]

We are keeping 157 of the courses that were outlined to be defunded. That will be reviewed on an ongoing basis depending on uptake. Our focus is very much on economic growth, and our mission is for growth and ensuring that young people have opportunities in T-levels and other qualifications to ensure that they are able to get the jobs that are desperately needed in our country. We are not removing the rules of combination. More variation should support 16 to 19-year-olds to have access to the jobs they wish to do in the future.

[Official Report, 12 December 2024; Vol. 758, c. 1088.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby):

Immigration and Nationality Statistics

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered immigration and nationality statistics.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Mr Mundell—happy Christmas to you, the Clerks and other House staff.

I want to make clear my overall view of the rate and nature of immigration to Britain in recent years. To be frank, it has been a disgrace. Every Prime Minister since Tony Blair has promised control, only to oversee record numbers of people coming here. Immigration is the biggest broken promise in British politics, and probably the biggest single reason that British politics is so broken. This could not be more important, because mass immigration undermines our economy, capital stock, and cultural coherence and identity. It quite literally changes the country we are.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I think the issue that the hon. Gentleman and I agree on, and probably most Members in this Chamber will agree on, is that there are two categories: those who are fleeing their countries on human rights grounds and because of the persecution of their religious beliefs, who should go through the system, and economic migrants—those who are young and healthy, and who jump on the boat at Calais and come across. Those are ones we need to stop. Does he agree?

[Nick Timothy]

I certainly agree that most people crossing the channel are not really seeking refuge, because they are coming from a safe country: France. They are seeking their economic betterment, which may be legitimate from their perspective, but is not necessarily in our interests as a country.

I must be honest: my party played its part in this policy failure. I say “policy failure” because, at times—certainly when I worked in the Home Office and, I think, when my hon. Friend the Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam) was in the Home Office—there was a genuine attempt to get the numbers down. Indeed, back in those years, the numbers fell, but ultimately we failed, thanks to free movement rules, a loss of wider political support for our work across Government, and a failure to reform the higher and further education system, public services and the wider economy, so as to get off the addiction to more and more migration.

Brexit should have changed all that. It was a clear vote not only to reclaim our sovereignty, but to reduce and control immigration, but the points-based system that followed, with its hugely liberal rules, was always bound to increase the numbers dramatically. For that, my party will need to show sincere contrition and, if we are ever to win again, demonstrate to the public that we truly get it and have a plan to cut immigration drastically.

To inform the policy choices we face and help us to understand what we must do with the millions of newcomers who have started new lives here in the past 25 years or so, we also need much better data. Low-paid immigrants bring costs that are not adequately considered by Government impact assessments. They need housing, drive on roads, use transport, have health needs, take school places, claim benefits and eventually receive the state pension, which was recently valued by an actuary at £250,000 per person. Most immigrants and their dependants will, over their lifetimes, be net recipients of public funds.

However, the British state does not even try to calculate the net fiscal costs and benefits of different profiles of migrant. We get fragments of information from, say, the census, or prison statistics. We know that 72% of Somalis here, for example, live in social housing, compared with 16% of the population overall. We know that one in 50 Albanians here are in prison, and that nationalities such as Iraqis, Jamaicans and Somalis are disproportionately likely to be criminals. We know from now-discontinued income tax data that some nationalities, such as Bangladeshis, receive more in child benefit and tax credits than they pay in income tax and national insurance. That does not even include the costs of education, housing, healthcare, pensions, and other effects on infrastructure and services.

Some European countries have started to do the necessary work. In Denmark, for example, official figures show that Danes and Europeans are net contributors, but migrants and their descendants from the middle east, north Africa, Pakistan and Turkey are net recipients throughout their whole lives, including when they are working.

I have asked various Ministers in oral and written questions whether the Government will commission work to establish the true cost of immigration broken down by profile of migrant. The answer that comes back more often than not is that that has not been done before. However, that is not a reason not to do it now. My first question to the Minister is: if it is not to be done, why not? Can she give us a justification?

