Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (First sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q I was trying to exclude the full-time undergraduate. I am trying to get at if there is a danger that, for some of those who might already be accessing technical, part-time, upskilling skills courses that are paid for by their employers, the employers will shift that burden on to the students. My follow-up question, which I have asked to other panel members, is do you believe there are other things that can be done to ensure that employers do not shift that burden—for example, in regulation putting things that make it clear that this is for personal, not professional, development?

Professor Peck: It is a really interesting challenge. One of the things that the short course pilot should tell us, even if they are relatively small numbers, is how many trainers are paying for themselves through taking out a loan with the SLC and how many are coming in through employers. There is a suggestion that there are bigger numbers doing those modular programmes but actually they are being paid for by employers. I have not seen the data on that yet, but I am trying to get those data to see if that is the case.

I think most employers would see it as part of their responsibility to pay for training their current employees. Indeed, they might want to do that in a different way from doing it employee by employee. In sufficient numbers, you would commission your own training; that happens already. It is important to ensure that we are not transferring the cost from employers to the individual employee. I think how you do that is a really interesting question, which probably bears more consideration, but there may be ways of ensuring that that does not happen.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Q Thank you so much for your evidence. As we transition into this new world, I am interested in hearing your expert view on where you are seeing immediate demand—for example, the renewable energy retrofit gets discussed regularly in Lancashire. Could you give us the top three from both of your perspectives?

Julie Charge: The main one we are seeing is around computer science; that is definitely top of the agenda. The other ones for us in terms of all the range of skills are things like the artificial intelligence and robotics space, and absolutely sustainability. That understanding of sustainability actually touches a lot of subjects, whether that is housing through the retrofit or others. Those are the three areas that are definitely at the top at the moment.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q That is very interesting. It almost reflects the economic drivers in the Salford-Manchester complex at the moment, even before we get the National Cyber Force up at Samlesbury. Sorry, Professor Peck, I wanted to make sure that was right. What are you saying, outside of retrofitting?

Professor Peck: We have not colluded, but I agree entirely with my colleague: we are seeing construction, digital manufacturing, digital engineering and computer science, particularly coding.

[Katherine Fletcher]

That is really interesting; thank you.

[The Chair]

If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence, and we will move on to the next panel.

Examination of Witnesses

Sir David Bell and Rachel Sandby-Thomas gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

As much as me!

Sir David Bell: It is a really interesting question, and I must say that that is one of the things that slightly surprised me about the cut-off. There has been a lot of debate recently about trying to encourage more people back into the workplace post 50. And I would have thought that the opportunities afforded by the LLE would be ideal for people who might have trained in one area and then, later in life, decided they want to do something else. A module would be absolutely the right size of qualification for them, so I wonder whether that is something that could be thought about.

I mean, it’s that old cliché that 70 is the new 50, as it were. So I think there is probably some consideration worth giving to that 60-to-70 age range, because I think we will see more and more people, for one reason or another, continuing in employment. And if they continue in employment, presumably they will want to continue to upskill and enhance their qualifications.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q This is a very interesting debate. In terms of being overwhelmed by choice, perhaps I could start with ladies first again, but I would like both of your opinions. Is there a bigger role for employers? If I am bowling along and I have decided that my biology degree is not relevant to being an MP and I want to get a level 4, 5 or 6 qualification to be an MP—I look forward to that training course, by the way—I will come along, but I will be doing it because I am trying to gain a qualification that either helps me with existing employment or that helps me to gain new employment.

I am interested in what you will do to engage with employers, so that rather than people being overwhelmed by choice there are pathways that kind of say: “If you get to this level”—is that something that can be set out in advance? Also, are you set up to then track outcomes? That is, this suggested pathway has taken 20 people through it, and 20 people have gone on to work with Jaguar Land Rover, even when they were not employees, having gained this qualification. Is that something that you are set up to do—almost to narrow the choice of modularisation to aid industry?

Rachel Sandby-Thomas: We do a lot of work with employers, and we work with them a lot on degree apprenticeships, as you would expect, but, especially in our business school and in our Warwick Manufacturing Group, we work with employers to design courses that will be good for them. That would just be a variation on that. We would track the learning outcomes, as we call them. Again, that sits slightly oddly with this modularisation, but again, it should be able to be worked through. Those learning outcomes pertain to the student and the student’s progression. We do track the students, partly because they are our alumni and partly because of graduate outcomes and what they are doing. What we might not do, although we would probably measure it by repeat business, so to speak, is track how the employer thinks that it has helped the student.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q Fair, yes; I can see that is different, but a student coming in in five years’ time when this is established could say, “Well, if I go through this modularisation programme and come out without a qualification, then 80% of the other people who have done it have gone and got a job in AI coding,” or whatever.

Rachel Sandby-Thomas: Because we tend to do this with specific employers, it is easier to do it within that employer. What we can say to them is, “Well, this employer did this.” That would suggest that if you do it with a similar type of employer, it should help, but without a specific conversation with that employer, you can use it only by way of analogy.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q I can see how there would be a feedback loop here for almost honey-potting around in educational institutions in key industries.

Sir KCB Bell—I always start with flattery; I find it safer. Would you track outcomes to help people make informed choices to narrow down that modularisation overwhelm?

Sir David Bell: Yes, and I think we probably need to draw a distinction, don’t we, between the individual making a choice under LLE to follow a particular route or pathway of study and the employer working with the employee to put together a programme that is very much designed to support the employer’s business objectives. In both cases, you would be able to say either to the individual or to the employer, “If you put together this little package of modules, that would meet your needs.”

