Creative Arts Education

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this debate, which, as well as being hugely informative and important, has been a pleasure to listen to. It has given us the exciting prospect of the Liberal Democrat drama club, which—given the exciting predilection of their leader, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), for doing his own stunts—holds all kinds of potential. The idea of a flautist-off between the hon. Members for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for Stroud (Dr Opher) is another exciting prospect.

We have heard thoughtful and important speeches from the hon. Members for Reading Central (Matt Rodda), for East Thanet (Ms Billington), for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous), for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), and for Strangford. It has been an interesting debate.

This will be the last education debate of 2024—barring any surprises from the Minister tomorrow—so I want to thank all the hard-working teachers for their efforts over the year. When I meet teachers, as I have been over the last couple of days, I often find that they are quite tired at this time of year. For primary school teachers, the creative activity around the nativity is the thing that finally finishes them off and leaves them ready for Christmas. I end the year in the spirit of good will, and particularly thank our hard-working teachers.

In order to facilitate an answer that the Minister may wish to get from her officials, I will start by asking about a very specific thing: the music and dance scheme. On 21 November, the Secretary of State wrote to the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), to say that the Government were going to extend transitional support for that scheme: “From 1 January 2025, for families with relevant income below £45,000, my Department will ensure their total fee contributions will remain unchanged for the rest of the academic year.” In a sense, that is a pause or a stay of execution. When will the Minister make a decision on the future of that really good arts scheme, so that there can be certainty beyond the end of the academic year? Will she continue to hold down fees for those who benefit from it for the next year? Will she also commit to maintain a related project, the Choir Schools’ Association scholarship scheme? I enter those specific things into the debate at this point so that the Minister has a chance to respond.

Let me now turn to the wider debate. We have talked about some of the things the last Government did, such as music hubs, which I think are widely welcomed, but—without wishing to move away from the spirit of good will and Christmas towards being the dog in the manger—of course the issue is always time. Our hard-working teachers are already working flat out. In theory and principle, I love the idea advanced by the Liberal Democrat Front Bench that it should not be an either/or, but unfortunately there are only a certain number of hours in the school day.

Now, if the Minister gets a wonderfully huge sum of money from the Treasury and manages to expand the school day so that we can do all those additional things, that is wonderful—I will be the first to welcome that—but our teachers and schools face some inescapable trade-offs. As the Minister will know by now, every week there are on average four calls from different groups for something new to be put on to the national curriculum or to get more time in our schools, but they cannot all have more time.

My only caveat to what Members have said today is the idea that there are creative and non-creative subjects. Some spoke about STEAM, which is a better concept, because the sciences and all those other things are creative subjects too. After a fall from 83% to 70% of pupils getting double or triple science between 2006 and 2011, it is a good thing that those subjects have rebounded to 98%. We have to be honest about what the trade-offs are. If we want to do more of one thing, we have to be clear and honest with people about what we are going to do less of—unless there is some sudden money gusher.

[Ms Billington]

I am interested in the idea that there is a limited amount of time in the state school curriculum, but there does not seem to be a limited amount of time for creative education in private schools. If it is important for private schools, then it is important for state educated children, so why can we not find the time for it?

[Neil O’Brien]

With respect, I am all ears, and it will be for the Government to say where they will find the time for those things. In principle, I have no objection, but I do not believe that the hon. Lady thinks that there is an unlimited amount of time in the school day, or that our teachers can all do endlessly more work. Of course that is not the case—no one believes that; there are choices here.

If I can return to the spirit of good will and Christmas, I want to commend something good that the Government have published: the evidence pack published alongside the curriculum and assessment review. It is a good piece of work that brings some nuance to the debate that is not always there. It shows that, although the numbers doing GCSE are somewhat down for some art subjects, the numbers doing other types of qualifications are going up at the same time. A lot of the bigger changes are nothing to do with art subjects whatsoever. We see less time spent on ICT in schools and more time spent on English, maths and science. I commend to hon. Members that very good piece of work by the Government; I strongly endorse the nuance that it brings. We all want to see more of these wonderful things happening in our schools, but I also beg that everyone is honest about the trade-offs involved.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

Minister, I would grateful if you left a few moments at the end so that Jess Brown-Fuller can respond to the debate.

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

I will endeavour to do so, Mr Mundell. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate, which, as has already been said, is probably the last education debate this year—what a lovely subject for the final one. I extend my congratulations to the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing it. It was excellent to hear so much about her performing arts background—from teaching to advocating here; she obviously still enjoys it.

I am sure many of us are enjoying creativity during this festive season—maybe hon. Members have been to a pantomime or two, although I am not encouraging anyone to do one here. I look forward to seeing “Sleeping Beauty” in my constituency, and I am sure that many Members who have spoken about the theatres, creative arts and creative places in their areas are enjoying visiting them and partaking in the activity as well. It was excellent and lovely to hear about the many things that colleagues have mentioned, although of course we also heard about the many challenges and the changes that are needed. Hon. Members said that we need to go further, and I know that they will hold the Government to account on our mission statements and reforms.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) for her contribution, particularly about Sammy’s Foundation, and about the need to ensure that the creative arts are there for people with SEND and those who are neurodiverse.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for speaking about music hubs and the need to review provision for arts and creativity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) talked about the need to campaign. I very much agree that creativity and the arts help with children’s emotional health and wellbeing—I will be speaking about that later—but it was also lovely to hear that it helps with maths. Why wouldn’t we want to hear that? It is absolutely brilliant.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne) for talking about not only the worrying decline in the arts but the need to inspire generations to come.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) for raising concerns about declining GCSE uptake, and for talking about hubs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) talked about the missions and growth, as well as SMEs.

It was lovely to hear the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) speak about many things, including how the art of graffiti can make real and positive changes.

The hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) spoke about many relevant things, as she often does, including the need to ensure that the curriculum is rounded, varied and broad—I could not agree more. I am sure that we are all advocating for more fun in our children’s studies and the encouragement of their creative abilities. Learning can be fun, and we hope that it is in our schools.

I am pleased with the many contributions that have been made, and I will endeavour to respond to them in the time I have, but I encourage Members to make contact with me if they feel they have not been answered. The Government recognise the immense value of creative subjects for every child and young person, extending far beyond career aspirations in the creative industries. Creative subjects support a child’s ability to express themselves, help their confidence and support their emotional wellbeing, and there are benefits in many other areas.

Creative subjects, like the arts, music, drama and many others, are significant elements of the rounded and enriching education that the Government want every child to receive. That is why creative subjects are part of the national curriculum for all maintained schools from the age of five to 14—and beyond for drama. Academies, too, are expected to teach these subjects as part of their statutory requirement to foster pupils’ cultural development. Indeed, many schools currently teach creative subjects as part of the curriculum and do so with great success, which enables children and young people to engage with subjects like music beyond the school day. The Government’s goal is to ensure that no child is deprived of the enriching experience that creative education provides. We aim to ensure a consistent approach across all schools.

The Government’s mission is to break down the barriers to opportunities that hold back many of our young people. We know that this will take time, but we are committed to taking the right steps to make it a reality. A crucial step in realising our vision is to ensure that our national curriculum strikes the right balance. It must embody ambition, excellence, relevance, flexibility and inclusivity. That is why in July we launched an independent curriculum and assessment review for ages five to 18, chaired by Professor Becky Francis CBE.