I have asked similar questions on specific aspects of policy. The Department for Work and Pensions told me in a letter that

“we are investigating the feasibility of developing and publishing statistics on the immigration status of non-UK/Irish”

nationals, or “customers”, as it bizarrely calls foreign benefits claimants. My second question is: what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the DWP about that? When will that work be completed? Will the data be broken down by nationality, visa route and type of benefit?

We know bits of information on social housing from the census, as I said, but that is not good enough. Only yesterday, a grotesque online video was published by Westminster city council promoting social housing in Arabic, Bengali, Spanish and French, which, given the rules around no recourse to public funds, I found somewhat surprising. My third question is: what discussions has the Minister had with counterparts in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government about that? Can we get annual data on social housing occupation by nationality, visa and asylum status?

Creative Arts Education

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I first say this, Mr Mundell: you have done the long yards this afternoon—three debates. I do not know whether that gets you overtime or what, but well done.

I commend the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on setting the scene so well. This is her first Westminster Hall debate and, on the basis of this example, I think it will be the first of many, so I wish her well.

The creative arts across the United Kingdom are something to be proud of. We have a fantastic range of arts and lots of enthusiastic people who make them what they are. I always love to take part in these debates to showcase the talent of Northern Ireland and, more importantly, my constituency of Strangford.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) referred to playing the flute—how we love to play the flute in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, playing the flute is like riding a bike, by the way: nearly everybody learns to play. There might be a reason for that, of course.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Give us a demo.

[Jim Shannon]

I have not brought my flute. I could whistle a tune, but I will not.

I always like to talk about something we have done in Northern Ireland. In late 2022—I know the Minister will be pleased to hear this, as an example of what can be done—the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, the Education Authority and the Urban Villages initiative announced funding for the continuation of the creative schools programme in 11 secondary schools, which was fantastic news for the education system across Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) referred to the importance of the arts. The arts are a vocation and many people need to recognise that. There are so many young people out there who see themselves going into the arts, film or the creative industries, so funding for our local schools through the Urban Villages initiative is good news. I have spoken before in Westminster Hall and the Chamber of the amazing talent that Northern Ireland has to offer, specifically in the film industry. We have made leaps and bounds in the film sector over the years.

I will give another example. I noticed recently in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies that controlled or commissioned graffiti is becoming massively popular within the creative arts industry. In Newtownards, which I represent, an Ulster Farmers’ Union building has historically always been subject to criminal graffiti, but now it has been transformed through the creative arts, and it looks fantastic. I have also seen many streets, alleys and walls completely changed by graffiti, and the work that goes into that should be respected and admired. Northern Ireland probably has a lot more graffiti than most, but we realised what could be done creatively with graffiti. At last, that is an indication of where we can go.

The creative schools programme initially launched as a pilot scheme in 2017 and so far 1,000 young boys and girls—men and women—have benefited from it. That is a fantastic number of people destined for stardom and progress. The programme places a focus on improving educational outcomes for children across a wide range of artistic sectors. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but it is crucial that we continue to fund it in Northern Ireland, so that we truly give young people the opportunity to showcase the amazing talent that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has to offer.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrat spokesman, for five minutes.

Trades and Apprenticeships

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 17th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is becoming a bit of a habit for me to be called almost first in Westminster Hall debates, Mr Betts—but whatever the case may be, it is a real pleasure to speak at any stage and to serve under your chairship. I commend the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for leading this very apt debate.

In my constituency, we have a tradition of work in the construction sector, whether in building, plumbing, electrical or roofing, or even in painting and décor. There is just so much to do when it comes to building. I live in the countryside, so there are always houses needing repairs, and many people I have known have been in the business for umpteen years and continue in it. However, and I will come back to this shortly, we seem to have a small dearth of people in apprenticeships, which is disappointing. Of course, those figures are for Northern Ireland as a whole; perhaps my Strangford constituency may not have seen the same fall, because of that strong tradition of working in this sector.