One of the benefits is that the LLE will not be the only show in town, if I can put it that way, because there will be employers who continue to say, rightly, that they want to offer the apprenticeships route and employers who say, “Actually, we want something that is more of a short-course opportunity, rather than more formal and modularised at 30 credits.” This is part of a suite of opportunities. Therefore, maybe it only emphasises the point even more that we have to provide good guidance to people so that they can understand the best way through.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q Yes, I am very interested. Say I was to take advantage of these loans and invest my time and hard-earned money in moving from one job sector to another via the modular course, which allows me still to put food on the table while I am learning new skills, would you be tracking the successful outcomes of the pathways that those individuals had taken? I accept it is different for employers.

Sir David Bell: Absolutely, and I suspect that part of the regulatory regime will require us to do that. It is entirely appropriate, isn’t it, that we will have to demonstrate that. However, I think Rachel made an interesting point earlier about there being perhaps a number of players involved. Let us take the example of credit transfer arrangements; we can make that work. Someone might start a module in one institution, such as a further education college, and might then go to a university and go on to another university. That needs to be sorted out, but I would have thought from the point of view of the public purse—never mind what institutions want to be able to demonstrate—you would have to have a mechanism for tracking outcomes and successful outcomes.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Second sitting)

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Q Related to that financial forecasting, one concern that the Government have been raising in the last year or so has been about continuation completion. What is your experience with modularisation? Are you seeing lower, higher or similar numbers of drop-outs?

Dr Norton: I am afraid that I would have to come back to the Committee with actual student figures on that. I do not have access to them here, but I would be happy to submit them as evidence.

Professor Rigby: Can I briefly come back on those questions? In terms of the regulatory burden, it is significant. I would estimate that the cost of regulation to my university over the last year has been in excess of half a million pounds. We might have been lucky or unlucky—I do not think that data is collected across the sector.

Once we break that down into subject areas—I run around 80 different subject areas—we amplify that level of bureaucratic oversight potentially by 80. Breaking that down into modules means that every one of my degrees, which at the moment are a unitary entity, is broken down into 12 pieces, any one of which could be the focus of oversight by the Office for Students. You are amplifying my administrative or overhead burden of regulation by 80 times 12, which is significant, given that it is not cheap.

Everybody wants to be well regulated. No university is trying to escape its burden, but I think that that burden is worth considering because the metrics on which the risk assessment is based for universities will not operate for a module. I cannot come here and pretend that one 30-credit module will change someone’s entire career. I cannot assume that the progression for a module will be as high as it would be for an entire degree, mainly because the demographic of students taking a single module will be very different to the demographic of students taking a full degree. We are in different regulatory risk metrics; the risk is that those metrics will then be less broadbrush than they currently are, and there will be another amplification of the regulatory burden. So it is something that is worth considering, even if you fillet out from that the natural excesses of a vice-chancellor getting regulated.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

Q Listening to what you are saying, I am trying to chase through a real-world example because I do not have your expertise in the field. I am hearing that we need some kind of standardisation within the modules that allows for a certain transferability. For example, if you are doing artificial intelligence, a basic tick-box, “I understand what a black box AI system is,” would be worth 30 credits in theory, and would be applicable across the piece. I am also hearing that to get to that level of granularization across your full curricular suite is going to be burdensome.

Is there an argument that says we start small, by introducing it only for level 4 and 5, with level 6 to come, and that we focus on the more technical, easy-to-define areas of study at levels 4 and 5? They also have the happy coincidence of being in demand in the job market. Is it possible that we could go some way without having to modularise, for example, archaeology? I love archaeology, but you know what I mean. Can you help me understand what I have got wrong in that sentence?

Professor Rigby: Modularising a degree is easy. We did it at Bath Spa just for fun, to see what the answer to your question would be. We took it right through the formal processes. We have a fully stackable, modularised degree on our books, where every module has individual value. The solution to your problem is that in any degree, there are core modules that you have to do, and optional modules that you choose to do. You make sure that your core modules are, for example, your black box AI at levels 4, 5 and 6, and then your options can change over time and keep current. If ChatGPT was not part of your degree four years ago, you can do a module on it now. You can slot that in at the right academic level, and when you have enough tokens, you automatically get the next qualification, whether that is a year of study, a diploma of higher education, a certificate of education or a degree. That is easy. It is also easy to modularise every degree that is not taught by Oxford, Cambridge or a medical school, because they all bear credit, so they are already modular. What we cannot pretend is that some of our later modules have standalone value irrespective of earlier-level modules. You cannot just drop in to a third-year module on advanced ecology unless you have done it in second and first year. That is where we need to be clever, because if people are taking time out of the workforce, they cannot necessarily come back in.

You are absolutely right. The easiest thing is to start with the equivalent of first year at university—level 4—and then develop on, but you can do it through a series of generic technical qualifications from now. You can devise a degree in health or computing or business. Those things are amenable to immediately meeting all the LLE requirements. It is just a matter of good design in the background. If we can do it, so can any university.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q Okay. So while the modularisation of the 80 subjects is a potential issue, it is not a day one issue but can happen over time as well?

Professor Rigby: Imagine doing a computing degree over 10 years. If I described the degree to you now, it would be completely irrelevant in a decade, because the things you would need to know would have changed dramatically. With archaeology—and palaeontology, which is my subject—you can go 100 years and not have to redesign your degree an awful lot.

[Katherine Fletcher]

So the Elrathia trilobites that we probably both have at home are still 500 million years old.

Professor Rigby: The beauty of this is that you could design a degree that has a core that is significantly generic.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q And that would achieve 4 and 5, but it is 6 where the problem kicks in.