The review will seek to deliver a broader curriculum, with improved access to music, art, sports, drama and vocational subjects. It will look closely at the key challenges to attainment for young people and the barriers that hold children back from the opportunities that they should be able to access. This is an important process, and the recommendations put forward by Professor Becky Francis and her expert-led panel will be published in 2025. Many Members have mentioned that crucial review.

We recognise that although potential is widespread, opportunities are not. That disparity has held many young people back from fulfilling their true potential. To ensure that music education is fully inclusive, including for those with special educational needs and disabilities in both mainstream and special schools, music hubs are required to have an inclusion lead and to develop an inclusion strategy. Furthermore, the Government will launch a new national music education network. This initiative will help families, children and schools access broader opportunities and support.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I really do not have time, I am afraid.

Through the opportunity mission, we will work to break the link between young people’s background and their future success. Our focus is on supporting the most vulnerable and disadvantaged children, and we will continue to take steps to ensure that opportunity is not restricted by a young person’s location or background.

Our goal is to help families continue to support their children in accessing specialist music and dance courses, so we have made changes to the music and dance scheme for this transitional academic year. From January 2025, we will ensure that families with below average incomes receive additional support to prevent any increases in parental contributions due to the VAT change. This adjustment will benefit around half the families with a music and dance scheme bursary for their child.

I would like to give the hon. Member for Chichester some time to respond, so I will end on that note. I thank all Members for their contributions, and I wish everyone a very merry Christmas.

Qualifications Reform Review

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.



For many years, people have worried about the huge number of different qualifications in further education. For many years, people have wanted us to be more like Germany and called for new, higher-quality, higher-funded, simpler qualifications. T-levels, introduced under the previous Government, are an attempt to do exactly that, with a higher unit of funding and much more work experience. Finally, we have a clear, prestigious qualification mirroring A-levels on the academic side. As the Minister will know from talking to Lord Sainsbury, part of the vision was to use T-levels to simplify the landscape, which everyone agrees is too complex. I think the sector will heave a sigh of relief that today’s announcement is finally out—we were getting to the point where literally any decision would have been better than continued indecision—but it leaves some huge unanswered questions. The Minister says that things will be clear up until 2027. In other words, we will be back here again in two years. We had a pause and a review. We will now have a longer pause and another review. At some point, the Government will have to decide. The sector wants certainty, but we know from the statement that it will not get that yet.

The Government must spell out some kind of vision for how they plan to simplify the landscape of qualifications, which for my whole lifetime everyone has agreed is far too complicated and fragmented. The Minister said in her statement that the qualifications landscape is too confusing, even as she announced that the Government have decided to keep more qualifications, particularly overlapping qualifications. I do not want to be too mean to her—these issues are not easy. In Government, we had the Wolf review. More recently, we removed a further 5,500 qualifications that had sustained low take-up, but what is this Government’s vision to simplify the landscape? Never mind the detail, what is the rough vision, and when will they set it out? If it is not T-levels and what the previous Government were planning to do, what is it?

There is also a lot more work to be done to improve T-levels. As the Minister said, the Government will allow part of the work experience to be delivered working from home, but we need much more than that. What is the plan to reduce drop-out rates, and make T-levels more appealing and easier to deliver? One of the great things about T-levels is the need to produce so much work experience—about 50% more than previous qualifications. That makes them much harder to deliver. What are the Government doing to help colleges to deliver them? On a point of process, the Government—extraordinarily, I thought—refused to publish the terms of reference for the review that has just concluded, even in response to freedom of information requests from FE Week. Will the Minister agree to publish the terms of reference now that the review has concluded? There is no reason for them not to be in the public domain.

No qualification structure will work unless the review gets the funding landscape for technical education right, so will the Minister set out the funding implications of her announcement? The Government promised that they would protect public services from the national insurance increase, but first universities and, this week, nurseries and early years providers have discovered that that was a false promise. The university fee increase has been entirely eaten up by the increase in national insurance. Now, early years providers say that the failure to compensate them for the national insurance increase is “catastrophic” and will mean that

“countless nurseries, pre-schools and childminders will be left with no option but to raise costs, reduce places or simply close their doors completely.”

So far, the Government have refused to come clean about the cost to the further education sector of the national insurance increase—a piece of information that this House deserves to know. The Government have it, but they will not release it. When staff in non-academised colleges complain about their different treatment on pay compared with academised colleges, the Government say that there will be £300 million for post-16 education, but they will not say how much of that will be eaten up by the increase in national insurance. I hope that today the Minister will finally give this House the information that it deserves to know. The Government have the information, and this House and people in the sector deserve to know it.

It is early days, but what we are looking at is ongoing uncertainty over these qualifications, no clear vision to bring about the simplification that the Government say they want, and no proper plan yet to support T-level students and providers. The House is not allowed to see the terms of reference of the review that has just concluded, or know how much the national insurance increase will cost the sector. For students and teachers alike, we have to do better than this.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

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

Staff in non-academised sixth-form colleges are not being offered the same pay increase as staff in academised colleges. It is understood that a sum of money is available for post-16 education, but colleges have been left completely unclear about whether that sum will be enough to offset the national insurance increase or whether they will find, as universities have, that it is entirely eaten up by that increase. Will the Minister agree to publish the cost of the national insurance increase to sixth-form colleges, and if she will not publish it, why on earth not?

[Janet Daby]

I find it shocking that the shadow Minister has taken no responsibility for the many circumstances in which we have found ourselves having to make decisions that are in the best interests of students and colleges. We are conducting various reviews to try to ensure that we put right the mess that we inherited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Because of the increase in national insurance, the Early Years Alliance is warning of a 20% increase in fees for early years parents, which affects nurseries and things like paid-for breakfast clubs. It says that the Budget will be a “recipe for total disaster”, with up to four in 10 early years providers closing unless drastic action is taken. As a first step towards averting that disaster, will the Secretary of State now agree to publish the Department’s estimate of how much the national insurance increase will cost early years providers? If she will not publish it, why not? Does the House not deserve to have this information?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I take the concerns of early years providers very seriously indeed, and we will set out in due course the funding rates and the approach that we are taking. The hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party are very keen to complain about and criticise the measures that we set out in the Budget, yet the Leader of the Opposition herself said that she would refuse to reverse them. They want all the benefits—the teachers, the breakfast clubs and rising standards—but they are not prepared to take the tough decisions that are necessary. As a former Treasury Minister, the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), should know better, because she saw the scale of the fiscal inheritance that this Government inherited from her party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

Before the election, Labour promised to let businesses spend 50% of their apprenticeship levy money on non-apprenticeships, but now Ministers say the commitment is under review. Ministers are taking away the flexibility of businesses to spend their own money on level 7 apprenticeships—a big change to the principles of the levy. Will the Secretary of State confirm when the review of her own policy will conclude, and will she rule out doing to level 6 apprenticeships what she is doing to level 7 apprenticeships?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We remain committed to reforming the failing apprenticeship levy and turning it into a growth and skills levy with up to 50% flexibility for employers, driving new opportunities in growth areas across our country, alongside ensuring that we deliver many more apprenticeship starts for our young people. We inherited a situation where apprenticeship starts were falling at a time when we urgently need to invest in the skills of the next generation. We will work with business through Skills England to drive forward what is required for adult learners as well as young people.

Higher Education: Financial Sustainability

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to have listened to some excellent speeches this afternoon from the hon. Members for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). I took different things from all of them.

I am going to concentrate on the teaching side of universities. However, I will note at the start that the previous Government put a huge amount more money into research, growing Government spending on it from £9.8 billion in 2011 to £16.1 billion, and increasing research and development as a share of the economy. I was part of that, and I am proud of what we did on that front.

