Schools: Resources

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd November 2022 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what resources they plan to make available to schools in England to ensure that they can remain operational for five days a week.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, we will always support schools so they can stay open five days a week. Alongside the additional £4 billion that we are investing in schools’ core funding in this financial year, the energy bill relief scheme will protect schools from high energy costs over the winter. There is further support available in cases of serious financial difficulty, and we encourage schools that are struggling to come forward to the department to discuss this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a major failure of government support for children’s learning that some schools are even considering closing for one day a week to save on crippling costs. The Minister mentioned the £4 billion already committed for this year, but that is not enough: a recent survey by the National Association of Head Teachers found that 90% of schools expected to run out of money by the beginning of the next academic year. Will the Minister commit that she and her fellow DfE Ministers will fight their corner with the Treasury to ensure that sufficient funding goes to schools to enable them to at least maintain current levels of provision?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I will respond to the noble Lord in two ways. He is well aware that as a nation we face incredibly difficult decisions over our public expenditure and the fiscal challenges we face, but as a department we are always on the side of children and teachers. We do everything, and use evidence in every way we can, to make our case.

Times Education Commission Report

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 13th October 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, for facilitating this debate and to the Times for establishing the commission, which has produced such an impressive report. It is fair to say that the report has been widely welcomed, first as a means of shining a light on the problems currently facing the education system, which the commission damningly found to be “failing on every measure”.

Secondly, the report offers a raft of proposals that would help reshape education in this country and guide it to a place where it can not just adapt to the needs of the 21st century but thrive on the challenges that the rapidly changing demands of the economy require.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, has just said that he felt chapters 3 and 4 of the report were the most important. They certainly contain important recommendations. But, to be frank, almost everything necessary to lay the foundations for the future of education, the future of the economy and, by extension, the future of the country is contained in chapter 2 of the commission’s report, entitled “Social mobility and levelling up”.

I have said to noble Lords before that I dislike the term “social mobility”. It is restrictive because it seems to imply that if just a few people improve their learning and subsequent status, that is progress. To a certain extent, that may well be true, but I prefer the term “social justice”, which casts the net much wider and seeks to make improvements based on raising the standard of living, including education, for everyone in disadvantaged categories.

Chapter 2 concerns early years, with a number of very necessary proposals, not least in the short term bringing the early years pupil premium—currently £302—into line with the primary school rate of £1,345. As with most of the commission’s proposals, this is costed: at £130 million a year it would represent a tiny fraction of the overall DfE budget of around £45 billion.

It is critical that we invest in the early years to avoid costs later in a child’s life. This would have a major impact on children with special educational needs and disabilities. Some young children undoubtedly need more support than others, but to reach them we need high-quality services for all.

The commission’s call for the eight programmes that support childcare being managed by the DfE is certainly laudable, but I believe it is undeliverable. The silo mentality that operates within government departments would never allow that to happen. Too often, the cross-cutting approach on delivery that is essential is lacking, leading to many of the most vulnerable children falling into the gaps between public service provision and in many cases becoming invisible. The complex and disjointed system of services—national and local—often overwhelms the most disadvantaged families, particularly if they have complex needs or a disabled child.

This stems, in part, from significant underfunding, but also results from the failure to use existing resources as effectively as possible. Children and families need services that offer coherent, relevant and familiar support based on local strengths and relationships. There is limited and inconsistent communication and collaboration between different agencies, which means that families often waste time providing them all with the same information. That point was made forcibly by the Public Services Committee of your Lordships’ House in its report of November 2020.

Total public spending on early education is around £5.5 billion, yet costs for families are among the highest in the OECD, according to the Education Policy Institute’s 2020 annual report. Serious concerns have also been raised by the Institute for Fiscal Studies about how we prioritise that spending. It demonstrated that support for low-income workers fell from 45% of total childcare spending in 2007 to just 17% 10 years later.

The Government should fundamentally overhaul the early years funding model and replace it with a new formula that focuses more effectively on the child. That revised funding settlement should prioritise quality of care and access for the most disadvantaged children, and should aim to tackle educational inequalities, to ensure that children are school-ready.

The pandemic has highlighted many of the failings in the education system but, of course, it did not create them. Disadvantaged pupils are now more than 18 months behind their better-off peers at 16 and 40% of that gap is evident when they first arrive at school.

Rethinking our approach to early years education is therefore vital and urgent. I agree with my noble friend Lord Knight that there is much to commend a British baccalaureate, as proposed by the commission in chapter 4—one that mixes academic and vocational qualifications. The UK is an outlier in requiring students to specialise so much at 16. As the report states pungently:

“No other developed country’s teenagers sit as many high-stakes tests as ours do and the focus on academic attainment has unbalanced the system”.


The commission’s report identifies the problems with the current system and notes the concerns about change. Students currently study a narrower range of subjects at A-level than in 2010, which reduces their resilience to fluctuations in future employment needs.

This is a direct consequence of the Government’s obsession with the English baccalaureate, which narrows students’ choices. The Royal Society supports the proposal to broaden education up to the age of 18 and advocates a wider range of study options that would mean more young people could try more subjects for longer, helping them to develop a broader range of skills. The British baccalaureate would be a customised version of the international baccalaureate, which has almost 2 million students around the world—including around 4,500 in this country already. It would cost around £1 billion a year, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but would also remove what it says is an historic anomaly in the funding mechanism that dates to the time when the school-leaving age was 16.

The commission identifies low morale in the teaching profession. After 12 years of Conservative Governments, I am sorry to say that we have a demoralised and underpaid workforce, often overpoliced by Ofsted. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred to Disraeli. Without going quite as far back as that in the mists of time, I am reminded of a quote from a Cabinet Minister more than 100 years ago—not a Labour one, as we were still six years away from that, but a name that may be familiar to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrats Benches: HAL Fisher, then a Liberal MP and president of the Board of Education. He is perhaps best known for formulating the Education Act 1918, which made school attendance compulsory up to the age of 14. He was also responsible for another Act in the same year that introduced pension provision for all teachers. He stated:

“Elementary teachers are miserably paid, and a discontented teaching class is a social danger.”


Today we have discontented teachers. Unlike in 1918, the Government prefer Ofsted accountability to winning the hearts and minds of teachers to help in developing the school system.

To return to the curriculum, in Committee stage on the Schools Bill—whatever became of that, I wonder?—an issue on which I spoke was oracy, which facilitates the development of numeracy and literacy skills. More than 60% of primary school teachers say that they lack confidence in their ability to develop the speech and language skills of their pupils. A new hub system, similar to those in existence for maths and English, would build that confidence and, ultimately, standards of speech and language skills development on a national scale. I hope I might make some progress with the Minister on this, even if it does not find favour with her when the Bill returns to your Lordships’ House.

The final chapter of the Times Education Commission’s report speaks highly of the lifelong loan entitlement, introduced in the Skills and Post-16 Education Act, but key questions remain on the future of the LLE. Can the Minister provide more detail on how it will support adult learners in particular to follow more flexible ways to upskill and reskill? Will it, as suggested in the report and advocated by the Labour Party, include maintenance provision? Will that be available to all learners, regardless of study mode? I raise that point as those studying through part-time distance learning are currently not able to access maintenance support in England.

Another issue on which the Minister might be able to update noble Lords is the minimum eligibility requirements for access to university. That was a policy position advocated two or three Secretaries of State back—although that time covers a mere four months, I think. Can she say whether it will be taken forward by the current Secretary of State? Nothing has been heard since the DfE consultation on higher education reform, which closed in May, and an update is certainly overdue. Can the Minister confirm that the exemption for part-time provision, as proposed in the consultation, will remain if the policy is enacted?

The Open University was founded on the principle of full inclusion and open entry and has been supported by every UK Government since. However, in general these are problematic times for higher education. The Government—at least, the previous one, as we have yet to hear where the latest version stands on these issues—seemed to think that too many young people go on to higher education, and they too often sought confrontation with universities on issues such as the value, in the narrowest sense, of certain types of degrees to society.

We await the Government’s response to the consultation on the reintroduction of student number caps and minimum eligibility requirements, both of which, if introduced, would disproportionately affect those from disadvantaged backgrounds. From the policymaker perspective, widening access and driving forward social justice must be at the heart of what we try to achieve with education reform.

At one point, the Times Education Commission report states that the focus of higher education policy in Britain

“can be more about who is excluded than who is included.”