Professor Rigby: Six is still fine. The opportunity is to put in those optional modules that are current and not prescribed by the degree description.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Q Sorry to interrupt, I just want to understand you. Surely at that point, the individual who has agency within their learning, whether by their employer or from their own heft, has the ability to choose. You can get through 4 and 5 and potentially have a positive impact in the labour market, and then when 6 comes along you can move forward. I am just trying to understand why it stops the spirit of the lifelong loan entitlement, which is to give people modular access to learning.

Professor Rigby: I do not think there is any reason why level 6 is structurally different. At the moment, if I made an offer to you to read a degree, I would need to specify for data protection issues exactly what you would learn through the duration of the degree, right up to the last module you would do in your third year. The LLE degrees will have to be different from that, because the subjects move too quickly. If you take a degree over 15 or 20 years, for me to specify at the beginning exactly what the content is at the end—

[Katherine Fletcher]

I would agree with that. I started off coding visual basic C, and I can code ABAP 4 and VBA. You would get quite close to a computing degree—that is 20 years’ worth of technology.

Professor Rigby: All you need is to define your module as coding and they will stick into it what you need. I don’t think modularisation is a problem. I don’t think level 3, going below degree level, or 4, 5 and 6 are a problem. I think what you probably want to do is bespeak some qualifications that fit that, rather than just modularising everything that we offer and hoping that somebody wants to do research methods in the third year of their archaeology degree.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Fine—now I understand you. Ecology might not be top of the list—I am a biologist who did a lot of ecology so I can say it—and that is a bit like archaeology. The initial stuff at level 4, 5 and, ideally, 6 could be more granular in detail and perhaps more obviously tied to a job—moving satellites around in space or whatever. Thank you very much for putting up with my questions.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Q That was very interesting. At the moment with a three-year degree something that protects students from universities completely destroying their course is that universities have to honour the programme they started with. You will allow a cohort to continue. I have been in many fights while representing the unions when universities have done that. I should make a reference to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests on that. With a modularisation process over 10 years, is there a danger that someone starts a process of collecting credits and modules that they want to pursue over a long period and ends up at a dead end, where they have used up all their money and credits but are not able to get the degree because it does not exist any more? How can that be mitigated?

Professor Rigby: I do not think we can avoid that risk. If we imagine that the lifelong loan entitlement will be drawn down from 18 to 50, that is 30 years of continuity, and we have not had 30 years of continuity in higher education in the last century. It is quite possible that an organisation or, indeed, a subject area would cease to exist during that time. You are working from the premise that people would start an LLE in a modular form always intending to get a degree as an outcome, and I am not sure that they would not then just do a degree, because they could do that at any age. The commitment of time might stop them, but I doubt that many people over 30 years would have their eyes set exactly on a particular degree outcome; they would surely be moving in and out of the workplace, revisiting their own choices of modularity. It would be lovely if those modules stacked so that they end up as a generic degree, but I would have thought that the risk is only if we over-specify what that degree would be on graduation. If we say it is a geology degree, that is fine. If we say it is a palaeontology degree on vertebrates that can only be delivered by the University of Bristol, we would have to be assuming that it would have continuity of delivery through 40 years. It probably could, but others might not.

Apprenticeships: Government Support

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Karin Smyth]

I do. The fairs are uplifting experiences, and I am sorry that I missed the hon. Lady’s fair. Young people and businesses are so passionate about them, and I look forward to my seventh next year. It will bring together those businesses, particularly small businesses, that are desperately seeking new workers. In a prosperous city such as Bristol, it should not be so hard to match the desire and needs of businesses with the ambitions of local people. The Government need to get a grip and develop a proper plan to make apprenticeships work.

I know that the Minister has championed apprenticeships from his very first speech in Parliament, and that he is as passionate about the subject as I am. He was kind enough to visit my Bristol South constituency in 2019. I take him at his word that he wants to see more apprenticeships made available to more people, but he is the eighth person to be the responsible Minister in the last 12 years. The brief that has been merged, renamed, repackaged and passed around, I think, 13 times in the same period. His Government simply have not done enough over the last 12 years; the lack of focus has been matched only by the lack of funding. Despite what we in this room think, apprenticeships are the perennial afterthought. They are passed around in ministerial red boxes like a game of educational pass the parcel. I know that the Minister is happy to be left holding the prize, but that cannot of itself make up for the neglect that the sector has suffered under successive Governments for more than a decade. I am glad that he is in his place for the debate, but he knows that the Government need to do more. As he will have heard in his time as Chair of the Education Committee, employers report increasing skills shortages and decreasing numbers of young people leaving education with the skills businesses need. The Government have no plan to address that.

For all the Chancellor’s talk of skills, it is clear that under the Conservative Government there has been a marked decline in apprenticeship starts over the last 10 years. As a result, there will be thousands of young people whose talent has been squandered. I see that in my own constituency: 1,250 people started an apprenticeship in Bristol South in 2011, but by 2019-20, that figure had dropped by 40%. It is not just in south Bristol. Before the pandemic, apprenticeship starts were down 28% across the country for under-19s, and £330 million of unspent levy was sent back to the Treasury. Only one in five of the promised 100,000 new apprenticeships were delivered. According to Department for Education figures for the 2021-22 academic year, apprenticeship starts are down again by 4.8% compared with 2018-19, and the number successfully completing their apprenticeships has plummeted by 31.5%. Something is clearly very wrong.