Turning to the teaching side, which is perhaps the most topical part of this discussion, it is absolutely the case that a number of institutions—of course, I will not be naming them today—are financially stressed and thinking hard about their future and how they operate. I know people working in some of those institutions, and it is not easy, but I want to take a step back and examine the context before we talk about those pressures.

Working together with the Liberal Democrats, we brought in fees that did not necessarily work out politically for the Liberal Democrats at the time. However, it is good that we once again find ourselves in agreement that it is not sensible to simply increase fees without reform. As has been noted, the financial benefit to universities of the fee increase is wiped out by the increase in the national insurance contribution. One broken promise not to increase taxes is paying for another broken promise not to increase fees—it is a real connoisseur’s policy decision. In real terms, universities are left with less as a result. The pressures alluded to by the hon. Members for Erewash and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire are now made worse by the Government’s decisions.

The successes of the system, which we should note, are that it has hugely increased participation rates, causing participation in England to grow dramatically faster than in the devolved authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In particular, it has dramatically increased the participation of the poorest people in our society. We can measure that in three different ways. We can look at free school meals: the proportion of those on FSM going to university has doubled, while the proportion of non-FSM kids going to university has gone up by about a third. We can look at the participation of local areas metric, which is the sector’s own measure of localities from which not many people go to university. We can see that, in both absolute and relative terms, the disadvantage gap has shrunk.

We can also use, as Universities Wales does, the index of multiple deprivation. Looking at the bottom fifth of the index—the fifth-poorest areas in each of the nations—we can see that although Labour-run Wales and England had similar numbers of people going to university back in 2006, at about 13% or 14%, the participation of poorer students has grown much more rapidly in England; it is up to 33%, compared with just 20% in Wales. That is because we made some difficult decisions, from which there have been benefits.

Much of the growth of higher education is a good thing. My generation was the first in my family to go to university. It was wonderful; it was a great experience, and it is generally a very good experience for most people who go. Universities are a wonderful thing because of not just the research and wonderful teaching that goes on in them, but the wider benefits to the community and the impact on their local society. I remember going to the University of Huddersfield as a teenager; if somebody looked nonchalant and like a student, they could just wander in and read all these wonderful books. That is just one of benefits they bring to lots of our country.

However, not all is perfect in the garden, because a university education is not cheap. We have put in a lot of resources, and while the decision to hold down the resources in recent years in order to hold down the costs for students has reduced the funding per student in real terms, it is still above the level it was at when I went to university; it is still higher in real terms than it was in 1997. But university really is not cheap for the students. The Government have just raised tuition fees to £9,535 a year. A maintenance loan for people who are not at home is £10,227, or £13,348 for those in London. After a typical three-year degree, a student is paying back £59,000, or £68,000 in London. That is a lot of money.

The Government have already increased fees once in this Parliament. Having promised to reduce the cost for graduates, they increased fees instead. There must be a decent chance that fees will continue to go up from now on—unless the Minister wants to contradict me on that. Yet, over the last decade, we have worried a lot about the financial plight of younger people. Ever since David Willetts’s amazing book “The Pinch”, we have been thinking about how we can make it easier for younger people to get on in life. Having these huge amounts to repay—and, in some cases, rather high marginal rates—makes it much more difficult for them.

We can see that, as has been alluded to, the point at which somebody starts repaying their loan to make the system financially sustainable for taxpayers has reduced over time. In 2005, a person had to be earning about 30% more than someone working full time on the minimum wage to start repaying. As of next April, a person can earn 2% less than someone working full time on the minimum wage and still be repaying. This has become more like a graduate tax. It is not quite like a tax—people do not repay it if they are not earning—but it is high.

If somebody is a postgraduate on top of that, or has a couple of kids and ends up being hit by the high-income child benefit charge, they face extraordinary marginal rates, even on middling incomes. In the £50,000 to £60,000 range, if a person has one postgraduate loan or two kids, they can end up paying a 70% marginal tax rate as a young person. That is insane. The Government have made the decision not to reform the high-income child benefit charge, so the problem will go on and get worse.

All of that context is by way of saying that, yes, there are pressures in higher education, but there are also pressures on young people; it is not easy. So before we increase charges further, increase tuition fees even more and tip in more money, we absolutely must think about reforms. Advocates of higher education, including me, say, “Look, there is a lot of higher education that is brilliant for people’s earnings and a good economic investment.” However, we know, because of the decision taken by the last Government to create the longitudinal educational outcomes database, that not everybody benefits from going into higher education, at least not economically. The seminal report on this issue by the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that

“seen over the whole lifetime, we estimate that total returns”—

combining the perspective of both the taxpayer and the student—

“will be negative for around 30% of both men and women.”

For about 30% of people, at least in economic terms, this is not working out.

Now, economics is not the only thing in life, and it will always be worth us funding some things simply for their own sake—if they are beautiful and good and we think they are nice—but let us not forget that a lot of things that are economically beneficial are also beautiful, true, interesting and worthy in their own right. For example, it is cool to know that the word “Lent” comes from the Old English word for “lengthen”, because plants grow in the spring, which is when Lent is. That is the origin of the word, and it is cool to know things like that. It is also cool to know how to build an ion drive, how monoclonal antibodies work or innumerable other things in the hard sciences and other subjects as well.

We will always want to spend on some things that are just worth it in their own right, but the question is how much. If we are spending £20 billion a year on student loans, and let us say, hypothetically, that the IFS is about right, and that about 30% of that is not worth it, that is £6 billion. That is about 10 times what we spend on the Arts Council. How much do we want to spend on higher education that is not economically beneficial? Should thinking about some of those courses not be the first port of call before just increasing taxes on young people?

We could potentially do things to reform the system, as the last Government were starting to do, which would be of benefit to both the young person and the wider economy. We are not doing a young person a favour if we put them on, for example, some creative arts course and say, “This will be great for you. You are going to be the next Jony Ive. You are going to design the next iPad. You are going to have great outcomes. This degree is going to take you where you want to go”, when that is not true. Some people have fantastically low earnings. They feel like they have been lied to; they feel like they have been mis-sold something. Thankfully, that is not the median experience of students, but it is the experience of quite a lot of students. We have to worry about that.

I am totally sympathetic to those who say, “Let’s find more resources for the best of HE,” but we also need to have the conversation about HE that is of lower economic value—if I can call it that—before we just start increasing taxes even further on young people who are so hard pressed already. There are many questions about how exactly we would do that, and lots of technicalities, but in principle that should be our first port of call. Finding those resources would either let us do more in high-value higher education or let us help the perpetual Cinderella sector that is further education, or we could take the burden off of young people a bit more.

It is not for me in this debate to set out our entire vision of how we would reform HE, so I have a couple of questions for the Minister. In particular, I want to encourage her to talk about a decision taken this week by the Office for Students to stop accrediting new institutions. That has numerous consequences that are bad. First, it is a block to brilliant new entrants such as the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering in Hereford, Dyson and other places that have come in and been brilliant additions to the higher education sector. It also potentially locks very large numbers of young people out of student support. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of young people who will now not be able to access student support as a result of that decision by the OfS this week? Secondly, how long will this “pause” go on for? I saw Ministers defending this decision, and it was initially presented as a pause. I hope it is not a permanent end to any new entrants coming into the sector. Will the Minister tell us a little about when she plans to end this pause?