No Government should allow such an approach, and I pay tribute to the work of the National Education Opportunities Network, which is celebrating its 10th anniversary. It co-ordinates the widening of access to higher education and its success can be measured by the fact that, in 2021-22, almost 80% of entrants to higher education from low-participation neighbourhoods went to NEON-member higher education providers. More encouragement is needed from other providers to encourage young people to be ambitious and not conclude that certain types of study, or certain institutions, are “not for me”.

I do not agree with all the recommendations in the commission’s report—for instance, on the creation of “career academies” and the establishment of satellite university campuses in cold-spot communities. The aims of both are already delivered by further education colleges, which already have an established reach into their communities to promote lifelong learning. Developments along that route would be more profitable and avoid reinventing the wheel. However, the commission deserves much credit for its work, and I hope that the Government will do more than “take note” of the recommendations, which very largely map out a positive route to funding education at all levels to prepare the skills needed for the workforce of the future, while delivering greater social justice.

Schools: Financial Education

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 12th July 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My noble friend is right in that we can do more to embed financial education in the curriculum. The webinars that I referred to will build on the financial education guidance for schools published by the Money and Pensions Service last year. It highlights the links between financial education and the curriculum, and how primary and secondary schools can improve the financial education that they deliver.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

The Money and Pensions Service, to which the Minister just referred, states that money habits are formed from the age of seven, well before young people arrive at secondary school, yet only about 25% of primary schoolchildren in England receive any form of financial education. Last year, a report from the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Financial Education for Young People called on the Department for Education to introduce financial education to the national curriculum in primary schools, and to set a target of ensuring that every primary school pupil has access to it by 2030. What progress has the Minister’s department made towards that target?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

The noble Lord will be aware that the Government made a commitment to make no changes to the national curriculum during the life of this Parliament, and that remains the case. Although citizenship is not compulsory in primary schools, as we know, many schools choose to teach it as part of their commitment to delivering a broad and balanced curriculum. The Money and Pensions Service has clear goals to ensure that 2 million more children and young people get meaningful financial education by 2030 and we are very supportive of its work in that.

Schools Bill [HL]

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee stage
Monday 27th June 2022 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

171J: After Clause 65, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to report on spoken language and communicationThe Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament each year during the period of five years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, setting out—(a) the overall level of school pupils’ spoken language and communication ability in academies, independent educational institutions and maintained schools;(b) the provision available to develop pupils’ spoken language and communication skills in academies, independent educational institutions and maintained schools;(c) the provision available to support pupils with speech, language and communication needs in academies, independent educational institutions and maintained schools.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 171J and 171 K in my name, and I should declare an interest as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Oracy. I want to acknowledge the support I have received from I CAN, the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and Voice 21, just three of the 39 organisations which have circulated a comprehensive briefing on these amendments to noble Lords.

These are probing amendments to clarify how the Government intend to ensure that children are adequately supported in schools to develop proficiency in spoken language, or “oracy”. In framing these amendments, the aim was to ask questions of the Minister, specifically on how the Government will raise the status of spoken language in the education system to reflect its importance to children and young people’s outcomes in education, as per evidence from the Education Endowment Foundation, how they will support schools to address the ongoing impact of school closures on children’s spoken language across all ages, and how they will ensure that every teacher is equipped to understand how to develop children’s spoken language skills and ability and are trained to identify those who struggle with their speech, language and communication and are thus in need of further support.

--- Later in debate ---

With that, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will withdraw his amendment and that other noble Lords will not move theirs.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this group. Before I come specifically to the two amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Blower I would just like to say, on the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lady Whitaker and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that bullying is one of those issues that if you do not measure it, you cannot improve it. The Minister has just said that Ofsted has issued guidance on schools recording bullying. That is all right for those schools which are doing that, but the point is that it is guidance. What about those instances where it is not recorded, for whatever reason—the school may wish to protect its reputation or whatever?

The noble Baroness talked about local authorities having a register. I think it is important to go beyond the individual school. We are moving away from a situation in this Bill where we thought academies were a law unto themselves; we are now finding that perhaps that is not the case after all. I think it is important to broaden that.

I will give some examples of bullying. Noble Lords have highlighted issues, and I would like to mention some more. One is that it is not just those you might think are obvious targets for bullying. Children who are adopted often suffer very badly from being bullied, if the fact that they are adopted becomes known. Noble Lords may remember that, following the MacAlister report on the children’s social care review, a day of action was organised here on Wednesday last week by a number of children’s charities. They brought along a lot of children in care and, in speaking to them, I was very disappointed to hear some of them say that they are stigmatised in school because they are in care. They said that some teachers will ask, “What do your mum and dad think of this?” Of course, a child in care can find that most distressing. That is not bullying—I am not suggesting that teachers bully—but it allows it to emerge, and children can then be subject to bullying by their peers. It takes so many forms and it has to be more carefully recorded, and schools held to account if they are not acting appropriately.

On Amendments 171J and 171K, I acknowledge the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about young people with dyslexia and dyspraxia. I should at least have referred to the fact that the amendment was as broad as possible and covered all children who, for whatever reason, need assistance with developing their speech and communication skills.

I hear what the Minister said about the guidance that is available. Again, the point is the same as with bullying: it is guidance. For those schools that abide by it, fine; but those that do not are the problem, and these are the areas where it has to be strengthened. That is why I think that a statutory position is necessary.

The Minister contradicted herself, because she said at one point, “We cannot really have statutory assessment at this stage”, in relation to the need to check on spoken and communication skills because, post-pandemic, that would put undue stress on teachers and school staff. That is basically saying, “It is a good idea, but this is not the time to do it”. If we say that, that means that the older children—the ones who will have moved on in three or four years, or however long it takes for us to be in a proper post-pandemic situation—have not benefited. Then the Minister said, in relation to my noble friend Lady Chapman’s amendment, that we need to concentrate funding now because the older pupils will have moved on by the time the funding reaches them. I understand her point about needing to make sure that older pupils get that consideration, but you cannot on the one hand say, “We cannot do it now” for one reason, but then say that older pupils have to get that consideration now in terms of the funding. I do not think it is an either/or situation.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I apologise if I was not clear. What I was saying was that to introduce an additional assessment early on would put greater resource strain on the system. What I was saying in relation to investment in older children was not about assessment; it was just making sure that we prioritise them for greater funding because they have less time left in school, so we want to give them as much support as possible.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for that clarification. I accept what she says about the differences as well, but I was drawing attention to the fact that older children, by definition, do not have much longer in school, so we need to ensure that they get every support that we can give them, either financial or through encouragement to improve their speaking skills. I also note what the Minister says about the current situation, so I invite her to bring forward an amendment on Report which might have a time-limited introduction of the sort of resources necessary for the suggestion I made in Amendment 171J.

I hope I have covered the points. I am not suggesting that the Minister is not taking these issues seriously—I know her well enough to know that she is and does—but there has to be some kind of step change, because the views and surveys I referred to earlier have pointed out that, however well meant things are, there are too many children who are not getting the assistance they need to make sure they have the skills that we discussed for many hours on the skills Bill not so long ago. To bring young people on to the jobs market, they need these skills—that is the key. There is no point in having a bit of paper that says “So-and-so has passed this qualification” if he or she is not really able to make the most of it by articulating in a way that helps them to do that job effectively. With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 171J withdrawn.

Disabled Children: Support Services

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

As my noble friend knows, my right honourable friend is a great fan of data and transparency. We have commissioned an independent process and an early outcome evaluation of the first year of delivery to assess the impact of the scheme. It will obviously seek the views of parents and children who are in receipt of the support, as well as those of local authorities and other delivery partners. The evaluation will assess the feasibility of conducting a robust impact assessment of the type my noble friend outlined, for years two and three of delivery.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I must press the Minister in respect of the answer she gave to my noble friend Lady Uddin a few moments ago. Surveys by the Disabled Children’s Partnership found that three-quarters of parent carers had suffered a deterioration in mental health due to the fight they were required to undertake to get the right services for their children. In the light of that, can the Minister say how the Government intend to use the SEND Green Paper to reduce the burden of admin and advocacy that currently rests on the shoulders of parents with disabled children?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I think I mentioned our starting point in response to the original Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, which is that part of our challenge is building up trust with parents who have children with a disability. We believe that by having much clearer bandings around provision, so that we reduce some of the regional inconsistencies in the system, and by requiring mediation as part of this, we will reduce confrontation. That is absolutely our intention, but we do not have a closed mind on this. We have held more than 153 consultation events and they are growing all the time. We are very keen to hear from parents on what they think will work.