Answers from the Minister’s own Department show that the number of young people not in education, employment or training is also going up. This is a pattern of failure over a period of time, and after 12 years the Government are clearly to blame. That is not a surprise to the Minister; he is aware of all the problems and challenges from the evidence given to the Select Committee. He has also heard the cries from businesses about the apprenticeship levy. Smaller businesses say that the new system has

“added to the barriers, complexity and cost of recruiting and training staff.”

Larger businesses report that,

“the inflexibility of the system has made it difficult to spend their levy funds…leaving less money available to pay for the training people need.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said, that is also writ large in the health service. As well intentioned as the levy is—we are all very keen to support it and make it work—it is clearly now broken. There are too few apprenticeships available and too few small businesses, which are the basis of my constituency, participating. Crucially, there are nowhere near enough level 2 or level 3 apprenticeships on offer.

I appreciate the work that has been done to improve the flexibility of the transfer system, which is a point that I raised with the then Minister in 2021. However, the numbers speak for themselves, and we should be terrified by what they are telling us. Some 12 months before the levy came into operation, 564,800 learners started an apprenticeship. A year later, that number had fallen by over 200,000. In the last academic year, the start rate was even lower. The figures are shameful. Some 200,000 potentially life-changing opportunities for young people—each one a real person with a real contribution to make— no longer exist. They are the people we see at apprenticeship fairs and the families we talk to in our surgeries. The story is even grimmer when we drill down and see 100,000 young people dropping out of courses each year.

The evidence shows that a growing proportion of apprenticeships are now being undertaken by older people, with businesses using their levy funds to train staff who are already qualified or established in their careers. That may be good, but it is not what the levy was designed for and does not help a young person to get that vital first foot on the employment ladder. It is not just young people who face difficulty as a result of the decisions of the Government. When the Minister was Chair of the Education Committee, it pointed out that:

“More needs to be done to support adult learners with special educational needs and disabilities”.

Again, I could not agree more.

The Minister will know that supported internships and apprenticeships are a crucial piece of the puzzle when helping learners with SEND to access work, but, to quote the Education Committee,

“these opportunities are limited, and support funding is insufficient.”

What did the Government plan to do about the crisis affecting apprenticeships? They set a target to have 3 million apprenticeships by 2020 in the 2015 Queen’s Speech—my first Queen’s Speech as a Member of Parliament. However, we know that apprenticeship starts have declined by over 40% since 2010. As with so many of the Government’s targets, I am not sure that that will ever be met.

The Government’s decision to put aside apprenticeships in the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 suggests that they have all but given up on apprenticeships, and it tells me that the Government have a woeful lack of ambition for our children and young people. It was a missed opportunity for a Government who have consistently failed to match the rhetoric with action. I know that the Minister is an advocate of degree apprenticeships, which combine paid work with part-time study—we also heard about that from the hon. Member for Havant (Alan Mak)—and I was proud to talk to students in Exeter recently. I was deeply impressed by their tenacity and ambition. The Education Committee highlighted that degree apprenticeships are crucial for boosting productivity and widening access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I am listening intently to the hon. Lady’s structured analysis of the current situation, although I do not agree with all of it. I want to highlight the example of EnergyAce, a business in my constituency. It is a family firm that designs and manufactures innovative products that help firms use smaller amounts of electricity. Young people in that business are going to the University of Central Lancashire to do degree apprenticeships, to increase the productivity of the business and to upskill small and medium-sized enterprises, which we know are vital for growth in the economy. They were particularly grateful for the opening up of opportunities to upskill their workforce. They are still relatively young—you and I, Mr Hollobone, would probably think they are quite young people. Does the hon. Lady agree that it is really important that, while we make sure there are quality places in apprenticeships, we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater on degree apprenticeships and the contribution they have to make to growth in the SME sector?

[Karin Smyth]

I agree that degree apprenticeships have their place, but that is not what the levy was for. As I have heard regularly in the debates I have attended in the seven years for which I have been in this place, our concern is for the small and medium-sized enterprises in our constituencies that are finding the subject really difficult to navigate. My constituents, who are among the least likely in the country to go to university, need level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships to help them up the ladder—I am particularly keen on the ladder. I do not want to throw any babies out with any bathwater—I am not sure where the bathwater and the baby come into the debate—but we cannot lose one for the sight of another, and a Government who were ambitious for apprenticeships would be able to do both. The implementation of lower-level apprenticeships has just been too slow. In my constituency, they are often for people who have been let down by the education system and who need to reach the first rung on the ladder.

We have had some other things that I have tried to support, such as the kickstart campaign—I do not know what has happened to that—and I am looking forward to seeing the results of the fire it up campaign. The Minister will know that I try to support all schemes, regardless of party politics. I want whatever works, and I will try to make anything work. We need to turn the tide on the catalogue of failures that have become so synonymous with the Government’s strategies for apprenticeships. I am not overly confident, but I am hopeful that we can do something better. I am obviously more hopeful about the next Labour Government, and I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield will outline our approach.

We cannot level up without skilling up. Transforming the failed apprenticeship levy and creating what we have called a growth and skills levy will give businesses the flexibility they need to train their workforce and create opportunities that will drive growth across every region of our country and in every sector of our economy. I am sure my hon. Friend would not mind if the Government stole that idea—they can crack on with that if they would like to. We want to unlock Britain’s potential, and people need a solid foundation in education and a chance to succeed to do that.

Having security at work and investing in apprenticeships and training opportunities enables people who want the chance to reskill, all of which will help people into high-quality jobs. What we talk about as a green prosperity plan—again, pinch it—will create a million good jobs in industries and businesses in all parts of the country, underpinned by new apprenticeships in the technology sector that will be vital in meeting our net zero commitments. That is the new building in my constituency that the Minister came to see. That is what we want to be looking at: the jobs of the future.