We have been playing a game of cat and mouse across Parliament about the national insurance increase. Bizarrely, one Department—Defence—has answered the question of how much the national insurance increase will cost it. Defence can answer it, but seemingly no other Department can. The questions I asked the Department for Education a month ago about how much this is costing schools, universities and so on have somehow not been answered. The same is true across about 50 domains in Government. We cannot have a meaningful Parliament and we cannot have meaningful discussions in this building if the Government are not prepared to answer basic questions about the consequences of their own policies.

The Government want to say, “We are giving you this wonderful increase in spending” in whatever field it might—maybe it is childcare or schools or something outside education—but that actually turns out not to be true. The university sector has worked that out for itself. We know exactly how much the Government are putting in, because of the fees increase, and we can see that that seeming gift is completely wiped out by the national insurance increase. The Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. In other sectors, they are just refusing to answer the question. That is really poor.

When the Minister stands up today, can she promise me that she will finally answer the question I asked a month ago, not just for higher education, but for childcare and schools, and tell us the most basic information that taxpayers and voters deserve to know? How much is the national insurance increase going to cost our public services? Why do the Government think they cannot answer this question? It is genuinely disgraceful.

I have every sympathy with those who are under financial pressure in higher education institutions. In some cases there has been misadventure, where people have taken out ridiculous loans that are now rolling over, or they have become very exposed to one type of overseas student. I was intrigued to hear the contributions from the hon. Members for Erewash and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, encouraging the Government to allow more students’ dependants as a way of selling higher education. I remember a speech in this House—I think it was yesterday—where one hon. Member stood up and condemned the open borders experiment of the last Government. I thought, “This is a wonderful, road-to-Damascus moment from the Labour party. They finally agree with people like me and do not want to endlessly increase immigration in an attempt to prop up high education.”

[Rachel Hopkins]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Neil O'Brien]

I will give way. The hon. Lady mentioned that she thought it was good that the Government are increasing fees to allow more resources for universities. Will she confirm that she shares my understanding that overall resources are going down in real terms because of the national insurance increase?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins]

Would the hon. Member mind clarifying his memory of what I actually asked? I asked whether an impact assessment had been done on that decision, rather than giving an opinion on it one way or another.

[Neil O'Brien]

Sorry. I misunderstood the hon. Lady; I thought she was pressing the Minister to reverse that decision and allow more overseas dependants as a way of encouraging overseas students to prop up higher education. I totally misunderstood—I thought she was pressing for something that she clearly was not.

I will conclude, because I am over time. I hope the Minister will answer some of those questions. I actually sympathise with her: there is a difficult challenge here and it is a knotty policy question. I will be behind her when she makes sensible decisions, and I wish her all the best in her endeavours to tackle some of those problems, not just for our universities, but for our young people.

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

I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) on securing this important debate. As he eloquently expressed, he has a keen interest in the financial stability of the higher education sector and many other areas, and so do this Government. I agree with him how great our universities are and I will attempt to respond to many points that he has raised.

I join the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson) in acknowledging our fantastic lecturers, as well as some of the excellent work of our universities up and down the country. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) for her many contributions, including around international students.

I will respond to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien). However, I find it difficult to hear the many things he said about the pressures on young people when the last Government had 14 years to take our universities out of the dire situation they now find themselves in. I find it quite astonishing that the previous Government and the shadow Minister have taken no responsibility, offered no apology and shown no acceptance of the disadvantaged situation our universities are in.

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I am going to make some progress and respond to the many points that have been raised—unless he would like to make an apology.

[Neil O'Brien]

The Minister is complaining about the lack of resources in real terms for universities. Can she confirm that because of the national insurance increase resources in real terms are going to go down, wiping out the impact of the tuition fee increase, with the price of everything going up?

[Janet Daby]

Indeed: no apology, no recognition of what I just said, and no recognition of having been in Government for 14 years previously.

There are many questions to respond to, and I will focus first and foremost on my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash, who secured the debate. The Government recognise that our world-leading higher education sector makes a vital contribution, as both education and research institutions, to our economy, to society, to industry and to innovation. They contribute to productivity and growth, and play a crucial civic role in their communities. However, the sector needs a secure financial footing to face the challenges of the next decade. We recognise that the financial position of the sector is under pressure, and the Government have already acted to address that.

In July, Sir David Behan was appointed as interim chair of the Office for Students, the independent regulator of higher education in England. Sir David is overseeing the important work of refocusing the role of the Office for Students to concentrate on key priorities including the sector’s financial stability. In recognition of the pressures facing the sector, on 2 December the Office for Students announced temporary changes to its operations to allow greater focus on financial sustainability. To protect the interests of the students, the OfS will work more closely with providers that are under significant pressure. The OfS has rightly stated that an increasing number of providers will need to take bold action to address the impact of these challenges. All providers must continue to adapt to uncertainties and financial risk.

While the OfS has statutory duties in relation to the financial sustainability of the higher education sector, the Government have a clear interest in understanding the sector’s level of risk. My Department continues to work closely with the OfS, higher education representative groups such as Universities UK, and other Government Departments such as the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. That helps us to understand the financial sustainability in the sector. If a provider was at risk of unplanned closure or found itself in the process of exiting the sector, my Department would work with the OfS, the provider and other Government Departments to ensure that students’ best interests were protected.

Of course, higher education providers are autonomous bodies. As such, they are ultimately responsible for the decisions they make about their operating model, day-by-day management and sustainability. However, the Government very much recognise the need to put—and sustain—our world-leading higher education sector on a secure footing to ensure that all students have the confidence that they will receive the world-class higher education experience they deserve.

After seven years of frozen fee caps under the previous Government, on 4 November the Secretary of State for Education announced that maximum fees for undergraduates will increase in line with inflation. In the 2025-26 academic year, fees will increase by 3.1%, from £9,250 to £9,535 for a standard full-time course, from £11,100 to £11,440 for a full-time accelerated course and from £6,935 to £7,145 for a part-time course. I am aware that yesterday the Welsh Labour Government also announced that tuition fees will rise from £9,250 to £9,535 for standard full-time courses. While this was a difficult decision, I believe the right decision has been made for UK higher education. I want to be clear, however, that in return for the increased investment that we are asking students to make, we expect our providers to deliver the very best outcomes for students, their areas and the country.

The Government also recognise the impact that recent inflation has had on students. That is why, in addition to increasing tuition fees to support our higher education providers, the Secretary of State announced that maximum loans for living costs for undergraduate students will also increase in line with forecast inflation. In the 2025-26 academic year, maximum loans for living costs will increase by 3.1%, from £10,227 to £10,544, for an undergraduate student living away from home and studying outside London. That will ensure that the most support is targeted at students from the lowest-income families, while keeping the student finance system financially sustainable.

As part of the Secretary of State’s announcements on 4 November, she set out our five priorities for reform of the higher education system. We will expect our providers to play a stronger role in expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students; to make a stronger contribution to economic growth; to play a greater civic role in their communities—many already do excellent work in this area—and to raise the bar further on teaching standards to maintain and improve our world-leading reputation and drive out poor practice. I am very sure that that is also their ambition. Underpinning all that, the sector must undertake a sustained efficiency and reform programme. We will publish our plan for higher education reform by summer 2025 and will work with the sector and the OfS to ensure that the system delivers those priorities.