Schools Bill [HL]

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

2nd reading & Lords Hansard - Part two
Monday 23rd May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the graveyard slot on the Back Benches inevitably leaves next to nothing new to say, and I do not think I am going to break that mould this evening. As almost every noble Lord has said, the overriding theme of the Bill is to further centralise control over the school system and give the DfE greater powers in relation to academies, school funding allocations, home education and attendance and illegal schools. I have few concerns about the latter two subjects, but on the first two I have many.

Part 1 of the Bill highlights the Government’s enduring obsession with academies and the aim of making all schools academies by 2030, despite the absence of independent evidence to support such an aim. There are many good academy schools and I am not anti-academy, although I do not believe they should have the right to set their own curriculum; I have always believed that a national curriculum should be just that. However, Ofsted ratings of local authority maintained schools and those in MATs show that schools that join MATs are less likely to improve their next Ofsted rating, and in fact are more likely to see a regression in that rating.

That is supported by research published by the Local Government Association as recently as this month, which showed that as of January 92% of maintained schools were regarded as outstanding by Ofsted, compared to 85% of academies graded since they converted. That research, which looked at school ratings between 2018 and this year, found that only 45% of academies were able to improve from inadequate or “requires improvement” to good or outstanding during that period, compared to 56% of maintained schools. What does that prove? You may say that statistics can prove anything, but it shows that there is no reason to think that whatever the problem is, academies are the answer; they simply are not. If the Minister has not already done so, she would do well to study that Local Government Association report closely because it will challenge the department’s mistaken view that one size fits all. Evidence rather than ideology should surely underpin legislation.

As my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lady Morris said, the Bill’s proposals on academies represent a dramatic shift from the current arrangements and are a far cry from the days when academies were introduced with the promise of less regulation and more freedom to innovate. I listened closely, as I always do, to the noble Lord, Lord Nash, and although he was a bit more sanguine than I had expected regarding the proposals in Part 1, we could tell that he is certainly not happy with them.

On that point, my noble friend Lady Chapman mentioned that the Bill gives local authorities the power to request an academy order for any or all of their maintained schools. Although it is not entirely clear, it seems that they can do so even if a school objects. Can the Minister provide clarity on this important matter? The Bill also gives regional schools commissioners the task of allocating to MATs schools converted in this way via local authorities, and it appears that this could lead to schools being allocated to a MAT outwith their local authority. I hope the Minister will confirm that this will not be allowed to happen.

Part 2, on national funding allocations, represents another power grab by the Secretary of State. The national funding formula, which I believe was introduced in 2018, sees local authorities receive a total entitlement for their schools but they can allocate money in line with the local formula, with strict limits and the agreement of the local schools forum. According to the Bill, the local authority stage is to be scrapped and the DfE will determine the funding allocation for every one of the—according to the DfE website—24,413 state schools in England. What could possibly go wrong?

In her opening remarks, the Minister stated that these changes are being proposed specifically because local authorities were deciding on their own funding priorities. Well, quite. That is quite appropriate because allocating funding requires sensitivity to the circumstances of individual schools. Local factors matter. When problems arise, as they surely will, schools will not have local officers to help to resolve them and every appeal will have to go to the DfE, which will be judge and jury. That is a seriously retrograde proposal and, I hope, one that will not survive the consultation that we have been told will take place, as I have read, before summer 2022—which according to my calendar leaves about eight days.

Part 3, on school attendance, is overdue and to be welcomed. I join many noble Lords in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Soley and the noble Lord, Lord Storey. My noble friend’s 2017 Private Member’s Bill called for the establishment of a register of children not in school, and I am pleased to say his tireless efforts now have their reward in Clause 48 of the Bill.

As the noble Lord, Lord Nash, said, elective home education is a right established by the Education Act 1996. For two years, he and I faced each other at the Dispatch Box on education matters and rarely agreed—I hope we disagreed in relatively good terms—but I absolutely agreed with what he said on this important matter. When supported by parents who have an understanding of the educational needs of their children and the ability to ensure that these needs are met, home schooling is appropriate and usually beneficial. Such out-of-school settings do not present a problem, as he said; it is the others which are a problem. The problem which has to be addressed is that children either never presented to school or subsequently withdrawn do not enjoy such a benign experience.

Some parents are ideologically opposed to formal education and to providing the authorities information about their children—some of them were in the Public Gallery today. I acknowledge their right to hold those views, but it is not realistic to expect that the wishes of a minority of parents should be permitted to override issues of child safety and protection. The issue of most concern is that nobody—certainly not the DfE—knows how many children in England are being home educated, because no records are kept. Thus, children not in school can be entirely invisible to the authorities. That must end; the rights of the child are more important than the rights of the parent.

In conclusion, I shall say something on the gaps in the Bill, some of which my noble friend Lord Triesman has just forcefully outlined; I am thoroughly in agreement with him. There is nothing on careers or skills. How will the Bill link with the Skills and Post-16 Education Act? There is nothing on a number of issues included in the White Paper, such as organising and closing schools, schools changing MATs, admissions, exclusions, and responses to well-being and mental health issues regarding pupils. How will the Bill link with what emerges from the SEND Green Paper or the proposals set out today in the independent review of children’s social care? As with most legislation drafted by this Government, the Bill contains many more questions than answers. Noble Lords made significant improvements to the then skills Bill; it will be necessary to repeat that with the Schools Bill.

Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2022

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Storey (LD)]

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jones, for that tour de force, and, having spent the week in Anglesey, we have a Welsh connection.

As the Minister rightly said, the construction industry is hugely important to the economy of the UK. She also referenced the need for a pipeline of skilled workers. What she did not talk about was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jones, that there is a national crisis in the shortage of construction workers, which could hamper the many infrastructure schemes that we have—not just big infrastructure schemes, but local and small ones. If my noble friend Lord Stunell was here, he would tell the Minister in no uncertain terms, which I think he has already done, about the dire consequences of not ensuring that those brickies and pointers, as the noble Lord, Lord Jones, said, are recruited as quickly they should be. I have also wondered why more women are not involved in the construction industry.

The Construction Industry Training Board undertakes a large number of activities, and the Minister spelled them out in some detail, but this is perhaps a time to question what has been going on. I wonder whether the CITB would be considered by Jacob Rees-Mogg as part of his bonfire of the quangos. I hope not, but I hope that it will be reformed and refocused, because there are real concerns. You have only to listen to the National Federation of Builders, which is calling for a fundamental restructuring of the CITB, including an end to its levy-raising powers. It states that the majority of construction employers asked do not see the CITB as adding value to the industry and do not believe that it meets the labour market or industry needs, and that they cannot access the training they need when they need it. That is quite a concern.

Employers in the construction industry are facing many issues, post Covid. Is it fair that the academic institutions receive so much more; should not the levy go directly to levy-paying employers? The levy returns can sometimes be challenging and time-consuming for employers, generating additional administrative costs. Importantly, there needs to be an easier and quicker way to complete the required documentation without further record-keeping. As I have said before, a business must focus on the job of the business, making a profit and securing jobs. When the bureaucracy gets in the way, that often causes real problems for the business.

I hope that the Minister will listen to the comments made and answer them. I too had scribbled down that it would be useful to know, on a regular basis, the names of the small group who advised: let us name them and see who they represent. I had also scribbled a note asking whether the TUC was involved.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction to the order, which it is fair to say is not controversial. It states that

“the Secretary of State is satisfied that the industrial training levy proposals are necessary to encourage adequate training in the industry”,


and we concur. For that reason, I do not propose to say much at all about the levy itself, which will continue much as before. Rather, I shall focus on the CITB and its role in assisting the construction industry to address some of the issues of recruitment and training it currently faces.

In a previous life, further back than I care to remember, I was a full-time official with a trade union in the engineering sector, and I recall dealing with several industry training boards on a number of different issues. Indeed, from memory, there were more than 20 in the 1980s, until the number was significantly reduced by the Industrial Training Act 1982. It is to be regretted that, apart from those in the film sector, only the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board are still in place today. The last two are non-departmental public bodies, and thus accountable to Parliament and, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, possibly within the sights of the Minister for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency—a quaint name, without a department behind it.