It is clear that the potential for improving our apprenticeship system in the UK is huge. I continue to hope that is the case. I hope that through the debate, apprenticeships are given the prominence they deserve and the help they need, and I hope the Minister will use his time to confirm that even as the eighth Minister at the tail end of a Government fast running out of ideas and time, he will ensure a proper focus on skills and apprenticeships within the Government to ensure our country and our economy have the skills for the future.

Can the Minister outline the immediate actions he and his officials will take to drastically improve the quality of apprenticeships and curb that terrible drop-out rate? I sincerely wish to hear how the long-awaited review of the levy is going and what actions the Government will take. I am sure he will agree, as the former Chair of the Select Committee, that more funding is needed for supported apprenticeships and special educational needs and disabilities. Perhaps he can use his appearance today to surprise us all. Given his personal support for degree apprenticeships, can he outline what the Government will do to ensure faster implementation of the programme? Finally, it would make me very happy if the Minister were to announce, here and now, the use of apprenticeships to increase the NHS workforce.

The legacy of the Government is not good. Amidst the wreckage, good ideas remain and with good people like the Minister, who have a genuine belief in the transformative nature of apprenticeships, I hope we can move forward so that no other young person has their future scuppered for, frankly, no good reason.

Schools White Paper

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Monday 28th March 2022 Commons Chamber

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the focus on outcomes, which is so important for the children of South Ribble. Three of my constituency’s primary schools have joined with two primary schools in South Ribble borough to form the Axia Learning Alliance, a co-operative trust, which I confess to knowing little about. Will the Secretary of State and his Ministers consider such trusts as part of his future proposals?

[Nadhim Zahawi]

It is through the multi-academy trust—that family of schools that is tightly managed and high performing—that we think we can deliver the greatest outcomes for children. I will happily look at what my hon. Friend’s schools are doing, but outcomes are delivered through schools being strongly held together and really well managed, as well as through the sharing of evidence.

School Rebuilding Programme

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2022 Westminster Hall

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve, probably for the first time, under your chairmanship, Mrs Miller. I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing this important debate, one that speaks to the value placed on education and the environment that surrounds pupils. I had the privilege of being educated at an amazing state school, but it had ivy growing in the windows and across the ceiling—that always felt like a juxtaposition. While it has been the launchpad for the things that I have achieved in life, and hope to still achieve, there was a sense of being slightly unloved in a portacabin at the back of the grounds, heated only by a gas heater. The only thing that it achieved for me was creating an early entrepreneurial spirit; I used to take bread and butter in and make toast on the gas heater at the back of maths class—perhaps the Health and Safety Executive would not enjoy that.

I have attended this important debate to highlight a couple of points. First, I thank the Minister and the Government; Tarleton Academy in west Lancashire is an early recipient of the £50 million condition improvement fund. It has received funds to rebuild the school. I have gone around the school and the stories that we have heard today are absolutely spot on; there is water running down the walls of a 1950s construction at Tarleton. The school is fighting a constant battle. To say that Lesley Gwinnett, the executive head—who is wonderful—and her team were ecstatic to get the money is to underplay it.

I visited Tarleton Academy, and I hope the Minister will take into account a couple of points. Interestingly, in contrast to the stories told by the hon. Member for City of Durham, Tarleton Academy found the expectation of leadership engagement in the school-build programme to be very high—considering they are focused on their educational duties. They were not complaining, but they raised the point that it was a lot to expect them to make sure that they got the school that they needed and wanted for the community. In genuine gratefulness, they fed back whether that could be a consideration in future roll-outs. They sorted themselves out in the local community, through their own skill and hard work, but it was a point that they wanted to make. There is a fine balance between getting an identikit box and having something that people can engage with.

The other point I will make is similar to those that other hon. Members have made about sports facilities. Tarleton Academy is in a series of different vintage buildings, some of which are 1940s Nissen huts. However, because it is in such a community-minded village as Tarleton, the swimming pool, which is in a separate bit, is used by the community and the 1940s hut, used for educational purposes, is also used by the air cadets. There is a sports hall that is used by the community and there is a big piece of grass at the back that is primed for a 3G astroturf pitch.

Lancashire is a desert for sports provision. The nearest astroturf pitch to Tarleton is at Bamber Bridge, and that is a 35-minute drive away. I have been working with Football Foundation and speaking to Sport England because the community want that sports pitch. There is a real drive from Betty at Tarleton Corinthians to either get a 3G pitch that they can share with the school at their site, or a 3G pitch at the school that Tarleton Corinthians can share. I appreciate that may be something that the Minister does not have at her fingertips, but can she consider that?

Finally, I have one question on a theme that was addressed by the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West). Penwortham Girls’ High School is the only non fee paying girls’ school for seniors in the whole of Lancashire’s educational system. Although I am slightly biased having attended a state girls’ grammar school, that really did give me a boost, and it is part of the overall provision that is possible. The gym in that school is very decrepit, and while the school is not in need of either a rebuild or a CIF despite its age, its sports facilities are in a very difficult state and its staff are finding it very challenging to find a process through which they can target that kind of sub-school rebuild activity. I promised them wholeheartedly that I would raise this matter with the Government.