I take this opportunity to respond to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash and reaffirm the Government’s commitment to a United Kingdom that is outward looking and welcomes international students, as commented on by my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire. For too long, international students have been treated as political footballs and not valued guests. This Government will take a different approach and will speak clearly. Be in no doubt: international students are welcome in the UK. That is why we offer international students who successfully complete their studies the opportunity to remain in the UK to work, live and contribute to our national life. I know there have been other questions on that issue, and I will endeavour to get back to Members on them.

I am aware that there have been calls to bring back maintenance grants. The Government continue to provide means-tested, non-repayable grants to low-income students with children and/or adults who are financially dependent on them. Students undertaking nursing, midwifery and allied health professional courses qualify for non-repayable grant support through the NHS learning support fund. As we know, this is a space where much more needs to be done. We need to rebuild our NHS and put it back on a secure footing.

These are just some of the ways in which this Government are trying to mend the failures of the past. However, we recognise there is much more to be done to support students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and we are determined to reverse the decline in participation rates for disadvantaged students. We expect the higher education sector to do more to support students by working with the Government and the OfS and by making the most of the lifelong learning entitlement. We will be setting out our longer-term plans for the sector next year.

I understand that there have been some concerns regarding the recent OfS announcement that it is enacting temporary changes to its operation to allow a greater focus on financial sustainability. As the Minister for Skills explained in the House of Lords yesterday, this decision by the OfS reflects the Government’s determination to move our providers towards a firmer financial footing. The refocusing of the OfS on the issue of financial sustainability and our decision to increase tuition fees demonstrate our ambition to create a secure future for our world-leading higher education sector.

Before I close, I will briefly set out the Government’s position on research funding, which is the responsibility of the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. We committed to record funding for research and development in the recent Budget. We are increasing core research funding to more than £6.1 billion to offer real-terms protection to the UK’s world-leading research base and to support UK Research and Innovation in delivering on the UK’s key research priorities. This Government are determined to work with the sector to help it to transition to sustainable research funding models, including increasing research grant cost recovery.

I again thank everybody who has contributed significantly to this debate—

[Neil O'Brien]

I just wanted to rephrase my question. Do this Government think it is okay not to answer basic questions about how much the national insurance increase is costing education providers—be they nurseries, schools or universities? Can the Minister confirm that she will answer those questions?

[Janet Daby]

I understand that there are some concerns regarding how the sector will contend with increases to employers’ national insurance contributions. As the Chancellor set out in the Budget, raising the revenue necessary to fund public services and restore economic stability requires difficult decisions on tax, which is why the Government are asking employers to contribute more. We strongly believe that this is the fairest choice to help to fund the NHS and wider national priorities, which were failed by the previous Government and strongly need a greater focus on building up public services and public provision.

As set out in the November update on the financial sustainability of the sector, the OfS estimates that the fee uplift will represent up to an additional £371 million of annual fee income. The national insurance contribution changes for employers will result in additional costs for the sector of £133 million in 2024-25 and of £430 million in each year from 2025-26. The Department plans to publish its own estimates shortly, as part of its assessment of the impact of the planned tuition fee and student finance changes.

We are committed to creating a secure future for our world-leading higher education sector so that it can deliver for students, taxpayers, workers and the economy. Although the Government have already taken action to help to move the sector towards a more sustainable and stable financial footing, we recognise that a real change of approach is needed, both from the Government and from the sector itself, to support our broader plans for higher education. For that reason, we look forward to working in partnership with the sector, the Office for Students, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, and UK Research and Innovation to shape the changes to Government policy.

Children and Bereavement

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I too thank Mark and Winston’s Wish for their work with bereaved children and all the practical help they provide. I also thank John Adams, who is trying to make something good come out of something absolutely terrible. I am grateful to everyone who signed the petitions that brought about this important and sobering debate.

When we think about these issues, we naturally think about people we know who are either going through or have been through terrible bereavements. I have a family friend with two boys the same age as my children; they are dealing with the loss of a wife and mother, and they all deserve a medal just for getting through the day. We also think about the ways that people overcome the adversity of these situations. I have a friend who life was shaped by losing his father at a young age, but he has made his life more extraordinary; he has become a wonderful, very strong person as a result of that early terrible experience.

Hon. Members shared similar examples. The hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) was incredibly open and told a compelling story about her experiences. She has been there; she is trying to take those terrible experiences and make something good out of them. My hon. Friend the Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) has had an extraordinary life in many ways and is an incredible person; he too has taken a hard thing and made something good of it.

I pay tribute to all other Members who have taken part in this important debate. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) did a brilliant job of setting out the situation. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) made some compelling points, particularly about the joining up of data, and the hon. Members for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) made really important speeches.

To give a bit of a sense of hope, I want to mention some of the changes that have happened in recent years. The 2017 Green Paper on children and young people’s mental health set in train the provision of more support in schools. That included the offer to every state school in England of a grant for a senior mental health lead to start the process of improving mental health support in our schools. That was then built on in more recent years by the rolling out of mental health support teams in schools and colleges in England, helping more young people access that incredibly important support. When we left office we had got to about 400 mental health support teams in schools and colleges across England. I know the current Government will want to continue to roll out that support more widely.

I remember from my time as a Health Minister the way we were changing the treatment of mental health—first the commitment to give it parity of esteem with physical health and the mental health service standards, and then a 50% increase in the amount of money that we spent on it between 2018 and now. I do not take away from the fact that the demand is ever growing—there is still unmet need out there—but one of the important things that comes from this debate, of course, is that the resource is of no use unless we can connect it to the young people in need. The hon. Member for Walthamstow gave powerful examples of children who have literally seen their parents murdered. It seems the most obvious thing in the world that support would swing into action at that point, but it does not because we do not have that joined-up approach to data.

That was something that the last Government was working on from 2016. There were ongoing efforts to try to build a unique child identifier. I know that the current Government—this is not something we have any ideological disagreement about—want to finish that work and give us a joined-up approach. Through the private Member’s Bill sponsored by the hon. Member for Edinburgh West, we have the opportunity. The Department has the exciting opportunity of primary legislation, if it is needed, to make things happen. We can start to bring together the things that it seems so obvious should happen. We can bring together the knowledge that is dispersed through different bits of the public sector in our schools, our coroners and so on into a proper structured approach to help young people going through a hellish situation.

I pay tribute to the people who signed the petition to make this debate happen and to all the people, some of whom are here today, who have worked on this for many years to provide transformative help and who have excellent ideas, which I know the Government will want to take up. We will support them and the Government in doing that.

Holidays in School Term Time 

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I declare an interest: as a parent of two primary school children, I am acutely aware of the cost of doing anything fun with small children. Like other Members who have spoken, I wince when I look at the cost of going on holiday anywhere and see that it is radically cheaper just a few weeks before the school holidays, so I completely understand the motivation behind this petition and why so many people have signed it. I echo what the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) said about the importance of those memories. I will have the memories of being on the north coast of Scotland this summer with my small children forever.

I will come to what we can do to make it easier for parents, but I will first touch on the very good speeches and interventions from the hon. Members for Lichfield, for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner), for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade), for Poole (Neil Duncan-Jordan) and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). I agree that we have a major school attendance issue, so we need to address the petition in that context.

People often think, “Well, if we’re out a bit, it’s not so bad. Being absent a lot is a problem, but is being absent a bit really a problem?” The statistical truth is that it is a big problem, unfortunately. If there is a 10% decrease in pupils’ attendance at school, the number who get a GCSE grade 5 or above in English and maths halves: 55% of those in the 0% to 5% range of absence get grade 5 or above, but only 22% in the 10% to 15% range do so. What seems like not a huge decrease in attendance has a huge impact. As Members who are former teachers expressed well, those pupils lose the thread, start to fall behind and find it difficult to follow the sequence of what others have already learned, so the problems compound. That is why it is a problem for them not to be in school when they need to be.

