Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(1 day, 11 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), and our amendments—new clause 4 and amendment 6—are suggested in the same spirit. There were good reasons why standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers, but now the Government are bringing it into the Department. Alongside other changes, such as shortening apprenticeships and axing higher apprenticeships, that risks damaging the status of these qualifications, which we have been working to build up.
The Budget was bad for employment, and it will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprentices. Rather than addressing the problems that they are creating, the Government are reorganising. It is the umpteenth reorganisation in recent decades. The Government’s own recent impact assessment says that the reorganisation will lead to a delay and drop in apprenticeships, hence our amendments.
For decades, politicians have said that they want to make apprenticeships more prestigious. On average, twice as many people started apprenticeships each year under the last Government as under the previous Labour Government, but higher apprenticeships grew fastest of all. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went from just 3,000 in 2010 to 273,000 last year—a huge increase. We increased the quality of apprenticeships, too, which was much needed, as has already been alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).
In 2015, a devastating Ofsted report found that some apprentices who had been on an apprenticeship for more than a year were not even aware that they were on an apprenticeship, and the skills they were learning were things like making a cup of coffee, which are not life-changing skills. Things were being funded that did not benefit young people, but did allow employers to pay a lower wage. Whereas we lengthened apprenticeships, this Government have cut the length of apprenticeships to eight months. By abolishing IfATE and bringing it in house at the DFE, they are eroding that employer ownership that we worked to build up. Whereas we grew higher apprenticeships, they are about to abolish most level 7 apprenticeships. That is a taste of what is to come if our amendments are not accepted. The Government are doing this because in opposition they promised that employers could take 50% of their levy funds and spend them on other things.
On 20 November, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who will respond to this debate said that this commitment was “currently being reviewed”. But just weeks later, on 9 December, the Secretary of State said the Government were still fully committed to “50% flexibility for employers”. When I asked the Minister in Committee whether that was still the policy, she said that she would have to get back to me. As the Skills Minister said in the Financial Times, far from the 50% being a promise—as employers were led to believe—it will, in fact, all depend on the outcome of the spending review.
Businesses are starting to raise the alarm. The British Chambers of Commerce has said that a “lack of clarity” about the levy is creating “fresh uncertainty among businesses” and is “worrying and destabilising”. Employers say that this is leading to firms pausing hiring of apprentices.
Since the levy was introduced in 2017, real-terms spending on apprenticeships and work-based training have increased by about a quarter from £2 billion to £2.5 billion. Moving 50% of all that money out of apprenticeships would obviously lead to a substantial drop in the number of apprenticeships. In a written answer to me, Ministers have confirmed that the Department has an internal forecast for the number of apprenticeship starts, but they have also said that they will not publish it—I think we all know why that is.
The previous Government moved to make it more attractive for small and medium-sized enterprises to take on younger people. Since April, 16 to 21-year-olds have had 100% funding, rather than requiring the 5% employer contribution. We need to build on that and cut bureaucracy for smaller businesses, but the Government’s answer is different: they plan to abolish the highest-level apprenticeships and redistribute the money. I thought the brilliant speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on his amendment 2 was so right. I will not be as articulate as him, but I will try to add to the points he made, and I hope the Minister will listen to her wise colleague. Employers and educators can see that this is a trial run of what it will be like as Ministers take more control with this Bill, and they are warning that it is a big mistake.
Dan Lally at Sheffield Hallam University says that level 7 cuts will
“disproportionately impact on public services…We are meeting vital skill gaps in disciplines such as advanced clinical practitioner…These are NHS workers, civil servants and local authority employees. A high number of our level 7 apprentices…come from the areas of highest deprivation.”
For example, level 7 apprenticeships are absolutely central to the NHS’s long-term workforce plan. Last year, we saw the Government’s disappointing decision to cancel the level 7 doctor apprenticeships. That means there will be a shortfall of about 2,000 medical places a year. Students who had already started on the medical doctor apprenticeship have sadly been left in limbo, and I am concerned the Government will do something similar to nurses as part of the level 7 cuts. The NHS’s workforce plan proposed an extra 50,000 nurses coming through the apprentice route. Around a quarter of them tend to be on an “Agenda for Change” band 7, which typically requires a master’s equivalent, so we would expect about 11,000 of those nurses to be coming via level 7 apprenticeships. If the Government get rid of them, that is a huge hole in the NHS plan.