The order we are considering today runs to six pages, but its impact assessment is five times that length. That is to be welcomed, because it contains much interesting—in some cases, fascinating—information and statistics about the levy, the board and the construction industry itself. From it, we learn that the industry has had a levy and grant arrangement for 58 years. The impact assessment says that it currently employs more than 2.5 million people—the Minister said 3.1 million, so I am glad to hear it is growing—contributes 8.6% to GDP, and, if I caught it correctly, 9% of gross value added, which, as an economist, I think is a productivity metric. Both demonstrate the importance of the industry.

The CITB exists to ensure that the construction workforce has the right skills for now and the future, based on three strategic priorities: careers, standards and qualifications, and training and development. As is made plain in the impact assessment:

“There remains a serious and distinct market failure in the development … of skills in the construction industry”.


It is stated that this is because

“the trading conditions, incentives and culture do not lead to a sufficient level of investment in skills by employers.”

Unfortunately, this malaise is not restricted to the construction sector. UK employers in many sectors have long been unwilling to recognise the need for upskilling and to pay for it, and that is a major factor in the low productivity levels from which our economy suffers. The introduction of the apprenticeship levy five years ago was a clear sign of the Government’s acceptance that employers will not in sufficient numbers invest of their own volition in skills development, and thus require a firm hand on their collective shoulder to encourage them to do so.

The training levy plays a key role in equipping the construction industry with the skilled and flexible workforce it needs. In the post-EU world in which we find ourselves, and given the large number of EU nationals who have traditionally worked in the construction industry in this country, it is not just important but absolutely vital that the industry is in a position to train, and continually retrain, its workforce for the challenges facing the economy.

Indeed, to quote the Explanatory Memorandum:

“It is essential, now more than ever, that employers have access to the support needed to upskill existing workers and adequately attract and train new talent, as industry seeks to fully recover from the impacts of the pandemic.”


Absolutely. This order will raise more than £0.5 billion between now and 2024 to invest in training skills, which is why employers have always strongly supported the levy and value the payback they get from their contributions.

However, as the Minister will have noted from the impact assessment, the consultation among employers on the CITB’s proposals for this levy produced a figure of 66.5% in support. That should cause some concern, because not only does it mean that a third of employers were not in favour of the levy—for reasons unknown, or at least not listed in the impact assessment—but the 66.5% figure was down from 76.9% when the vote was last held, in 2017. Perhaps the Minister can say whether DfE officials and/or Ministers have asked the CITB for its explanation of that reduction and what action, if any, the board will be asked to undertake to ensure it does not fall further in three years. More positive is the survey on the final page of the impact assessment, which shows that, when asked whether the statutory levy, grant and funding system should continue, 75% of employers said that it should.

The CITB has had an awkward few years recently, with more than its fair share of criticism from within the sector. The board was forcefully led by Sarah Beale from 2017 until her departure last year, and now has Tim Balcon as its CEO. Ms Beale oversaw a restructuring that saw its workforce cut by two-thirds as it returned to its core business, but that has not assuaged all in the sector. One of its largest participants, Build UK, recently called for fundamental changes, stating that there remains

“widespread frustration with the performance of CITB”.

Mr Balcon deserves the chance to make his influence felt, but are the Minister and her officials aware of the discontent with the board felt by some of the employers it exists to assist? If so, can she share any information as to what support—I am not talking about financial terms—might be offered to the board?

One of those areas should be the need for much greater diversity within the construction industry. The CITB itself deserves credit for becoming, under Sarah Beale, a female-led organisation in a male-dominated industry. One of the potential benefits of that was that it allowed the CITB to push boundaries and promote change, but much more remains to be done. ONS data shows that the construction industry’s 16% female workforce—a point referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Storey—compares with 23% in transportation and 25% in water supply and manufacturing, the other worst sectors.

The 2011 census showed that 13% of the UK population identified as black, Asian or minority ethnic, yet ONS data found that the percentage employed at that time in UK construction was just 7.5%. More worryingly, in a 2015 survey of its own, the CITB found that the actual figure could have been closer to 5%. We should be told what the current figures are, so that the board can begin to plot a course towards increasing the number substantially. As Kay Jarvis of the global infrastructure company blu-3 reported in 2020:

“The 2018 OutNext/PwC Out to Succeed survey also found construction had the third-worst image of all industries as an LGBT+ employer.”


A recent study by recruitment analytics specialist Hays discovered that, of those black people

“who managed to break into the construction sector”—

that term is perhaps of some importance—no less than

“78% claimed they had experienced career restrictions due to their race or other demographic factors such as sexuality and age.”

Whether this is down to structural prejudice or unconscious bias, it highlights the significant and clear challenge of discrimination in the hiring and promotion process, which surely must be addressed. The CITB is well positioned to do so; I hope that the Government will offer it every encouragement, perhaps by setting a baseline and then measuring year-on-year progress against it in respect of equality and diversity in various forms in construction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I will attempt to cover the questions asked but I will of course write on any that I cannot answer at the Dispatch Box.

Before I go any further, the noble Lord, Lord Watson, highlighted the difference between the 2.5 million employees cited in the Explanatory Memorandum and the 3.1 million that I referred to in my opening remarks. The figure of 3.1 million comes from the Office for National Statistics and represents a wider definition of construction that includes the built environment and manufacturing. The figure in the Explanatory Memorandum is an estimate of the CITB-relevant part of the total. I hope that clarifies it for the noble Lord.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, shared his deep expertise in the sector and asked a number of questions in relation to Wales. In line with the requirements of Section 88 of the Scotland Act 1988, we consulted Scottish Ministers—the noble Lord pointed this out—who confirmed that they are content with the levy order. The Welsh Assembly has also confirmed its support for the order.

The noble Lord asked why the contribution for Wales appears to be so small. The levy is charged to in-scope employers based on their wage bill, so it is possible that there are fewer or smaller such employers in Wales and this is reflected in those figures. The noble Lord also asked how much of the levy will be distributed in Scotland and Wales. The split in income and expenditure between England, Scotland and Wales is not something that the CITB generally measures or reports on.

The noble Lord asked about engagement with the unions. Obviously, it is up to the CITB as to who it engages with. It is the legislation that controls who can actually vote on the levy proposals.

The noble Lords, Lord Jones and Lord Storey, challenged whether the Government are doing enough with our investment in training, qualifications and skills in this area. We have already put in place a wide range of opportunities for adults to gain the skills that they need for employment and are ensuring that people have opportunities to study by delivering on the Prime Minister’s lifetime skills guarantee. The provision of skills, in construction in particular, is supported through a number of routes, including courses available through further education colleges and independent learning providers, with funding of more than £1.3 billion from the adult education budget. Noble Lords will be aware that we introduced construction T-levels in 2020, as an alternative vocational route into the sector, and are continuing to develop skills boot camps, which offer free and flexible courses of up to 16 weeks, funded through the national skills fund.

As noble Lords observed, apprenticeships remain a key route into this industry. There are currently over 640 high-quality, industry-designed standards available, and we aim to continue to improve and grow apprenticeships, so that more employers and individuals can benefit from them.

The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, rightly focused on the lack of diversity in the construction workforce. Obviously the CITB is not responsible for the construction workforce, but it has an important role in facilitating skills opportunities to help the industry strive towards a workforce that reflects today’s society. It undertakes a wide range of initiatives and activities; it works with industry and other partners to try to attract a diverse pool of new entrants into the industry and to promote construction careers. I share the hope of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, that in three years, when we debate this instrument again, the make-up of the sector will look very different from where it is today.

The CITB is funding the training of industry construction ambassadors on fairness, inclusion and respect, who contribute to a dedicated industry project which creates resources for employers to promote and celebrate best practice across the sector. It is also funding a digital resilience hub, which is a free and accessible tool that brings together mental health resources for those working in the construction industry. Finally, it is funding the on-site hubs that support individuals to become employment-ready and site-ready to take up opportunities in construction. Their target is to support underrepresented groups, including women and those from black, Asian and other minority-ethnic backgrounds, to secure sustainable job outcomes. It is fair to say that representation from those groups remains disproportionately low. The CITB continues to work with partners to try to address that.

The noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, questioned the value of the CITB and raised some of the criticisms that have been lodged against it, and asked whether there would be an alternative model for funding skills development in the construction industry. The Government seek to evaluate the rationale for and effectiveness of its arm’s-length bodies through a programme of regular reviews, and that includes the ITBs. In 2017, the review of ITBs confirmed that there remains an ongoing need for a central skills body and recommended that the CITB should make stronger efforts to address the skills gap and market failure within the industry. That included the requirement for the CITB to lead on emerging needs, such as supporting the Government’s ambitions for housing.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I mentioned earlier that the impact assessment shows that 75% of employers, when asked, said that they wanted the current scheme to continue. Is it not unthinkable that, with that kind of backing, the Government might move away from the current model?