In summary, as many Members have said, having the right building is absolutely vital to how pupils see themselves and how they can engage in the maximum amount of learning. It is wonderful that the Government are looking beyond some of the issues that PFI has caused to celebrate the educationalists in west Lancashire at Tarleton Academy, and I hope that in her response, the Minister will be able to say how we can help future cricketers. As a final aside, Lancashire county cricket club has decided that Farington is where it wants to put its training centre. While Derby to Bury is probably an hour’s drive, Bury to Penwortham is only about 35 or 40 minutes, so if the budding cricketers my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (James Daly) mentioned want to come to South Ribble, they will find a very warm welcome there.

Kinship Care for Babies

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd February 2022 Westminster Hall

[David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom) on securing this debate.

It is very striking, when we look at the care system in England, that the earlier a child goes into care and the longer they stay, the better their outcomes are. We also know that the cost of failure is enormously high. On average, a local authority spends in excess of £55,000 per year to support a looked-after child; for a child with a significant level of care needs, it is on average over £130,000 per year. When the local authority takes that very difficult decision to go to court to safeguard a child’s interests, it seems absolutely critical that planning and seeking the best available option for that child are an early part of the work that is done.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) described, a kinship care placement can be the very best option for any child, for a whole host of reasons. My ask of the Minister is to look at how local authorities can, in that initial decision-making process, when a child first comes into the care system very early in life, think about how to plan effectively. They need to be able to explore kinship care options alongside other things that may need to be considered as part of safeguarding, so that we can ensure children are placed in a safe and familial environment.

The concept of kinship care seems to have grown very much in the last two decades. That has arisen partly from a recognition that box-ticking does not ensure a quality experience for a child. We have seen Governments of all stripes seeking to improve the quality of children’s experience in care. The key thing that emerges from the feedback of children who have been through that system—as well as from relatives, social workers and professionals—is that always having a stable, enduring and loving relationship is the most important thing if a child is to thrive. We can have foster carers who are incredibly well trained and social workers who are immensely highly qualified, but if each of those is dipping in and out of a child’s life, that simply is not going to bring about the quality of outcome that a loving grandparent, aunt, uncle or other family member could provide.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I want to develop that point slightly. There are long-term, systemic issues that might arise for any new kinship carer, although there may just be a nasty shock. Does my hon. Friend agree that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom)—whom I commend for securing this debate—is right to highlight the role that employers can play, in advance of legislation or local authority care, to support family members coping with that shock event, as well as with some of the long-term structural needs that Members have spoken about?

[David Simmonds]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I was going to develop next. We need to look at the practicalities and logistics of making kinship care a much more effective system and to address some of the challenges described by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne).

The support of employers is clearly vital for family members to be able to take on that caring responsibility. Entitlements that exist in law for adoption and parenting are often very difficult to access for a whole host of reasons, which is something that needs to be explored. We need to consider the issue of finance and what it means to a family taking on a child with potentially very expensive needs that have to be met, when they themselves might not be in a position financially to do that directly. We need to recognise that this process saves the local authority potentially significant costs that would be incurred through a foster or residential placement, which is also an incentive to look at the way we provide support. The manifest benefits of kinship care placements, such as the sense of stability a child experiences being with a family member instead of with strangers at that stage in their life, are critical.

Yesterday, I went to the Hillingdon Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to visit an acquaintance of mine, Dr Jideofor Menakaya, who is a leading national expert on care of neonatal children. It was an opportunity to see how Hillingdon Hospital is working with a local authority, through a family hub model, to develop a package of different kinds of support to address the care needs of children with significant medical challenges. Some children going through the care system have suffered disruption and may have health problems arising from what happened to them before birth. It is striking that when children are in an environment with supportive and loving family members around them, it is much more straightforward to address those medical and health challenges. I know that Members present have often spoken about that, and seeing it in action is fantastic. Recognising how the placement of a child with a kinship carer can make a real difference to addressing significant medical needs right at the start of life is a good example of why this care is so important.

To conclude, it is important to recognise that a degree of moral hazard is perceived in the wider public debate. Having been in local authorities and seen kinship care developing as an option that is often explored, I am certainly aware that people ask why we would pay family members to care for a child who is a member of their own family, especially when, historically, many people would do that voluntarily. We need to recognise that, as a country, we have high expectations of the experience that children will have. In order to make sure that the outcomes we want are achieved, we need to make sure we have system that supports children. Alongside adoption, fostering and special guardianship orders, the kinship care model is an excellent way of managing the risks to a child, ensuring a nurturing environment and doing so in a way that is good value and efficient for taxpayers.

Education (Careers Guidance in Schools) Bill

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Report stage
Friday 14th January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)]

I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) on bringing his Bill to this stage, and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) on his amendments. I have some sympathy with what the latter said about his first amendment. My own daughter is at university at the moment and she has found the mentoring skills offered by industrialists to be extremely helpful. I agree with the spirit of the amendment but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said, the Bill is well established and structured, and is sufficient as it stands.

On the second amendment, I have made recent visits in my constituency to Ysgol y Grango in Rhos and Ysgol Rhiwabon, and I have seen how keen students are there to discuss their future career prospects. The more that we can satisfy that thirst for knowledge, the better, especially by bringing professionals into schools to provide their experience.

I respect very much the spirit of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, but I feel that the Bill is sufficient as currently constituted, as my hon. Friend the Member for Workington said.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I have made newbie mistake No. 1,273 procedurally, so I am happy to accept the Bill as it stands and I look forward to speaking on Third Reading.

[Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)]

I wish to touch briefly on the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope).