As well as the NHS, local government makes huge use of level 7 apprenticeships, including the extra town planners that the Government say are needed to deliver on housing targets. Deborah Johnston at London South Bank University says:
“Over half of the employers we work with…on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of…reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful.”
The professions are also worried. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that axing level 7 apprenticeships will lead to work leaving the UK. It says:
“removing Level 7 apprenticeship funding will mean that fewer UK training roles are created. Instead, organisations are likely to turn to offshoring to replace UK training roles”.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central rightly said that it would lead to people being outside Stoke-on-Trent, but in some cases it would lead to them being outside this country altogether. That is why the Campaign for Learning has called for a skills immigration worker test before defunding level 7 apprenticeships, so that we do not simply go from investing in British workers to importing workers from other countries.
Likewise, the Chartered Management Institute has said:
“cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships would risk creating gaps in leadership…at a time when business and the public sector need them most.”
I have been contacted by several firms worried about the abolition of the solicitor apprenticeship—a way into the law for people from less privileged backgrounds. Attwells Solicitors, for example, says:
“Reducing funding to level 7 apprentices runs the risk of removing opportunities into professions”
and that
“Apprenticeships help break down barriers into not only Law but all career paths which could be inaccessible to young people without them.”
As well as hitting employers, on the other side of the ledger—this is why our amendment is important—axing level 7 will be destabilising for university providers. It will particularly hurt those institutions that have tried to do the right thing for those who traditionally do not go to university. Sixty-six universities deliver level 7 apprenticeships, and a prestigious institution such as Cranfield University, which is a postgraduate-only institution with deep industry links, will be hugely exposed if the Government wield the axe in the way they plan. York St John University has something like 100 level 7 apprentices. Other institutions such as the Open University, Manchester Met and the University of West London are all exposed, too.
Culling level 7 is a big mistake. These apprenticeships are vital across the public sector and are a way into the professions for people who might otherwise struggle to enter them. Above all, they are the capstone of a drive to make the apprenticeship system more prestigious. British Airways carried on running the Concorde even though it was a small part of its business because of what it called the halo effect. It knew that it changed the way the organisation was seen. By creating the top of that pyramid—the very top of the ladder; people can go all the way—level 7 apprenticeships create a halo effect around apprenticeships, and that is a vital part of why we should not get rid of them. Worse still, it was crystal clear from the Minister’s replies in the Bill Committee that the Government are keeping open the option to move on and take an axe to level 6 apprenticeships too, which would make that mistake even bigger and will not, in fact, drive money towards L2 and L3.
The other day we learned that the DFE is to cut the adult skills budget by 6%—something for which Ministers criticised the previous Government but are now doing themselves. Ironically, that came out at the same time as, and was overshadowed by, the welfare reform Green Paper, which mentioned training 18 times. In Committee, the Minister refused to confirm whether the Government would continue to provide the extra 10% funding to get T-levels going, even though providers are crying out for clarity on that. It is no wonder that many employers would like the certainty that comes with a degree of independence from politics.
Wise people on the Labour Benches want that, too. Lord Blunkett said in the other place:
“When two years ago I led on the learning and skills document that was a precursor to Skills England…we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards.”
He noted:
“A Skills England that has no legislative backing and no parliamentary references but is down merely to the changing face of ministerial and departmental appointments is in danger of losing its birthright before it has got off the ground.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]
Even those on the Labour side who were involved in dreaming up Skills England have argued for its independence. Likewise, various employer bodies, including the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Skills Federation and the Construction Industry Training Board, have argued that it should be more independent.
As Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out, the problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels as if the second half is missing, and that second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body. The original draft of the Bill did not even mention Skills England. As Baroness Blower, another Labour peer, has pointed out, the appropriate move from where we are now would be to make it a statutory body. That is why our amendment would make the Bill do what the Government are pretending it does by actually setting up Skills England, which was clearly the intent of many on the Labour Benches.