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

Obviously I cannot predict the future. I can only repeat what the review of 2017 said, on which basis the Government are moving forward. The review showed that there is an ongoing need for a central skills body and, as the noble Lord says, employers support it.

Following that review, the CITB’s implementation of its three-year transformation process, Vision 2020, has helped to make it a more focused and more agile partner to industry, and, as a result of the initiative, the CITB has implemented new governance structures so that industry voices are at the heart of decision-making, has launched new funding systems to allow employers to have easier access to support—the noble Lord, Lord Storey, referred to bureaucracy being a barrier to accessing support—and has moved to an investment model based on strategic commissioning. As I noted, the industry has expressed concerns about the performance of the CITB, but we are confident that it has worked hard to increase industry involvement in its strategic planning to address those concerns.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about the funding model and exactly what it pays for. The levy provides an investment in skills through a redistributive and collective fund, and it provides value through strategic initiatives that benefit the whole industry—I have referred to some of them already—such as attracting new entrants, identifying common standards and common training solutions, encouraging the transferability of skills, quality control of training provision, leadership and project management development, and collaborative behavioural training programmes.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about the relationship between the amount of levy that is paid and the grants that an employer might receive. We believe that employers receive value for money, but they do not expect to receive a direct financial return via the training grants that is equal to the levy that is paid. As I mentioned, the levy is an investment in skills through a redistributive and collective fund that benefits all employers.

The noble Lord, Lord Jones, asked about our housebuilding targets. One of the priorities from the DfE to the CITB for 2022-23 is providing support to the industry to meet our ambition to build 300,000 homes each year.

There continues to be the collective view across the sector that training should be funded through a statutory levy system and that that system should be used to contribute to a pool of skilled labour, now and in the future, for this critical sector. There is a firm belief that without the levy there would be a serious deterioration in the quality and quantity of training in the construction industry, leading to a deficiency in skills levels and in capacity. That would create particular challenges in the current economic environment, when skilled workers are needed to deliver the infrastructure projects required to meet the environmental challenge of reducing the UK’s carbon emissions to zero by 2050, as well as all the other ambitions that we have referred to in relation to other infrastructure and housebuilding projects.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [HL]

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Thursday 7th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, as at previous stages, I draw attention to my interests in the register.

I echo the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and others in welcoming that we are no longer planning to move straight to a binary world of A-levels and T-levels. I was glad to see that the Secretary of State, in his letter to Peers today, said that BTECs and similar qualifications will have a continuing and important role alongside T-levels and A-levels.

Can the Minister please reassure us on two further points? First, will the Government seek parity of esteem for all quality technical and academic options, so that there is no hierarchy between A-levels, T-levels, BTECs and similarly applied general qualifications? This would mean that the Government would cease to refer to T-levels as the best option and the best technical route. Secondly, can she address the continuing issue of the blight that hangs over the provision of BTECs and other applied general qualifications during this extended reform process, so that it does not deter providers from offering these important and valued technical options and discourage students from embarking on them out of concern that these qualifications will be disparaged by the Government in the process of the reforms and lose their value over time?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been a long and winding road with this Bill, stretching back over 10 months from the position that we find ourselves in today. There is very little to add to what noble Lords have said in the last 20 minutes or so, but of course that does not mean that I will not make an attempt at it.

It is very pleasing that we have reached this position because, when the Bill arrived here, it was skeletal in form and many noble Lords made the point that it would be fleshed out only through secondary legislation. I do not think that many find that an acceptable means of legislating, given the restrictions on scrutiny that it entails. But we have had some fleshing out. We have the lifetime skills guarantee—albeit from only level 3 upwards—which will be introduced in 2024. We have the lifelong loan entitlement, which we know a bit more about and which is out for consultation at the moment; it will not come into play until 2025. There are also other consultations ongoing on level 2 and level 3 qualifications, so there is still quite a lot out in the ether and what will finally emerge is for the future.

I echo the points of noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Blunkett, about the discussions into which the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and officials entered with us in the last few days. They have been productive.

I was slightly disappointed to get a message this morning from someone in the higher education sector who said that they were disappointed that the fight against BTECs being defunded, had fizzled out. Being a fairly forthright Scot, I replied that this was, shall we say, not quite the case. I have also had messages about the extension to 2024 and the clarity that will be provided in the documents that the Minister referred to—the Secretary of State’s letter and the table. I am not sure whether the table has yet been distributed to noble Lords, but it will be. It sets out the defunding process. The main point, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, mentioned, is that when this started, it was said that only a small range of BTECs would survive. We have now come not quite full circle but some considerable distance, with only a small range of BTECs facing defunding and in certain circumstances, as the Minister outlined. That is very much progress, and we welcome it.

To echo the noble Lord, Lord Baker, T-levels will ultimately be a success—we want them to be and they will be; it is a question of time. In our discussions earlier in the week, the Government’s target was 100,000 T-level starts in 2024. That is quite ambitious, given that we have only 5,000 at the moment, but I wish them well. Equally, I welcome that for those young and not so young people for whom T-levels are not appropriate for whatever reason—there are many reasons why that might be the case—there are other options remaining open to them, not least the route into higher education, which has been, as many noble Lords have said, very important. I am pleased that we have got to this. As my noble friend Lord Blunkett said, the Minister has been very helpful in that regard.

The noble Lord, Lord Baker, deserves considerable credit. Through his efforts, the clause bearing his name from the 2017 Act has been beefed up and will carry much more weight and be much more effective than it has hitherto been, with the ability of providers to be brought into schools. There will be much less likelihood of head teachers saying, “No, no, we don’t need that actually. Most of our young people are going to university, we don’t really need to hear about apprenticeships or any form of technical education”. That is wrong in any situation and is now much less likely.

The question of careers education is important. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, mentioned it, and I am very proud to say that there is a young man—my son Thomas—sitting on the steps of the Throne who is about to enter senior school. By the time he reaches 16, I hope that these reforms will have bedded in and he will have many options open to him and his cohort, enabling them to make informed decisions on how their lives will pan out, whether through further education, higher education, apprenticeships or whatever. I very much hope that that will be the case.

I do not really have anything else to say, other than that the Bill is in a much better state than it was when it arrived here. Many noble Lords have played an important role in getting us here, and I have to say that the Government have been willing to listen and act. It is important that this Bill is a success. The futures of many young and not so young people depend on it, and the future economy of this country depends on it. I hope it will succeed.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, this Bill has been with us for a while and I know that noble Lords are keen to start their Easter break, I hope with their families. I thank noble Lords for their very generous words on the work that we have done in government, with officials and with many of your Lordships to get the Bill to where it is now. I hope that it will deliver on all our shared aspirations in this area.

I shall try to respond briefly to the questions from my noble friend Lord Johnson regarding parity of esteem. Without wanting to play with words, we are aiming for clarity of esteem—although I am not sure whether that exists. We want to have a range of high-quality options for young people. We want them to be absolutely clear which ones work for them, which are suitable and which offer the right path forward. Of course, that is underpinned by parity, but we need clarity as well, because that has been lacking in the past. In relation to his second point, we also need absolute clarity for providers. There is an enormous job still to be done to communicate the value of all the different options that young people will be offered.

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Watson’s correspondent, and the fight against BTECs fizzling out, I think we could agree that the fight for quality is certainly not fizzling out in any way. I am not sure there ever was a fight—but anyway.

Before closing, I thank all noble Lords here today, many of whom have contributed to debates throughout the passage of the Bill. I pay particular tribute to the Front Benches, to the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Storey, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock, Lady Wilcox and Lady Garden. I say two things to the son of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, who is sitting on the steps of the Throne. I share the aspirations of the noble Lord that our reforms are bedded in, and I hope that his son and all his classmates will have a great range of opportunities. I also remind him that what he sees in this House today is the tip of the iceberg of the work that the noble Lord and his colleagues have being doing over the last few months to get this Bill to where it is.

I also thank the many former Education Ministers and Secretaries of State in this House whose insights we have benefited from—my noble friends Lady Morgan, Lord Willetts, Lord Baker and Lord Johnson, my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I also say special thanks to my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith. She has been a great mentor and helped me to understand how this Bill will work in practice.