When the Conservatives were in office, we took steps to address this major challenge, which has become particularly acute since the pandemic. Schools have always had a duty to keep a register of children not in school, but we worked with local authorities to make it more accurate and we committed to making it statutory. In January, we committed to double the number of attendance hubs to support about 1 million extra children with attendance.

We did things at different levels. We invested £15 million in one-to-one monitoring for 10,000 children with particularly severe attendance issues. For a wider group of pupils with quite serious attendance problems, we put an extra £200 million into the Supporting Families programme—an early intervention programme—taking the spending to £700 million a year. As the issue overlaps to some extent with special educational needs, we increased spending on the high-needs block by 70%—£4 billion extra a year. People may say, “It’s not enough because the need is ever expanding,” and I completely understand that. We need to do more, but it is worth noting that that money has gone in. We also need to tackle the root causes of the growth of demand. I am sure the Government agree with that and want to do more about it.

We were making progress on the attendance challenge. In school year 2022-23, we had 440,000 fewer persistently absent pupils than the year before, but there was still a long way to go because the patterns of attendance had not got back to pre-pandemic levels. In truth, even before the pandemic, although the proportion of pupils with good attendance was about 70% in primary school, in secondary school it dipped down in years 9 and 10 to just above 60%, and the problem was radically compounded after the pandemic.

There are a lot of different bits to this—people working from home with their kids there, or taking days here and there; people having the challenge of wanting to go on holiday; and much more serious social problems, with children who are routinely and significantly not in school a lot of the time—but we cannot lose sight of, and would do a disservice to parents if we did not share with them, the evidence that what might seem like small amounts of non-attendance have pretty bad effects on pupils’ attendance.

I am absolutely not saying, however, that nothing can be done; Members have alluded to some of the ideas. The hon. Member for Lichfield did a good job of talking to all the different people who care about the issue. He mentioned the Parentkind idea about when the school terms are, and I have some experience of that in Leicestershire: we are out of step with everybody—for historical reasons to do with how the factories used to shut in Nottingham, Derby and Leicester, we finish our school year a week earlier than everyone else and go back a week earlier than everyone else.

The last Government looked at whether, as Members have suggested, we could do more to stagger school holidays around the country. Obviously, Scotland often has different holidays, but the challenge—I have direct experience of this—is where we have a border. There was a brief moment when schools in the city of Leicester and Leicestershire had their holidays at different times, which was a massive pain for parents, because of course if they had one kid in school, but one needed looking after at home, they could not go on holiday.

I think there is potential in staggering holidays, and I understand why local authorities might want to explore that to give parents the benefits of finding cheaper holidays, but I would add that caution is needed. If we create borders with parents’ kids on either side of them, we can create problems for the parents, rather than making any of the problems better.

I am entirely sympathetic: the Government could do a huge array of things to make it easier to go on holiday, such as improve the cost of living for parents, and think about the taxes on holidays and on flying in this country. I am supportive of schools, and of course they have to be compassionate and sensible, in particular about bereavement as the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole pointed out, as well as using their discretion.

My own schools on the edge of Leicester do a good job of using their discretion to be sensible about the fact that they are often juggling the festivals of at least four different major world religions at the same time, which is not easy. We also have to be careful and honest with parents about the risks of deciding not to attend school and to miss a couple of weeks, which might not seem like a lot, but which we and the educators in the Chamber know can have a particularly bad effect on kids’ education. We must balance our desire to make things cheaper for parents with our desire for children to get a good education. We must continue the work—which I am sure the Government will do—of ensuring that we get school absence under control, because it is such an important driver of overall achievement.

Apprenticeships and T-Levels

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) on securing this super-important debate. All Westminster Hall debates are equal, but some are more equal than others, and when I saw the title of this debate and that it was being led by my right hon. Friend, I knew that it would be a good one.

I have not been disappointed at all, nor have I been disappointed by the excellent speeches by the hon. Members for Dudley (Sonia Kumar), for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor), and for Mansfield (Steve Yemm); by my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Lewis Cocking) and by the hon. Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash); by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford) and by the hon. Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). There was also a rare appearance in Westminster Hall by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), which I am sure we all savour. [Hon. Members: “More!”] More indeed.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire did a superb job in giving us the fruit of his many years of experience and his multiple periods of service in public life, including two stints in the Department for Education, regarding this issue. He talked about the alphabet soup of organisations and qualifying bodies, the traineeships, the apprenticeships, the modern apprenticeships, the City & Guilds, the GNVQs, the NVQs, the Skills for Life, the diplomas, the BTECs and now the T-levels. The question now is this: will T-levels just be another element added to this alphabet soup, or will we actually realise the vision of what we have called the Sainsbury routes and rationalise the system? My right hon. Friend asked big questions about where the Government are going with traineeships, the apprenticeship levy and Skills England, and it will not surprise him that I will pick up on those questions.

I have several questions for the Minister. First, do the Government have a forecast for the number of apprenticeships that will start over the course of this Parliament? Such a forecast has certainly existed in the past; I saw one when I was in government. Do the Government have such a forecast? If so, will they publish it? What is the forecast number of apprenticeships that will start over the course of this Parliament? I ask that question because unless we know that baseline, we cannot ask sensible questions such as “What will be the impact of the growth and skills levy on the number of apprenticeships?” Without the baseline we cannot have a debate about the trade-off between one desirable thing, which is more flexibility for businesses, and another desirable thing, which is more apprenticeships.

Is it still the Government’s policy to allow 50% of levy funds, rather than a specific number, to be spent on non-apprenticeships, or will it be perhaps another percentage now? What is the impact of the national insurance increase, first, on the number of apprenticeships —that is why we want to know the baseline number of apprenticeships—and, secondly, on the FE sector more generally? The national insurance increase is focused laser-like on lower-income workers, which particularly hits apprentices and people in the FE sector, so there is every reason to think that it will be particularly impactful for those two groups. Will the FE sector be fully compensated for the national insurance increase, or not?

I echo some of the excellent questions that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East asked about college funding. As the Minister knows, colleges are now classified as part of the public sector, but unlike other parts of the public sector they are not exempt from paying VAT. Is it the Government’s intention to change that situation or not?

The other day, Baroness Smith of Malvern said that college staff were “rightly” disappointed that they were not given the same pay increase as schoolteachers. She implied that the Government would seek to close that historic gap; it has existed for many decades. I am not asking for miracles from the Government; this is a very long-standing challenge that everyone says is a problem. It has become slightly worse in the first pay round under this Government; the gap has grown a bit more. Is it the Government’s long-term aspiration to close that gap between sixth-form college teachers and teachers in schools? I am interested in whether that is the direction of travel.

Will the Minister also answer some structural questions? The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill is obviously going through the Lords at the moment. We have already raised the question about Skills England and—as the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire said—the powers are being taken not into a new independent body but directly into the Department. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire said, it would be pretty extraordinary if the Ministers set their own standards for A-levels, so why do we think it would be okay in technical education? What is the Government’s game plan after the IfATE Bill? What is the plan to restore independent standards setting, rather than having it in what is only an agency of the Department?