Many hon. Members will know that I am a big supporter of apprenticeships and the opportunities they bring for young people. They provide a real chance for those who have just left school to get out into the world of work, to gain skills, to specialise in a trade and to earn money. It is great to be in Westminster Hall to discuss that. I think it may have been last week that we had a debate here about universities, and we were saying that there are those who have adapted to academia out of necessity; but for those who are not academically focused, perhaps the opportunity is in the skills we are referring to today.

This debate is really important, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. I know she does not have responsibility for Northern Ireland, but I like to come along and give a Northern Ireland perspective, because I think it adds to the debate. I am ever mindful that this House of Commons represents all four regions of the United Kingdom, and we can do things here to better them. I know the Minister would choose, as I would, to share benefits and good things that we have with other parts of the United Kingdom. It is also a pleasure to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Dame Harriett Baldwin), in her place and I look forward to her contribution as well.

Just last week Labour announced its commitment to the 1.5 million new houses to be built, which I welcome; it is important for boosting the economy and it will create opportunities and jobs. However, to make that happen we must ensure that we have the apprentices and the workers in all the different sectors we have referred to. When it comes to apprenticeships, one company last week in the news said that to help to build those houses, 2,800 new plumbers would be needed. I will give some examples later on of some of the things we are doing across the water, but that figure perhaps tells us that, if we are going to build all these houses—again, I commend the Government for doing that—we must ensure we have the workers in place to do that, and apprenticeship opportunities must be part of that.

I know sometimes apprenticeships involve working out in the fresh air—that never bothered me, by the way, although other people might want to stay in an office—but, if people can get paid well in an apprenticeship and the number of years for apprenticeships is reduced from five down to three, people can get the qualifications early on and then start to earn. We do not want to decry young people; we want to encourage them and ensure that the apprenticeships come, that they do their three years and that at the end of those three years they are qualified and earning big money. With Labour’s commitment to 1.5 million new houses, the opportunity to earn big money is here now.

I would love to hear what the Minister has to say in relation to that and how the hon. Member for Portsmouth North will encourage people to take those jobs. I have listened to her comments in previous speeches where she has emphasised the necessity of tackling our skills shortages across the United Kingdom. She has spoken a few times in the debates she has been involved in about how we can do that through apprenticeships and dealing with skills barriers.

In Northern Ireland specifically, numbers of new participants in apprenticeships decreased by 12% between 2018-19 and 2022-23 and by 24% between 2021-22 and 2022-23. Those figures are unfortunately quite disappointing, highlighting that fewer young people are taking up apprenticeships as a form of education and employment. I suppose it depends on the society people live in; we in the Ards peninsula and Strangford see a tradition of building and house building and repairs, but across the whole of Northern Ireland apprenticeships are unfortunately decreasing.

In addition, participants who leave their course, either with or without leaving their framework, are known as leavers. The question that I want to focus on, and that the hon. Member for Portsmouth North focused on in her speech, is those people who start but do not finish apprenticeships. Perhaps the Minister has some ideas about how to encourage them to stay. I am very keen to hear what she has to say, because perhaps we can share her comments with those in Northern Ireland.

In 2022-23, 5,746 participants left ApprenticeshipsNI courses: 3,091 at level 2, 301 at level 2/3 and 2,354 at level 3. More than half—56%—achieved a level 2 full framework. That was six percentage points lower than in 2018-19, but 13 percentage points higher than in 2021 —again, that shows the need to be more focused. The figures show that thousands of people are leaving apprenticeship courses, and a further section of people complete only levels 1 and 2, and do not continue to level 3—level 3 is where the money is, guys! They need to be encouraged to focus, stay the course and do what they are asked to do, because at the end of that they progress to good, constant employment, which will be reinforced because of all these houses that are going to be built. We need to make apprenticeships accessible, encourage people to continue with their apprenticeships and increase financial support through the apprenticeship payment rate. We must give those workers the pay they deserve and highlight to young people that there are opportunities for career progression and stable, secure pay.