I also thank my noble friends Lady Penn and Lady Chisholm for their support. I thank the Bill team officials who have worked on the Bill—Kady Billington-Murphy, Ellie-May Morris, Emma Sisk, Lois Clement, Georgia Scoot-Morrissey, Charlotte Rushworth, Katrina Leonard-Johnson, Catherine James and Stephen Wan. I especially thank Jessica Clark in my private office, who has been an exemplar of calmness under pressure.

Education: Multi Academy Trusts

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 6th April 2022 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for affording us an early opportunity to debate the main plank—it could be argued that it is the only substantive plank—of the Government’s White Paper on schools published last week. I commend him for the balanced approach he evinced on the White Paper. At the start, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, for her kind remarks. It is most pleasant again to see her on her feet during an education debate.

In his foreword to the White Paper, the Secretary of State said that the Government’s aim is to increase the standard of reading, writing and maths at the end of key stage 2 from its current level of 65% to 90% while also improving the average GCSE grade in English language and maths by 2030. We wholeheartedly back these aims and very much hope that they will be achieved, but we believe the main drivers will be well-trained, well-paid, well-supported and well-motivated teachers, head teachers and support staff, irrespective of the type of school in which they teach.

The success or failure in achieving an overall rise in standards across schools, both primary and secondary, will not rest on the vast majority being corralled into multi-academy trusts, particularly if that is counter to the will of the schools themselves. That said, there is no evidence in the White Paper that compulsory academisation is the Government’s aim, despite the idea being widely trailed to the education media since the turn of the year. From the perspective of head teachers and teachers whom I have spoken to since the White Paper appeared, specifically on academisation, the main issue is the lack of clarity about what is being proposed. Their frustration is clear due to continuous references to outstanding MATs yet no acknowledgement of very successful local authorities with few academies and many successful maintained schools.

This bias is not new. In its attempts over the past decade to make academies in general, and MATS in particular, the only show in town, the DfE has consistently played down the achievements of schools in the maintained sector. How much time, for instance, do regional schools commissioners, whose role, according to the DfE website, is

“to work with schools to ensure they are supported to improve and to address underperformance”,

spend working with maintained schools to help them improve what they are already doing, as opposed to proselytising for academy conversion? Not that they have been notably successful in that quest because, as other noble Lords have mentioned and the White Paper states, after 12 years, only 44% of schools are academies, and only 87% of those are in a MAT.

I take issue not so much with the White Paper but with the companion DfE policy document, The Case for a Fully Trust-led System. The document contains the inconvenient truth for the DfE that maintained schools are doing better than those in MATs in Ofsted inspections. Indeed, analysis by the National Education Union referred to above my noble friend Lady Blower, has shown that the DfE has systematically misreported Ofsted grades for many schools. It mentioned DfE claiming schools were in multi-academy trusts when those grades were actually achieved when they were in the maintained sector.

Looking at the full picture of the data portrays a markedly different situation to the one that the DfE is trying to present. In fact, maintained schools are more likely to improve their Ofsted rating to good or outstanding than sponsor-led academies, and sponsor-led academies are more than twice as likely to have their Ofsted rating downgraded to “requires improvement” or “demonstrates serious weaknesses” than maintained schools.

What does all that mean? Perhaps the Minister can say, but the way the information is presented is not consistent, and that is a major problem. Perhaps she will be able to comment on those misrepresentations. The real figures would not lead many to the conclusion that the answer to school improvement is wall-to-wall MATs.

Arguably, the most important claim in the case for a fully trust-led system is, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Blower, that more than seven out of 10 sponsored academies are now rated good or outstanding, compared with about one in 10 of the local authority-maintained schools they replaced. There is no evidence anywhere in the DfE’s data that only one in 10 local authority schools became good or outstanding. That data actually shows that, if a school remains in local authority hands, it is more likely to improve then if it becomes an academy. Equally, 74% of what the DfE describes as coasting schools are currently academies, compared to 44% of schools overall.

The problem with the White Paper and the DfE’s obsession with MATs is that it has made its decision, written the headlines and is now faced with making the figures fit the narrative to serve those headlines. Such a narrative is a chimera. We heard recently that the Minister of State for Brexit Opportunities and Government Efficiency—a title which I suspect is itself a chimera—is comfortable offering what he calls alternative facts. It is disappointing that some in the DfE have grasped the same lifeline.

As my noble friend Lady Blower mentioned, the White Paper’s use of terminology about a family of schools within a MAT is frequent. As the Minister will recall, I raised this issue with her last week, when noble Lords had the opportunity to comment on the Statement supporting the White Paper. This is a question of geography. It is difficult to understand how some MATs scattered across the country can be seen as families of schools in any meaningful way if people never see each other. The Minister recognised this in her reply to me last week when she said:

“We will be working hard on commissioning to make sure we have geographically coherent trusts, so they can benefit from all that that offers.”—[Official Report, 29/3/22; col. 1587.]


Well, that is how to plan for any new MATs, but what about those already in existence?

The White Paper gives no indication as to how the full academisation target will be met, let alone the ending of stand-alone academy trusts. The only machinery proposed relates to schools with two “requires improvement” findings and those that compliant local authorities are able to persuade to join their MAT. Stand-alone academies are often very successful schools, and they are unlikely to want to submerge their autonomy and individuality into a MAT where some distant figure can tell them what they can and cannot do.

Let it be said that many of these schools will also have built community support because they have been successful. I suspect that this would cause dilemmas for more than a few Tory MPs. The White Paper says that trusts

“use their collaborative structure to deliver outstanding literacy and numeracy outcomes for their children.”

There no doubt are trusts that choose to operate as a partnership of schools which is lacking in hierarchy, and for which the word “collaboration” might therefore be appropriate. However, in the vast majority of MATs the structure is one where the central trust board is in control. A collaborative structure suggests that individual schools within the organisation take decisions collectively. Again, this is not the model. The central trust of the accountable body is ultimately responsible for all decision-making and thus has the power to tell schools what to do. So the attraction of some sort of democratic system should be treated with caution, because accountability has been notably lacking in the MATs system as it has developed. Neither the White Paper nor the policy paper suggests that schools will be permitted to leave a MAT and move to another one, or to return to the maintained sector. Perhaps the Minister can say why not. Given what he said, the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, would welcome an answer to that question as well.

That is also true of admissions. Labour believes that local authorities, which already have responsibility for co-ordinating admissions to schools maintained by them and academies, should be responsible for admissions to all schools within their boundaries. However, the White Paper says that trusts will continue to be their own admissions authorities, with legislation planned to require trusts to follow the admissions code. That in itself is an admission that some MATs are not presently operating within the requirements of the code. I think that that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, was referring to when she mentioned pupils with SEND. In fairness, the vast majority of trusts abide by both the spirit and letter of the admissions code, but there is no reason to provide an opportunity not to do so. There is no plausible educational benefit in a trust having its own admissions policy.

To be clear, we are not opposed to multi-academy trusts. We recognise that in many cases, schools that were underperforming have benefited greatly from joining a trust, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, in his introduction. As he said, they are here to stay. What we are saying is that where a school is not underperforming and wants to join a MAT, let it do so, although many schools have so far declined the invitation. Rules are not looked on as a panacea in the way in which the DfE and Ministers would like them to be.

Thousands of schools are doing very well either in the maintained sector or as stand-alone academies. They should not be put under pressure to change their status if they do not want to. Equally, many local authorities have successful maintained schools, and that should be allowed to continue without the local authorities having to form their own multi-academy trust. The Government are of course entitled to encourage such schools to join a MAT but they are not entitled to manipulate figures on school performance in pursuit of their aim of increasing the number of schools in MATs to make that offer seem more attractive than it actually is.

There is room for diversity within the schools system, and we believe that it is wrong to attempt to reduce it. That would not be in the interests of children and parents, nor would it serve to produce the flourishing school system mentioned by the Secretary of State in his introduction to the White Paper.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Baroness Barran) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Lingfield for securing this important debate and congratulate him on his vision, so long ago in the mid-1980s, in the work he proposed at the time. As we all know, it is still a work in progress but this Government are committed to delivering on it.