I had not intended to speak in today’s debate because I am confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson) will get his Bill through. My main comment is about ensuring that there are no unintended consequences. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is right in seeking, through his amendments, to ensure consistency throughout the piece and the quality of the advice that young people get. I am slightly concerned, though, because we do not want to create arbitrary methods that do not take into account local social and economic needs. As I said on Second Reading in interventions on my hon. Friend the Member for Workington and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), sometimes the careers advice provided does not necessarily fall within a strict framework in respect of the needs of the individual.

The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch are intended to ensure clarity and consistency. He gave the moving example of his daughter and how careers advice can have an impact; it is important to make sure we do not allow ambition to be stifled in any way. It is also important that his amendments do not have any unintended consequences. My hon. Friend’s intention in respect of both amendments is clear, but the issue is what the operational delivery will look like.

I was reassured by the response of my hon. Friend the Member for Workington to the amendments: he explained what his Bill seeks to do and how he has worked to address the concerns expressed. That being said, as the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) said, it would not be a sitting Friday without the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. I very much endorse the intent behind his amendments, but they might be somewhat wanting in respect of delivery, so I am reluctant to support them.

Catch-up Premium

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Tuesday 15th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I have not yet had an opportunity to pay full tribute to the teachers in schools in South Ribble, who did such a stunning job during the pandemic, including inspirational educational leaders such as the guys at the multi-academy Endeavour Learning Trust—my thanks to them.

In her opening remarks, the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) questioned the decisions made about massive sums of money, national changes and big-ticket items. Was the idea that such big decisions would be made quickly, with no evidence on what works? Personally, I support the idea of a longer school day, which I think has huge advantages, but I would not like to see it implemented nationally without evidence of its effectiveness. Without such evidence, Government Members do not support commitments to spending billions.

In her opening remarks, the shadow Minister described wanting to ensure that vast sums of money are spent effectively as misguided dogma. No, not really. She asked to see the working-out. Let me step back a little in history to show what Labour’s version of working-out looks like in the education space. As a snotty young IT coder, I was in the Department for Education and Skills back in the early noughties, working on the independent learning accounts recovery programme. The first programme had been put out to achieve a headline—get Mr Tony Blair’s grid.

What happened? Millions of pounds went out the door in fraud. The National Audit Office report from the time is on the record. I assure Members that having seen the data, my little, snotty IT coders and I reckon that about 10 times that money went out the door. It went out the door because Labour was chasing a headline. It was throwing millions at an idea without having a plan, without having thought it through and without having evaluated it. That is not what we are doing here. We all care about children; it is hugely important. The Opposition are proud of “Education, education, education”, but that should not be at any cost, not at unlimited and uncontrolled cost and not producing ineffective outcomes that have not been evaluated.

There is no knee-jerk headline chasing on these Benches, because what we want is the effective use of Government money, in the best way to target and help children. I see a game-playing motion here today, and I will not support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

I am very grateful to all colleagues who have contributed to today’s debate. Sadly, however, they did not include the Chancellor of the Exchequer or a single Treasury Minister. It is always a pleasure to hear from the schools improvement Minister, but Labour did not call this debate for a repeat of what he said last week. I do not doubt the importance that he attaches to children’s educational recovery, but he and, more importantly, the nation’s children and young people have been let down by a Prime Minister who, despite claiming that children’s education was his priority, has not lifted a finger to help them as they recover from the pandemic, while a parsimonious Treasury and a Chancellor of the Exchequer so economically illiterate that he cannot make the connection between children’s education and our country’s success and prosperity have refused to invest in their future. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) asked where was the Secretary of State for Education, but the question to which we ought to have an answer this afternoon is, “Where is the Chancellor of the Exchequer?”

The contributions made by my Opposition colleagues are a reminder of what the Leader of the Opposition has said—that education is the Labour party’s No. 1 priority. It has never been more important. The disruption of the past year has seen pupils miss half a year of face-to-face schooling; they have had half a year of time away from friends and teachers. That is of concern to every Member in the House. Every Member recognises that if we do not do anything to address the impact, the consequences will be huge for our society and economy, but most of all for our children. That is why Labour proposed a bold, multi-year, £15 billion plan to give children time to socialise, learn and develop, and so that we can invest in the children who need it most and support a world-class teaching profession.

[Katherine Fletcher]

Given that the hon. Lady has a multi-year plan, and that we need to give children more time in school, would she be willing to support an extension to the school day if properly costed and evaluated for effectiveness?

[Kate Green]

I do not think that there is an argument between us about the extended school day. We all agree about extra time; we all agree about the importance of a range of activities to boost social and emotional development, as well as learning. We all understand that those activities could include art, music, sport, homework clubs, reading groups, cooking and coding; some of those things were suggested by the hon. Member for Meon Valley (Mrs Drummond) in last week’s debate. The Chair of the Select Committee on Education said last week that we needed to use the time for a combination of catch-up and extracurricular activities to improve mental health and wellbeing. The problem is that we do not have that plan or those activities from the Government. All that we have, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) pointed out, is, despite all the noise, a promise of a review.

All that the hon. Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) is suggesting is that we review whether an extended school day would be a good idea and how we should deliver it. It is hardly surprising that Sir Kevan Collins himself complained that the Government were acting too slowly. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, pointed out, they were acting so slowly that more than 300,000 children will have left school altogether before they have the chance to benefit from any proposals.

I am appalled by the complacency of the Government’s claims, beginning with those made by the Minister for School Standards, for whom I have the utmost respect. His complacency on the attainment gap was profoundly shocking. There has been no progress on narrowing that gap in the past five years; indeed, as we heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), the pandemic has exacerbated it. There is utter complacency about regional disparities in school attainment, as my hon. Friends the Members for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) and for Easington (Grahame Morris) pointed out. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington also rightly pointed out the loss that schools have suffered as a result of the Government’s pupil premium stealth cut.