For many, working for someone else can be the start of having their own business. In the Ards peninsula, where I live, an incredible number of people have their own business as a result of starting out on an apprenticeship. I will give an example to show where the opportunities are. One of my staff members was having issues with her gas boiler last week. One of her children is asthmatic and must be in a temperature-controlled room; therefore, heating the house is incredibly important. She phoned every single gas company in the area to get a call-out, and only one company could get someone out in the morning. The engineer said that he was able to come out so promptly only because he had an apprentice. In other words, he had seen that it is necessary for young people to have apprenticeships, and that enabled him to do certain jobs and delegate others. That young fella was learning the trade and the business, and was at a stage where he could do some of the work. That took the burden off the single owner of the gas company, but it also gave an opportunity to that young fella, who one day, because there is demand for it, will have his own business and do well. So apprenticeships are an opportunity and they help businesses to grow.

Young people are under the impression that apprenticeships are only for skills such as plumbing, engineering, mechanics, electrical maintenance and so on—jobs that some see as male-dominated—but that is not the case. I am very pleased to say that we have a number of ladies who are progressing in construction. I understand that the business may be different, but there are opportunities for young ladies to involve themselves in any of those skills. They are more than capable of doing that, and I support them.

There are other sets of skills that young people can take advantage of, such as food and drink manufacturing, construction craft, sign making and print production. Some have done so and some will in the future. Our responsibility as Members is to ensure the correct provisions are in place so that people push themselves and stay in their apprenticeship. Sometimes they need to be encouraged, because the work can be hard or repetitive, but it is rewarding, and it can lead to employment and their own business further down the line. We must fix the wage and give them the working conditions they need to succeed.

I appreciate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North for bringing this issue to the House. It is time for the Government to focus on where the shortages are and how we can encourage young people to take these opportunities. There are so many young men and women out there who could benefit from apprenticeships, but we do not talk about the harsh reality that our completion rates are low and that a large percentage decide to leave. What can we do to make that better? I hope that the Minister will endeavour to deal with these issues, in parallel with her counterparts in the devolved nations. I always ask that, because it is important to recognise that, although we may live in different parts of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the things that confront us—this debate today—are salient to every part of every region. We want a strong apprenticeship system across the whole of this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for her positivity and for her response to the hon. Member for Portsmouth North. I hope I have not jumped the gun with this point—perhaps the Minister is coming to it. Has she had discussions with those back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly about working together to progress things in a positive way for everyone?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for his earlier speech. We are working with our devolved Administrations and are committed, along with them, to making sure that we get this right for young people. I thank him for his contributions about, and concern for, young people needing to complete their apprenticeships. I am very willing to engage further with him on these conversations.

In addition to the declining numbers of apprenticeship opportunities in recent years, it is also concerning that only around half of apprentices go on to achieve their apprenticeships. The latest available data for the 2022-23 academic year shows that the apprenticeship achievement rate was 54.3%. In the construction sector, the achievement rate was slightly lower, at 52.7%. Although that represents an increase on the previous year, as in so many areas of the skills system, we need to do much more. We all know that apprenticeships, when completed, deliver great outcomes, so it is critical that we work together with employers, learners and providers to make sure that more apprentices achieve. The Government are working hard to deliver that.

There are concerns around the English and maths requirements for apprenticeships, which are sometimes a barrier to completion and achievement. We are looking carefully at this policy to make sure that we set high standards while supporting apprentices to achieve. We will continually improve other areas of apprenticeships, including end-point assessment, to ensure that they are robust yet proportionate and aligned with key professional qualifications. I am clear that this is a partnership, so we will also make sure that employers and providers have the support and challenge that they need to improve by sharing best practice and improving guidance, alongside an inspection and accountability system that drives improvement.

I welcome the work of the Construction Industry Training Board to support construction apprenticeships in key trades, such as bricklaying and carpentry. The CITB, which is sponsored by the Department, provides financial support to both construction employers and learners. Employers can claim £2,500 a year per apprentice while individuals complete their apprenticeship and a £3,500 achievement grant on successful completion of their full apprenticeship. Apprentices that go on to complete their apprenticeships can look forward to wage returns and more secure employment.