As noble Lords have said and as set out in our recently published White Paper, our mission is that by 2030, 90% of children will leave primary school having achieved the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, and that at key stage 4 the average attainment in both English and maths will increase to grade 5. Currently, the average for children at key stage 2 is 65%, and for children with special educational needs it is around 22%. As my noble friend Lady Berridge pointed out, that is unacceptable and it is that on which we need to focus. I also thank her for her kind words, and possibly the best ministerial handover breakfast that either of us will ever have.

Strong multi-academy trusts—I stress “strong”—are absolutely central to achieving this ambition. Our priority is to extend their impact across the whole country, particularly in areas of high need. We want to remove barriers to conversion for all types of school, while strengthening the system in regulation and accountability, and making sure that every actor in it has a clear role. We believe that this will level up standards and ensure that every child has the best possible opportunity to succeed in the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, gave examples of how we would do this that related to chapters 1 and 2 of the schools White Paper, I think. He rightly said that this is done by having great teachers for every child, and the Government entirely agree. He also said that it is done by having a really strong curriculum based on evidence and supported by excellent behaviour and attendance—those are my words, not the noble Lord’s, but I do not think that he would disagree. As your Lordships are aware, that is supported by the parent pledge.

I must correct the noble Lord’s statement—forgive me if I do not quote him accurately—that the department picked a headline and then picked the facts to meet it because we had already conceived the policy. I give the noble Lord my word that I worked really hard with excellent officials on that and that is just not the way that we did it. We started with the targets that we wanted to achieve and looked at the evidence for how they could be delivered, and that is what your Lordships see in the White Paper.

We know that this matters so much because teachers and staff in all schools, whether maintained schools or academies, have been working tirelessly, particularly over the last two years, to achieve excellent outcomes for children. Trusts have been able to support teachers in schools where that challenge is greatest. The noble Baroness, Lady Blower, questioned why we referenced the seven out of 10 sponsored academies. Those were schools that were inadequate—many of them were failing for many years, as my noble friend pointed out—and had failed several children in the same families. We put that in bold because the successors of 434,000 children who were in inadequate schools are now in good or outstanding schools. Some 600,000 children in this country are still in inadequate or double-RI-plus schools. We are absolutely determined to make sure that we see an end to that.

On the NEU research that both the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, referred to, I note that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, used the term “manipulate figures”, and I hope that he might retract that statement. I would be delighted to meet with both noble Lords. We are preparing a formal response to that paper, as we believe that there are misunderstandings, at best, within it. The claims are based on selective data and misrepresent the published evidence. As I say, we are preparing a full response for the NEU, and I would be delighted to take both noble Lords, and any other noble Lord, through the data that we used in putting together our proposals.

As I have said, we want all children to be educated in strong trusts, but we know that the system remains mixed at present, and many of our best schools operate alone. On my noble friend’s point about single-academy trusts, I say that they have so much to offer the system, with their leadership and innovations, and we want that to be shared across schools that do not currently benefit. Whether that comes from a single-academy trust or a maintained school, our focus is on quality, and we need some of those trusts to grow. Those that fall short of our expected standards need to be replaced with much stronger ones.

We want to ensure that every pupil is educated in a strong trust, and we set out the five key characteristics of a strong trust in the White Paper: first, that there should be a high-quality and inclusive education; secondly, that there should be sustainable school improvement; thirdly, that there should be training, support and opportunities for teachers throughout their careers; fourthly, that there should be strong strategic leadership and governance; and fifthly, that there should be effective financial management.

In his speech, my noble friend thoughtfully explored the question of the size of multi-academy trusts. We are not pursuing size for its own sake, but if we think of our priorities in terms of educational outcomes, the hierarchy is a well-supported workforce, strong governance and financial efficiencies. We must have educational performance as the first and we believe it cannot be done without a well-supported workforce and strong governance. We are not pursuing size for its own sake. My noble friend is right that there are some great smaller trusts. Equally, I do not recognise some of the data that he referred to about the largest trusts, but I am more than happy to sit down with him to go through this. If I can name two of our best trusts, at the risk of offending others that deserve to be named, the Harris Academy Trust and the Star Academies Trust both have outstanding results and have done remarkable work in terms of school improvement. I am wondering whether some of the data that my noble friend is looking at includes schools that were recently failing and have just gone into those trusts, because they have done a lot of the heavy lifting—not just those two, but others—in turning around very weak schools.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, and other noble Lords referred to CEO pay. We take it extremely seriously. There are two issues that we need to think about, as I said in our response to the noble Lord. One is the absolute figure. I do not know whether the right metric is to look at the Prime Minister’s salary, and we have to be careful because often the figures quoted include pensions and other benefits and are then compared with salaries. There is, of course, an issue about absolute levels, but there is also an issue about value for money. On that point, the largest trusts offer much the best value for money. If you look at CEO pay or overall leadership pay per pupil, they offer the best value for money. We now have trusts which have responsibility for 75,000 children. We need to get the best people to lead them.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, talked about the importance of local. We heard it loud and clear, not just from your Lordships but in our engagement with schools ahead of the White Paper. We are very clear that that is extremely important. The data from the 2021 National Governance Association report showed that 76% of trusts have a local committee for each academy in their trust and a further 12% have a local tier of governance which oversees a group of academies, so 88% of trusts already have some form of local governance in place, but we agree that it is important. To clarify, as the noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked, we are not forcing schools into trusts.

My noble friend asked about the incentives in relation to rural primaries. It is that ability to collaborate, share resources and make a more resilient network of schools. I was lucky enough last week to visit the Old Cleeve First School in west Somerset, which has a grand total of 91 pupils and is part of the West Somerset Academies Trust. The people there gave me two examples—one in relation to the national tutoring programme. As a stand-alone school they would never have been able to participate, but they were able to share a member of staff across three schools in the trust. They also talked about the career opportunities for their staff, which would normally be very limited in a school like that, where you have two forms learning together—so a very small staff team, which is able to move to other parts of the trust.

I would like to set the record straight in relation to the remarks made about the curriculum. Some trusts have a curriculum which they expect all the schools and their trusts to follow; others will give schools in the trust more flexibility. There is really a range—so it is wrong to describe it as such; but I am interested, and I hope that after the debate I will be able to talk to your Lordships about the impact on workforce. On the one hand, we know that the workforce is under pressure but, on the other hand, we have pushed back, and it is something that could save teachers so much time if they have a well-sequenced curriculum to work from.

I cannot accept the point about a lack of transparency on accounts. There is so much greater transparency in the academy sector than there is in the maintained sector.

My noble friend Lady Berridge talked about the importance of focusing on disadvantaged children. I agree with her absolutely; that is why she will have seen that we are targeting a particular investment in educational investment areas, those local authority areas with the highest need and the most entrenched underperformance of schools. I thank her for the welcome for the consultation, which I think she did a great deal of work on, on being able to require schools that have had two judgments below good from Ofsted to join a multi-academy trust.

I thank my noble friend Lady Fleet for all her work in the area of music education, particularly in relation to the national music education plan, which she and I are both looking forward to being published—and not just published but seeing implemented in schools across our country. My noble friend gave some excellent examples of MATs that are really using music as part of the curriculum to great benefit. Certainly, our understanding is that many music teachers might find themselves working in isolation in individual schools, and working in a MAT can be a real benefit in continuing professional development, sharing resources, adding capacity to their teams and giving opportunities for progression.

We also believe that lengthening the minimum school week will benefit some of the curricular and extracurricular enrichment activities.

My noble friend Lady Berridge talked about the risk of capital and use of data in weaker responsible bodies with poor buildings. We have significantly improved our data on the condition of the school estate, including through the condition data collection. Its successor programme, CDC2, will visit every school again in 2026. We also ran a pilot of a capital adviser’s programme in 2021 to test how professional advisers could support trusts to manage their estates more effectively, and we will consider how that can be rolled out further.

My noble friend asked an important question about how long it takes and what the average time is to transfer a school into a trust. I shall write to her on a number of questions. On that issue, I am not sure that the average is really meaningful. The majority of schools are moved in a reasonably straightforward way, then there is a tail of schools, which are extremely difficult and may go on for many years. That is clearly unacceptable, which is why we have set up two MATs—the Falcon Education Academies Trust and the St Joseph Catholic MAT—which can act to hold those schools on a temporary basis until a sponsor is found.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

The Minister is talking about schools moving into MATs. Both the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, and I asked why schools cannot move from one MAT to another or move back into the maintained sector, if they feel it is in their interests to do so.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I have got that, although I am well out of time—but the noble Lord has given me permission to overrun. We are going to consult on the ability under certain circumstances for schools to leave a MAT, if they feel that there are good reasons for that; it is something that we will consult on and explore in some detail.