I also want to ask a really specific question. This is a genuine question because I do not understand the decision. Why did the Department refuse to share the terms of reference for the short review of 16 to 19 qualifications with the wider world? I know that FE Week certainly put in a freedom of information request to get it, which is a pretty extraordinary thing to have to do. Normally, when there is a review, the terms of reference are published. That review is not a secret. We know what the Government are looking at—a known question about BTECs and what will happen. Why did the Government not publish it and will they now?

On one last structural question, my sympathies are entirely with the Minister and the Government as there is a big question here, and this is not a straightforward challenge. We have heard the case for BTECs from various Members—the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam made a passionate case in favour of them. I should declare an interest as I worked on T-levels before they were called T-levels, when they were still called the Sainsbury routes. Lord Sainsbury, Gordon Brown, Nick Boles and others did a huge amount of work to bring them to that point in trying to rationalise this alphabet soup. T-levels are our best hope: they are a more demanding qualification, they have a higher level of funding and they use a lot more time in industry. They are a better qualification that is bringing parity of esteem and higher quality to the FE sector, and they are our big chance to rationalise this issue that everyone agrees is a problem. How far will the Government go towards replacing some of the existing qualifications, and what is their overall strategy and vision for how this will pan out?

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Janet Daby]

I am going to make progress, and then I will take some interventions if I can.

We are introducing new shorter-duration apprenticeships and foundation apprenticeships as a first key step towards greater flexibility that will benefit employers and, indeed, students. We recognise that some roles need less than 12 months’ training and employers are currently locked out of offering apprenticeships. We want to support sectors that make use of fixed-term contracts or have seasonal demands or specific recruitment timetables. We will engage with employers via Skills England and introduce that flexibility where the justification is clear. Our new work-based foundation apprenticeship will focus on ensuring that training is directed towards real vacancies. It will offer young people broad training with clear and seamless progression into other apprenticeships. Unlike the last Government, we will work closely with employers and providers. This Government will make sure we get it right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister talked about introducing flexibility where appropriate—it sounded like perhaps only in some sectors. Is it still the intention for all employers to be able to use 50% of their apprenticeship levy for things that are not apprenticeships?

[Janet Daby]

The area the shadow Minister mentioned is currently being reviewed. As that information comes out, I am sure we will make him aware of it.

To open up the growth and skills offer and to deliver opportunity where it is most needed, we will ask more employers to step forward and fund level 7 apprenticeships themselves, outside the apprenticeship budget. Of the 2.5 million workers in critical demand occupations, the vast majority—more than 80%—require qualifications lower than degree level, so it feels right that we focus our support on those at the start of their working lives, rather than those already towards the top of the ladder.

The Government believe that all young people should have access to high-quality training that meets their needs and provides them with opportunities to thrive. That is why we are committed to making a success of T-levels and extending the opportunity they provide to as many young people as possible. We have introduced three new T-levels this year, opening up more opportunity for young people in the areas of craft and design, media, broadcast and production, and animal care. It was great to see an overall pass rate this year of nearly 90% and to learn that 83% of T-level students who applied to higher education secured a place.

At the end of the last academic year, more than 30,000 young people had taken a T-level, and we want to ensure that many more have the opportunity to study them, but we know that some changes are needed if we want to make that a reality. That is why we are looking at the delivery of current T-levels to ensure that more young people are able to enrol and succeed in them. Our review of post-16 qualifications reforms will ensure that there is a range of high-quality qualifications at level 3, alongside T-levels and A-levels, to support the skills needs of employers and the needs of learners.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Government agree to publish the terms of reference of that review?

[Janet Daby]

I have heard the shadow Minister mention that already, and I believe he has already received a response. [Interruption.] No, the shadow Minister has already received a response.

[Neil O’Brien]

Is that a yes? Will the Minister—

[Janet Daby]

I am sorry—I have already answered.

Last month’s Budget saw a good settlement for further education and skills, including £300 million revenue funding for further education and £300 million capital investment to support colleges to maintain, improve and secure the suitability of their estates.

Each one of us here knows the importance of high-quality skills training for young people, and I am grateful for the considered contributions of everyone who has spoken. When we look at the statistics, it is clear that for too long, young people have been locked out of the opportunities that can benefit them most. The actions I have outlined today will give us a real sense of how to make a difference for learners and employers. That is at the heart of the Government’s mission to spread opportunity and drive economic growth across all parts of our country.

School Transport: Northumberland

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Tuesday 12th November 2024 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you chairing, Mrs Harris. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) on securing this hugely important debate. This is an important subject to talk about, and there have been really good contributions from multiple Members. I declare an interest in Northumberland, as it is where I got married, in Wooler near Rothbury, which has already been mentioned. I have a great appreciation for Northumberland as a county. If I am not in the constituencies of the hon. Members for Hexham or for North Northumberland (David Smith) in the summer, I am normally in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), so they are all places for which I have a lot of love.

I will recap the story a little. Last year, we announced an extra £500 million of funding for local government for adult and children’s social care, particularly to reduce the pressure on other areas of children’s services, such as home-to-school transport. It was part of our wider strategy for children’s social care reform and allocated to things such as expanding family help, targeted early intervention and all those things. It was part of a wider settlement for local government last year, which was another above-inflation settlement. Local government absolutely was squeezed in the coalition years, when we were clearing up the large deficit after the financial crisis, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out, but funding per person in 2024-25 is set to be 10% higher in real terms per person than in 2019-20, with bigger increases for the most deprived councils. It is worth recognising that what happened over the last Parliament is not the same as what happened in the period 2010-2015, when there were real-terms increases per person for local government.

I mention that because the local government financial settlement for next year is now looming; I guess that we should expect it some time in the next month. Perhaps the Minister will tell us when it is coming. I have a couple of specific questions that I hope she will be able to answer, as they are relevant to this debate. What will the total cost to local government be of the national insurance increase announced in the Budget? What will the cost of the national insurance increase be specifically to home school transport? Will local authorities be compensated for those costs?

We know that one of the recurring issues with the national insurance increase is who will be compensated. Public services that are not part of the public sector are not included in the protection. For example, GPs are up in arms about the enormous bills that they all face, and there are similar issues for nurseries, which are extremely concerned. The university sector has already learned that the entirety of the increase paid for by the breaking of the tuition fees promise will pay for the breaking of the promise on national insurance, so one broken promise will pay for another. All the gains that it thought it was going to get from the tuition fees increase are being entirely wiped out and eaten up by the cost of the national insurance increase, so real-terms funding for universities will go down. Those issues very much apply to home-to-school transport, a public service provided by people outside the public sector. Will the Minister tell us whether they will be fully compensated for that? I hope she will be able to give us that assurance.

We have touched on some of the wider issues in which this issue is situated. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale has mentioned this, but I was really sad to see the end of the “get around for £2” scheme, which we introduced and extended to the end of 2024. I know from my own community that it has particularly benefited people in rural areas, so I am sad to see that it has gone and there is effectively a 50% increase in the cost of a lot of journeys on buses. That is a real shame, because I felt we were making progress on buses. I was involved in the Bus Services Act 2017, which gave mayoral combined authorities the power to introduce into other areas of the country the kind of franchising that London has enjoyed for a long time.

It was sad to see the scrapping of the dualling of the A1 through Northumberland. Land and houses had been bought up to allow for the work, which makes it even worse. I was astonished to see that in the Budget, although there was lots of capital for other things, including the different things that the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband) wants to do on net zero, there was an overall reduction in capital transport spending. I was really surprised by that. I do not really understand what the logic was.