I gently remind my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North that the Chancellor set out in the Budget that the apprenticeship minimum wage will increase by 18% from April 2025, from £6.40 to £7.55 per hour. The median annual earnings for apprentices achieving a level 3 apprenticeship in the construction, planning and built environment sector in 2015-16 were £21,730 one year after studying, rising to £29,620 five years later. We will ensure that many more apprentices, including those in key trades, see those benefits in the future.

As my hon. Friend mentioned, small and medium-sized enterprises are a key area of interest. They are a driving force in the construction sector, playing an important role in providing local opportunities to young people, and we provide a range of financial support to help them to take on apprentices. For non-levy paying employers—they are likely to be smaller employers—we pay 100% of the apprenticeship training cost for young apprentices aged 16 to 21. We also provide £1,000 to employers when they take on apprentices aged under 19, in recognition of the additional support that younger apprentices may need when entering the workplace. Employers can choose how best to spend that, and they are not required to pay anything towards employees’ national insurance contributions for apprentices up to the age of 25.

I strongly encourage any young person to consider a rewarding career in the trades, whether that is as an electrician, scaffolder or plasterer. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough spoke so passionately about apprenticeships being an excellent entrance to jobs and occupations. It is a brilliant route for young people, and I could not agree with him more. The Government are really ambitious for young people, where it is right for them, to pursue apprenticeships, and it is our job to make sure that we give them every opportunity to do so. This Government are about breaking down barriers and ensuring that young people have those opportunities.

The Government have an ambitious plan for rebuilding Britain. We have committed to building 1.5 million homes in England to ensure that people have access to quality housing, and skilled trades are absolutely necessary if we are going to achieve that target. We are working closely with industry to ensure that we have a skilled workforce to deliver that commitment. Last month, we announced a £140 million package of industry investment to create 32 home building skills hubs in areas that need more housing. The hubs are an example of how sectors can use existing flexibilities to solve skills shortages and support growth. They will make use of existing flexibilities in our apprenticeship system to deliver fast-track home building training and apprenticeships for skills in critical demand for home building, including groundwork, site carpentry and bricklaying. The Government are committed to building on that type of innovation.

I am enormously grateful for the support that my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North has given this agenda today and for all the very significant and relevant contributions. The hon. Member for Wokingham spoke about his local area and the support that is needed. He emphasised the decline in many of the apprenticeships that are needed for young people, and he asked for a meeting. I invite him to write in and I will endeavour to ensure that my noble Friend, Baroness Smith, will have a meeting for that very important discussion.

Hon. Members have raised some important concerns about skills shortages in critical trades, and about the perception of careers in those vital occupations. I am grateful for the considered contributions of everyone who has spoken. It is clear that there are widespread skills shortages in vital industries, such as construction. We will all need to benefit from young people being in those jobs at some point or other in our lives, and it is especially needed for our country when we are looking at growth. I have set out today how we will begin to tackle this issue, starting with the establishment of Skills England and by developing a more flexible and levy-funded growth and skills offer. Those actions will support employers and learners across the country in accessing high-quality skills training.

Qualifications Reform Review

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

I will ask my noble Friend the Minister to get back to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.

May I make a correction to what I said in my statement? Qualifications in agriculture, environment and animal care, legal, finance and accounting, business and administration and creative design will not be defunded before 2027, not 2024.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am minded of that old adage—I suppose I am old enough to remember all these things—that when you ask a fish to climb a tree, it does not make the fish stupid; it just cannot do it. My concern with the qualification review is that we will not have the breadth of scale that allows for student choice and accessibility, and it will try to pinpoint people into roles that they cannot be successful in. How can the Minister ensure that those gifted in academia will have that clear path, and those gifted with job skills will find their place as well, alongside those still searching for their calling who are looking for wide subjects to keep many doors open for their future?