On free school meals, for all the boasts of the Conservative party, it was only when Marcus Rashford stepped in—as my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) pointed out—that we saw action from a Government and a party that had previously suggested that supporting families with free school meals during the holidays would simply lead to mums going down the crack den. That was utterly disgraceful. Even now, the Government’s plans will cover only 16 of the 30 weekdays this summer.

We heard from Conservative Members that the Government had supplied digital resources, yet we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that families were having to study on mobile phones, so slow was the roll-out of laptops. As for the claims of a significant increase in school funding, with the £14 billion that we have heard about—following a decade of austerity that means that schools are now 9% worse off in real terms, the abandonment of the Building Schools for the Future programme, and a situation in which schools have been required to meet covid security costs out of teaching budgets, the Conservative party frankly has a nerve to suggest that schools are now doing fine financially. That is certainly not what headteachers are telling us.

The national tutoring programme, another boast from the Conservative party, is reaching fewer than 2% of children. As the Chair of the Education Committee, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), pointed out this afternoon, it misses a substantial proportion of the most disadvantaged children.

In the Government’s plans there is nothing at all for disabled children, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out. There is little—other than something in the teacher development package—for the early years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Alex Sobel) pointed out. My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) and for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Paul Howell) also drew attention to the failure to invest in the school sports premium.

It is therefore hardly surprising that so many of my hon. Friends had to complain this afternoon that what we have seen from the Government, far from being generous funding for schools and for a recovery package, amounts—shockingly—to only 10% of what not only Labour, but the Government’s own education recovery tsar, Sir Kevan Collins, said was needed. My hon. Friends the Members for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins), for Slough (Mr Dhesi), for Feltham and Heston, for Newcastle upon Tyne North, for Coventry North West, for Leeds North West, for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin), for Bermondsey and Old Southwark and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) all pointed out the massive shortfall in what is needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth), perfectly correctly, asked why, if the funding that the Government are bringing forward is sufficient, Sir Kevan Collins felt the need to resign. He, at least, was extremely unhappy.

By contrast, Labour has a plan to invest in children’s recovery and life chances, in their mental health and wellbeing, in their education and in the teaching profession. We have proposed billions of pounds of investment in breakfast clubs and in creating new opportunities and more dedicated time for children to play and learn at the end of the school day.

Children are optimistic and ambitious about their future and excited to be back with their friends and teachers. Their recovery from the pandemic deserves to be supported by the Government. That will be the defining challenge for Ministers, but tragically, from what we have seen so far, they are unwilling and unable to rise to it. After a year of unprecedented disruption, the Government’s response, as Sir Kevan said,

“is too narrow, too small and will be delivered too slowly.”

The Conservative party ought to be ashamed of the paucity of its ambition for our children, but today we are not even asking for a change in its policy or a U-turn on its inadequate plans; we are simply asking for transparency. We are asking the Chancellor, who has not seen fit to attend today’s debate, to come clean with Parliament and the public about why he blocked a plan for significant investment in children’s recovery. That is all that today’s motion does. I commend it to the House.

Education Recovery

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Monday 7th June 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

The hon. Lady sort of points out that we are very grateful for the work that Sir Kevan has done. Some of the key elements have been done working side by side with him—for example, the tutoring and the driving up of teacher quality and standards, which are very much at the heart of this package. As we look to the future and the comprehensive spending review, we are very much looking at how we can drive that third element—the element of time in the school day—and best use it to give children from all backgrounds the best advantage.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

I thank the Secretary of State and his colleagues for the recent £50 million investment in a new high school at Tarleton, which means we can get rid of dangerous and delipidated buildings. But levelling up also means that we must close the attainment gap between rich and affluent pupils and those who come from slightly more disadvantaged backgrounds. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that South Ribble will benefit from this multi-billion-pound investment not only to catch up on the time that we have lost during the pandemic, but to help close that gap?

[Gavin Williamson]

I am sure that all my hon. Friend’s constituents owe her a great debt of thanks for all the campaigning she did to get the refurbishment of and investment in the new school in her constituency. She is absolutely right about the need to close the attainment gap; it is vital. However, achieving that is not about lowering standards in schools, nor saying that children should have a lower-quality academic curriculum or teaching. It is about driving those standards up and ensuring that children—whatever background they come from and whichever school they go to—get the highest quality academic support, tutoring and attainment. Tutoring is such an important part of helping all our constituents.

Lifetime Skills Guarantee and Post-16 Education

Katherine Fletcher Excerpts

Thursday 1st October 2020 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

We always look at every idea, but just because the Labour party has come up with an idea has rarely meant that it is a good one. As for the idea that the hon. Gentleman highlights, we look across the board to try to ensure that we put in place the best possible opportunities for young people. That is what a series of policy announcements that we have made is about doing. It is why we will bring forward a further education White Paper later this year and why we will continue to look at every option to ensure that we deliver the best for every individual in this country.

[Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)]

My dad left school with a whole two O-levels and went to Bolton technical college’s night school to get his engineering qualifications while he was earning. That route to social mobility has been closed down gradually over the past 50 years. Will my right hon. Friend confirm for me and the people of South Ribble that the lifetime skills guarantee opens it back up for people—lads and lasses—to do engineering qualifications?

[Gavin Williamson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is about opening up opportunities and different routes. We have got too stuck in this ethos that going to university is the only real, proper, feasible route for young people. What we are doing as part of this measure is opening up so many more opportunities for so many young people, and we will be absolutely doing what she wants.