I am well over time, and I shall write to your Lordships on any questions. In closing, the White Paper is the start of a journey towards a stronger and fairer schools system, with children benefiting from high standards in all areas of the country. It is a journey that will depend on us supporting and empowering our greatest leaders in education; it will depend on us working with parents to make sure that their children achieve their potential wherever they are born, and it is probably the most important journey that any of us will take.

Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Review

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 30th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness the Minister may be surprised to hear that, having read the review, my initial thoughts are positive—a view that echoes what many in the education, care and children’s charity sectors are saying. She knows that there is a “but” coming, but I will delay that for the moment.

The Statement says that it is proposed to establish a new single, national special educational needs and disabilities and alternative provision system across education, health and care. That is welcome. But there is not a great track record of government departments working together. Too often, there is a silo mentality in the Civil Service, which is long established and often insurmountable. That cannot be the case in terms of this review or it will fail in its aims.

There are three key challenges that the SEND reforms need to address. The first is poor outcomes for children. The second is that navigating the system is often a traumatic experience for families, with many left to reach crisis point before getting meaningful support. The third concerns not delivering value for money. How was it that the £1 billion deficit in the dedicated schools grant, referred to by the Secretary of State yesterday, was ever allowed to happen? He spoke of being ambitious for young people, but where has that ambition been for the past 12 years? Where was that ambition when he was Minister for Children and Families? The Secretary of State cannot disown the legacy of 12 years of Conservative Governments, which have left us with a broken, adversarial and aggressive system that is letting down young people and often leaves families in despair.

So who is responsible for the £1 billion shortfall? The answer is central government, which I suspect is why the DfE appears to want to introduce a funding agreement, or contract system, with local authorities to secure provision. Where else have we heard about funding agreements with the DfE? With academies, of course—so this would be more of the inflexible rod of central government. Will any new system be successful if local endeavour, creativity and innovation are ironed out of it?

A vicious cycle of late intervention, low confidence and inefficient resource allocation is driving the challenges for effective SEND provision. The current system does not prescribe in detail exactly who should provide and pay for local services, leaving it to local agreement and First-tier SEND Tribunals. Similarly, delivery of alternative provision is inconsistent across areas and schools. As a result, parents, carers and providers feel that they have no choice but to seek EHCPs and, in some cases, specialist provision, as a means of legally guaranteeing the right and appropriate support for children and young people. The Government’s reform simply must do much better than this in terms of the support given to parents of children with special educational needs.

It may or may not be a coincidence that the 13-week consultation that the Secretary of State launched yesterday will reach its conclusion at the end of June, which is around the time when the independent review of children’s social care is due to report. That would be entirely appropriate, as the SEND review cannot be seen in isolation—and I do not believe that the Government do see it in isolation.

Early intervention is essential in correctly identifying needs, but the current system often prevents that. All too often, local authorities need to spend on non-discretionary services, such as child protection, taking money away from preventive services like children’s centres. The barriers that prevent children from having their needs met as early and as close to home as possible must be removed.

We welcome the recognition in the Green Paper of the importance of building expertise and leadership in SENCOs. This would dovetail with the Government’s proposals in the skills Bill for SEND to be an integral part of initial teacher training. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that that is how she sees it as well. However, many children with complex and interrelated physical, health and learning needs, such as those with cerebral palsy, autism or communication difficulties, require a specialist approach to education which is provided by professionals with expertise and a deep understanding of their condition and how it impacts on their learning and development.

The reforms that emerge following the consultation should ensure that the best possible use is made of prompt specialist expertise to enable vulnerable children with disabilities to be identified and assessed early, opening the way to delivery of the optimum level of support throughout their education so that they can reach their potential. It is important that alternative provision—too often hidden away—is included in the Green Paper. We also welcome the integrated role and the recognition of the need to improve oversight of AP placements.

The role of colleges in supporting SEND students is understated in the Green Paper, which is contradictory given that the aim of the reforms is to create a system that serves young people all the way through to age 25, from childhood to adulthood. Colleges are a lifeline for students with SEND, many of whom have struggled at school but thrive in a college environment. Many students with EHCPs progress to their local college where they are supported into independence and often into work. Can the Minister say what the DfE sees as the role of colleges in their provision for SEND students and what resources will be made available to support that role?

Resources is, of course, the but. All of this is dependent on the provision of adequate resources and on that score, I fear the mood is more downbeat. I have already mentioned the DSG deficit; the Statement mentions £1.4 billion of capital spend on high needs between 2023 and 2025. Presumably, this is to increase capacity and places within schools. It averages out at roughly £60,000 per school on a one-off basis. Will the Minister say how the Government imagine that capital spend flowing?

Finally, the Secretary of State also says in his Statement that there is to be an additional £1 billion in the current financial year for children and young people with high needs, but then what? Is that figure to be consolidated in the high needs budget? The families of children with special needs of all kinds deserve to be told.

No matter the Government’s good intentions in terms of SEND and AP provision, without the resources to ensure a system that is fair, joined-up and effective from an early point in a child’s life, little will change for those families that so desperately need support for their children.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, first I remind the House of my declared interests in this field: I am dyslexic; I am president of the British Dyslexia Association; I am a long-established user of assistive technology and chairman of a company that provides that across the education and working sector.

The best thing about the system is acceptance of the problem. In the current system, you are advised to get legal advice to get the best results. If ever there was a definition of failure, that is it: people cannot get the help they need from the mainstream system which the law dictates unless they have legal support. There really is no bigger condemnation, and I congratulate the Minister on bringing forward something that recognises that. The system we have has not worked. It has not worked for a variety of reasons, mainly, I feel, because the school process, whereby schools take money out of their budgets to support individual pupils, is counterintuitive to the school. They can take £6,000 out of their mainstream budget to support a pupil, but not put £6,000 into training staff to meet the recurring needs.

We talk about pupils with a commonly occurring condition, but I agree that this is not the full package: there is a range of subjects and most people who come into this category have a cocktail of conditions. If they are lucky, with good parents—the tiger parent—fighting for support, a bit of resource, they generally get a decent result, even if they have to pay lawyers. If they do not have that, they get a bad result and will end up in alternative provision. Can the Minister give me some idea about how those who will initially be below the threshold for intervention needed for the plans will get help and support? I cannot see how that will occur.

The noble Baroness will say something positive about SENCOs, which is good, but it requires more than that. It requires a recognition strategy caused by having good teachers, teachers with knowledge, in place to identify and get help in early. Because we all know that is the way it works: identify early, get strategies in place, get structure, and there is less resistance from the pupil. How will we do that with this system? How will we make sure that the system knows what it is doing when somebody starts to fail? Are we going to have a degree of flexibility built into this national plan?

Why can I never remember the exact name of the phonics system? It is specialist synthetic phonics. The Government say that the phonics system is suitable for everybody; guess what? The British Dyslexia Association, the biggest individual group, says it does not work for dyslexics, so we will need an alternative provision of teaching and how to implement that throughout the system to get the best out of the biggest cohort. It is not the only cohort, but it is the biggest. How will we do that? How will we make that work if we do not have a degree of flexibility built in and do not address the fact that certain people will always struggle?

We cannot ignore what happened yesterday. Apparently, 90% of pupils in this country are going to reach literacy standards. I have already identified 10%—and that is a conservative estimate—of those who will have extra problems with reading and writing. We can also stick on 5% or 6% who are dyscalculic. But wait, look at the good news—some of them are included in the first 10%, so they actually have multiple disability problems. It is called “comorbidity”, but I think that “co-occurring” sounds better. You can stick dyspraxia and autism in there, and they are just the hidden disabilities. How will we achieve this unless there are people who can identify early, and not take it to this system of struggling identification? I quite understand that the Minister may well be able to make it less legally driven, but there is a danger that it will go back there.

I hope that the Minister can give us some idea about guidance. If the Government want to achieve their high literacy levels, how about someone who word processes by talking and listening to their computer, as opposed to just tapping the keyboard? That is available to everyone. I know that the Minister has had some experience with this; she is the first Minister I did not need to show this technology to.

A slightly more flexible approach will get far better results here. If the Minister can assure us that, with guaranteeing standards, they agree with that flexibility, all things are possible. If we go back to saying, “No, this is the way we should do it”, and having conflicting stories, we will just have failure—it may not be quite as bad, but we will still have failure.