[Janet Daby]

We are keeping 157 of the courses that were outlined to be defunded. That will be reviewed on an ongoing basis depending on uptake. Our focus is very much on economic growth, and our mission is for growth and ensuring that young people have opportunities in T-levels and other qualifications to ensure that they are able to get the jobs that are desperately needed in our country. We are not removing the rules of combination. More variation should support 16 to 19-year-olds to have access to the jobs they wish to do in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome the Minister’s response about kinship carers. What progress has been made on offering kinship carers respite provision, so that they can be given short-term breaks to ease the pressures facing kinship families?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his very good question. It is important that kinship carers, as well as the children they are looking after, have the support they need. Through the process of family group decision making, families will come together to have conversations about how best to support children in kinship care. Respite and other related matters will be discussed to ensure that the right provision is in place. This Government are committed to getting it right for children, especially where the previous Government failed.

Higher Education: Financial Sustainability

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the financial sustainability of higher education.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. Our universities are integral to a thriving United Kingdom. They drive economic growth, ensure that the workforce has the skills necessary for the jobs of tomorrow and boost the UK’s global standing. They are engines of social and economic progress, but behind those important functions lies an equally important reality: the financial sustainability of this vital sector and our economy.

For almost a decade, universities have faced declining investment, despite recognition of our world-leading higher education and research system. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary university group, vice-chancellors from a range of institutions have told me that the pressure to deliver world-class teaching and research with less is becoming more acute. The Government’s announcement on 4 November 2024 of an inflationary increase in tuition fees in England cannot have been an easy decision, but it was necessary. Prior to that announcement, tuition fees had risen only once, by £250, since the introduction of £9,000 fees in 2012. Inflation has cut their value to just £5,924 in 2012-13 prices, while Government grants for teaching have declined by 78% over a decade in England.

The financial picture across the UK is equally challenging. Welsh universities had their fees capped at a lower level than English institutions until 2024, and over the past decade, funding per student in Scotland has declined by over £2,500. In Northern Ireland, funding per student has lagged behind England by over £1,000 a year. The Office for Students estimates that by 2025-26, there will be a net reduction in income for the sector of £3.4 billion and, without significant mitigating actions, a sector-level deficit of £1.6 billion, with up to 72% of providers being in deficit and 40% having low liquidity.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

This is a really important debate, but it does pose a question, and I want to ask the hon. Gentleman for his thoughts on it. He referred to the cost of living pressures that every family has, wherever they may be in this United Kingdom. I suspect that those, combined with the increase in higher education fees, will mean that we are in danger of going back to a state where only well-off families can afford to have their children in university, while the rest will have to go to work to provide the moneys just to live. Does he share my concern about that?

[Adam Thompson]

The hon. Member raises an excellent point, and it is important that we bear that in mind. This is a danger that we need to contend with. The conversation that I hope to start with this debate is about how we might address those issues going forward, and I will touch of some of those points in my speech.

I know from conversations with vice-chancellors that while the causes of the funding challenges vary significantly between institutions, they all feel the pressure to deliver more for less. An inflationary rise in fees is important, because it prevents further erosion of university funding for teaching undergraduates, but it does not reverse the real-terms decline in the value of the tuition fee. That is why there needs to be a concerted and strategic effort by universities and the Government to secure the long-term financial sustainability of our universities—that touches on the point made by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

What are the main financial risks that universities face? Analysis from PwC shows that a significant number of universities are vulnerable to reductions in international student numbers, increased expenditure and reduction in the growth rate of domestic undergraduate students. The risks identified by PwC’s analysis are not just hypothetical. In many cases, we are already starting to see their impact, especially in terms of international student recruitment. After almost a decade of stagnation, the UK experienced a period of significant growth in international student numbers between 2019 and 2022, driven by a combination of Government policy and the openness of the UK immediately following the covid-19 pandemic.

However, the numbers of international students choosing to study in the UK has since declined, as both political and market factors have changed, and the attractiveness of the UK as a study destination has fallen. According to data released by the Home Office on 28 November, 392,969 visas were issued to international students between October 2023 and September 2024. That is 19% fewer than were issued in the previous year.

Universities understand that growth in international student numbers must be sustainable and that the experience for those choosing to study here should be truly world-class. However, policy changes under the previous Government, such as restrictions on dependant visas, increased visa and immigration costs, and threats to the future of the UK’s post-work study offer, have had a significant impact on the attractiveness of the UK as a study destination, as well as the perception of the UK as an open and welcoming country.