[David Smith]

I have a simple question: would the hon. Gentleman agree that the last Government had 14 years to dual the A1 and did not manage to do so?

[Neil O'Brien]

We had finally got there. We had bought the land and the houses, and the thing was about to happen. Somehow, the new Government snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, which is desperately sad. We will have to agree to disagree on that.

We have talked a bit about SEND funding in the round. The high needs block spending grew 70% between 2018-19 and 2024-25, so we put a lot more money into it. Hon. Members might say that is still not enough, and I would totally understand where they are coming from, but the demand is exploding upwards. I know that the Minister will be thinking equally about the causes of that and what she can do about it—not just meeting the need, but trying to understand the root causes and reduce the need for these services. There was a very large increase in that high needs block SEND spending.

A couple of hon. Members mentioned that one of the ways to solve the issue is not to look at the transport but to look at the schools. This is a long-term obsession of mine. I had a Westminster Hall debate not so long ago about this very issue. Since 1980, the number of small schools with fewer than 200 pupils had roughly halved, from 11,464 to 5,406, by 2018. That is a long-term trend. Since 2000, rural schools—those in villages and hamlets—have been twice as likely to shut. When they have shut, the typical walk time to the nearest school has been about 52 minutes. That long-term trend, which has occurred under Governments of all three of the main parties, has posed all sorts of challenges for rural areas.

To try to arrest that trend, we brought in the lump sum within the national funding formula, which is about 60% of the total funding. It is a hugely important part of the funding and I look forward to hon. Members championing it. We must think about how we keep village and rural schools, which are such an important part of rural communities, going. That is not just because they make life simpler and the whole transport issue simpler, but because they are at the heart of rural communities. The hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale talked about a 36% increase in taxis. We need to think about how we can attack the underlying causes of the need. I am sure that the Minister will be thinking about this.

I will end where I started by congratulating, in an honest way, the hon. Member for Hexham on securing this debate. It is hugely important. He made a super-important point about siblings being treated differently, which seems like absolute craziness. I am sure that we all agree that we ought to tackle that, but there are opportunities to address these issues, particularly through the local government funding formula. Government Ministers will stand up in a few weeks’ time and give us the numbers for how much local government is getting, but those in local government will want to know what is happening to their costs and for which of the services they provide, such as home-to-school transport, they will get compensation on the national insurance increase, because otherwise they will not know whether they are really ahead or behind.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I am grateful for the Minister’s answer. I am keen to understand whether local authorities will be compensated, not just for the direct costs to their own staff of the increased national insurance payments, but for the costs of services that they buy in, such as home-to-school transport. Will that also be fully compensated?

[Catherine McKinnell]

All those details are being worked through and will be announced in due course. I appreciate the hon. Member’s keenness to have advance sight of the statement—it is coming, and it will set out all of the detail.

In addition, local government in England is expected to receive about £1.1 billion of new funding in 2025-26 through the implementation of the extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme. Hon. Members might wonder what that has to do with transport, but it will shift the burden for managing household packaging waste from local authorities to the producers who supply and import the packaging. That will create additional revenue for local authorities to channel towards vital services such as public transport.

The Government are committed to reforming public services and the local government funding system, while providing as much certainty as possible. It is important that we deliver that reform in partnership with local government, and my ministerial colleagues will be setting out more detail shortly.

The Department routinely collects data on local authorities’ expenditure on home-to-school travel, and we understand the increasing financial pressures that they face. However, as things stand, the Government have not collected data on the actual travel being arranged, even fundamental information such as the number of pupils receiving free home-to-school travel, the transporting of siblings—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham highlighted—and information on catchment areas. I am determined, given the concerns that he and other hon. Members have raised, that we improve our data on the subject so that local authorities can benchmark themselves against similar authorities and learn from one another, and so that central and local government have the robust evidence to inform decision making on those issues. We will be writing to local authorities in the coming days, setting out our plans to ask them to provide data on travel that they arrange for children and young people to get to school and post-16 providers. It will be voluntary at first, but I hope local authorities will see the benefit of the data collection and share the requested data that they hold.

Another big issue that we know we must tackle is school absence. If children are not in school, they cannot benefit from their education. Thanks to the efforts of the sector, more children are in school in 2023-24 compared with the previous year, but 1.6 million children are still persistently absent, and that is a major challenge. We know that some children, particularly those with additional needs, face additional barriers to attendance, so we have to work to tackle those issues. We know that schools need to take a support-first approach and ensure that they have an attendance champion and policy and that they work with local authorities. Clearly, transport to school is a big part of that jigsaw.

Public transport clearly has an important role to play. Good local bus services are an essential part of thriving communities, providing access to education and other services. Outside of London, buses were deregulated in 1985. They now largely run on a commercial basis, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland pointed out some of the challenges that that can present. The Government have pledged to fix that, and the Bus Services Bill announced in the King’s Speech will put the power of local buses into the hands of local leaders. I know the North East Mayor Kim McGuinness is working to improve bus routes and has committed to repairing our broken bus system in the north-east.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham again for bringing the matter forward and all those who have made contributions to the debate. It is an issue that many people rightly feel passionately about. I acknowledge the challenges that far too many families face when seeking to get the right support for their children. By fixing our broken SEND system, by transforming our education system so that more children can access an inclusive, high-quality education locally and by fixing our broken transport system, we can truly make this change.

Oral Answers to Questions

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

On pay, what is the cost to schools and colleges of the national insurance increase? How much will be provided to them in compensation? Will the Secretary of State confirm clearly that they will be fully compensated for the increased prices that suppliers and indirectly employed members of staff, such as caterers and IT and premises staff, will charge as a result? Will those indirect costs be covered—yes or no?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place. Schools and colleges will be compensated at a national level. I would, however, point out to him that when I became Secretary of State in July, I was presented with the teachers’ pay review body award of 5.5% that the last Government received, put in a drawer and then ran away from and called an election. We have backed our teachers, who are crucial to the life chances of our children. That is why I was delighted that we were able to honour that award and recognise the vital contribution our teachers make. That is how we will recruit 6,500 new expert teachers. If the Opposition refuse to back our commitments on VAT, they should set out how many teachers they intend to cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Neil O’Brien.

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

The sun always shines on Chorley, Mr Speaker. One thing that helps young people to gain skills is involvement in the cadets, but the Department recently confirmed a decision to cancel support payments to combined cadet forces in state schools. That payment was something that people involved in the cadets and teachers really valued. What assessment was made beforehand of the impact that this cut would have? Will the Secretary of State reconsider it?

[Janet Daby]

We respect all our young people who are in the cadets or any other armed forces areas. The hon. Gentleman raises this point, but after 14 years of the previous Government’s failure and the £22 billion black hole, there are difficult choices to be made. We are absolutely committed to children and young people and to doing the best we can do by them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am sorry to disappoint the right hon. Lady, but we will be talking about the Conservatives’ 14 years of failure for a very long time indeed.

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

rose—

[Bridget Phillipson]

Children across our country were failed by her party time and again, including the children with SEND we have heard about this afternoon—

Education

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Wednesday 27th January 2021 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the oral statement on the Skills for Jobs White Paper on Thursday 21 January 2021.

[Neil O'Brien]

Level 4 apprentices go on to earn more than the average undergraduate. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, 30% of undergraduate degrees lead to negative returns overall. Does my right hon. Friend agree that rebalancing the system towards our neglected technical education sector is the right thing for young people and the right thing for the country?