A key finding from IDP’s “Emerging Futures 6” report was that the biggest influence on study destination choice for prospective students was post-work study opportunities, and indeed work opportunities. I commend the Secretary of State for Education for reaffirming the Government’s commitment to supporting and valuing international students. Will the Government back that up by committing to maintaining the graduate route on its current terms for the duration of this Parliament?

Another significant financial risk is membership of the teachers’ pension scheme, which affects a lot of universities. Universities that are statutorily obliged to be members of the TPS—primarily modern post-1992 universities—are now required to pay pension contributions of around 29% for 58,000 members of staff compared with 16.4% in 2019, which is a very significant increase. That is one of the highest employer contributions of any pension across the whole country. Universities cannot exit the TPS or take actions to reduce the employer contribution, and they have not been granted the same additional funding as schools and colleges to meet the cost of the scheme. Will Ministers in the Department for Education commit to working with Ministers in His Majesty’s Treasury to explore how universities can be provided with flexibility to allow consideration of alternative pension pots?

I will turn to the structural issues in university research funding, and in my background as a research scientist, that was something I faced daily prior to my election to this place. Research funding risks seeing the UK’s world-class capabilities and competitive advantages being eroded. Despite recent increases in investment, the current system relies on disproportionate and growing cross-subsidy from universities to make research viable, which, given the current financial challenges faced by universities, has produced a huge gap in funding.

To cite the VCs that I have spoken to recently, research operates at a loss, which is a significant issue that they face. It is estimated that for every pound of public money invested in university research and innovation, the country gets back £10 a year—a huge return on investment. But in 2022-23, UK universities incurred a £5.3 billion deficit in research activities. In short, the system is structurally unsustainable. Although the Budget recently highlighted how serious the Government are about funding university research, we urgently need an ambitious and long-term approach from the Government to funding university research. I would welcome the Minister’s views on that point.

Why does all this matter? The UK’s performance in HE and research is exceptional, in my opinion and life experience, and it surpasses significantly our international counterparts. UK universities deliver the highest degree completion rates across the OECD. They are recognised as world-class and generate £25.6 billion of export earnings, while broadening the UK’s soft power and strengthening global relationships. The UK has the third largest share of the world’s academic publications at about 6.3%—that is what I spent much of the last decade of my life producing—behind only China and the United States, with an even larger share of the world’s most highly cited publications at 13.4%, which is a great achievement and shows how good our universities are.

The latest figures show that the UK higher education sector’s teaching, research and innovation activities had an economic impact of £265 billion, so we are talking about a huge sector here. This impact is felt across the country, including in the east midlands, which I represent, where universities contributed £6.3 billion in gross output and £4.2 billion in gross value added to the UK economy. These figures include contributions from my former employer, the University of Nottingham, and a range of other excellent institutions across my region, all with unique and valuable offerings to their communities and beyond.

Underfunding will restrict universities’ ability to drive inclusive economic growth and the UK’s global competitiveness, and to provide opportunities to current students that are comparable to previous years. Sustained funding that ensures a high-quality student experience and enhances the UK’s ability to deliver world-leading research and innovation will rapidly accelerate the positive contributions of our universities.

The current funding system in England affects students’ ability to meet living costs, which touches on points made by the hon. Member for Strangford, and it is hard to make the most of the range of experiences and activities that make up university life. Frozen household income thresholds and a failure to adequately uprate the maintenance package with inflation mean that the average student’s maintenance loan is estimated to fall £504 short of covering their living costs each month. That particularly affects disadvantaged students, who are forced to take on higher levels of debt and find paid employment, which limits their ability to study. I commend the Government for last month announcing an inflationary increase to maintenance support for students in England, but will they commit to reintroducing maintenance grants for students from the most disadvantaged backgrounds? Can they indicate a timeframe of when that might be possible, if it is indeed possible?

Greater effectiveness and efficiency are necessary for our universities to thrive in the coming decade. They must reform and do things differently, and prioritise some things while deprioritising others. Operating models need to evolve to become more effective and efficient. I know from conversations with vice-chancellors that universities in all four nations in the UK are already making significant changes to adjust to these pressures, including in some cases through significant restructuring and transformation programmes. Indeed, around the time of the election, as I was leaving my former employment, my own university was going through a significant redundancy package.

Without a small change to the overall context, many universities will be forced to make cuts that are in the interests of their institution but not the national interest. Such cuts will jeopardise the crucial role that all types of universities play in their local communities. Some have a profoundly local mission of educating the public sector workforce for their local areas, while others attract amounts of investment. They all play a part throughout the country.

Many of our universities are currently making difficult decisions, which colleagues will know, I am sure. This means closing degree courses that may have low student demand but are of national strategic importance, such as modern foreign languages and arts and humanities courses. We are losing a lot of those courses. There is a real risk that certain courses will be available in a limited number of institutions only, meaning that they will slowly recede out of the reach of students who cannot travel to study or cannot meet highly competitive entry requirements.

Diminished financial stability for universities clearly has potentially harmful repercussions for students, staff and our wider national economy. Therefore, it is essential that change is not just about doing more with less. Universities’ underlying operating models need to evolve to become more efficient and as effective as possible. They must be supported by the Government to do so at the national level.

My understanding is that Universities UK, the collective voice of 141 UK universities, is committed to establishing a cross-sector transformation and efficiency taskforce to seek savings through greater collaboration. The task force is one of the main recommendations from Universities UK’s recent report “Opportunity, growth and partnership: a blueprint for change”, which I strongly encourage colleagues to have a good read of. The taskforce will be established by the end of 2024 and will report for the first time in summer 2025.

The taskforce will take a three-step approach. First, it will evaluate progress and lessons learned since the last major review into sector efficiency, identifying what has been achieved in the past decade while looking forward to the next and making recommendations to unlock opportunities that lie ahead. Secondly, it will identify opportunities for savings through greater collaboration between universities.

There are already some great examples of collaboration. The UCAS system is effectively a shared service, with the university sector’s IT network run by Jisc. Individual universities have found creative ways of working together to share resources, such as the shared out-of-hours IT service set up by Northumbria University, which is now used by a third of universities around the country.

Finally, the taskforce will bring university leaders together to look at structural changes, creating regional groupings of universities, or even mergers and acquisitions where appropriate, which could deliver savings in the long term. I strongly encourage the Government to engage with the sector as deeply as possible as it embarks on the creation of the taskforce.

I will now turn to the steps necessary to support our universities so that they can in turn support our nation’s renewal. Universities UK’s recent blueprint report recommends a two-phase approach for universities and Government. Phase 1 requires some immediate steps, including

“increasing funding for teaching to meet the real costs through a combination of index-linking fees to inflation”

each year and restoring the teaching grant to previous levels. The Exchequer now only contributes 16% of the cost of funding a student through higher education, with the other 84% picked up by the graduate in England. The balance needs redressing through increased Government investment.

Other parts of the first phase outlined in the report include

“ensuring policy stability in relation to international students in order to achieve sustainable, managed growth”

and

“working with the sector to establish a sustainable solution for universities in relation to the significant increase in contributions to the teachers’ pension scheme”.

Finally, Government and the sector should have

“a clear plan to implement should an English university find itself in severe financial distress.”

That is a very real possibility at the moment, although alleviated by the Government’s recent efforts.

The report also recommends:

“Plans to manage the immediate situation and to protect the reputation of the higher education sector should be in place, with the support of independent experts, to guide the institution”

in financial difficulty

“in finding a viable way forward. There are different possible models for such an intervention, but it is crucial to protect students and others who depend on the university, including local public services.”

To summarise, the second phase of the taskforce effort will involve some longer-term steps, which will probably include developing a contract

“with the university sector to deliver sustainable, managed growth in international student recruitment”,

changes to the way that VAT is charged so that it is easier for universities to share services and, finally,

“introducing a transformation fund to enable and accelerate changes to universities’ operating and business models in order to achieve greater efficiency.”