Given all the problems that the Government are creating, the very act of a further reorganisation is likely to compound the effects of the Budget. The impact assessment states:
“The transfer of functions from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the Bill… This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways”.
So there you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. Employers and educators are criticising the uncertainty that the Government are creating; Labour peers are arguing that Skills England should be made independent, but the Government are ignoring those on their own side with experience; and employers are warning against axing valuable qualifications, but the Skills Minister is determined to end them. Yet another reorganisation, yet more centralisation, no clear vision—it is another big mess.
Neil O'Brien
I have already read out quotes from employers and those in education and the public service warning about the problems building up in the skills system because of the decisions the Government are making. This evening the Government have decided not to listen to some of the wise people on their own side, including a former education Minister, but I hope that they will listen to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), because they are on the edge of making a huge mistake by butchering higher apprenticeships —a huge mistake that they will live to regret. They are not listening to their own Members this evening, but I hope that they will in the future.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Neil O'Brien ExcerptsThursday 20th March 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 March 2025 - (20 Mar 2025)
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 3—Framework for Skills England—
“The Secretary of State must—
(a) ensure that in performing its functions, Skills England has regard to—
(i) the need to ensure that education and training is of an appropriate quality;
(ii) the need to ensure that education and training within the remit of Skills England represents good value in relation to financial resources provided out of public funds;
(b) ensure that Skills England performs its functions efficiently and effectively;
(c) give notice in writing to Skills England when setting out other matters to which it must have regard when performing its functions;
(d) publish, in such a manner as they think fit, any notice under paragraph (c), and lay a copy of it before both Houses of Parliament;
(e) require Skills England to prepare, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, an annual report which includes—
(i) a description of what Skills England has done during the year, including a description of what Skills England has done as a result of any notice given by the Secretary of State under paragraph (c);
(ii) such other provision as the Secretary of State may direct;
(f) lay a copy of the annual report under paragraph (e) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Neil O’Brien
Clearly, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has had precisely the same thought that we have, and indeed as many other educators, peers and businesses have had, namely that we should make the Bill actually do what the Government try to pretend that it does: set up Skills England.
As I said in the last sitting, the Bill, as introduced, did not even mention Skills England, the reason for which is that it is part of the Department for Education—in fact, its chief executive officer is a pair of DFE civil servants. Ministers have made their case for this in-sourcing, as they think it will make things faster, and we have made our case for using independents, but so have lots of others. For example, as the Labour peer Baroness Blower pointed out,
“the appropriate move from where we are would be to a statutory body”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC90.]
That is the effect of new clause 2; the powers that would be transferred to the Secretary of State would instead be vested in Skills England. The Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out:
“The problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels like the second half is missing. The second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC87.]
That is effectively what new clause 3 would do.
In the previous sitting, I quoted from various industry bodies that are making the case for independence, including the Institute of the Motor Industry and the Construction Industry Training Board. Since then, further evidence has been submitted to the Committee by those on the education side. The University of Winchester, in its submission to the Committee, highlights “four core concerns”, one of which is about independence. It says:
“The transfer of power from IfATE to the Secretary of State for Education raises questions about the independence of the proposed Skills England regulatory body. We believe that the integration within the Department for Education (DfE) is a significant risk, with the current regulatory body being completely independent of external leverage. The current IfATE structure includes a regulatory board which is independent from the DfE, ensuring that outside influence is minimised within the decision-making process. We are, therefore, recommending that Skills England is structured to ensure and protect their regulatory independence from Government and other agencies”.
That is the spirit of our new clauses.
The University of Winchester also worries that in IfATE, at present,
“employers and academics come together to ensure that the standard is industry relevant, current, and academically rigorous. Within the current proposed bill, we believe this breadth will be at risk given the transfer of power from IfATE to an individual in the Secretary of State for Education. This transfer has the potential to lead to situations where ministers can create and/or change standards and assessment plans without consultation with the relevant stakeholders, resulting in apprenticeships which are not fit for purpose or academically appropriate.”
It also notes:
“Currently, IfATE as a regulatory body highlights the importance of technical education, through both its name and its work. The proposed legislation will effectively remove the prominence of this important aspect of industry, undermining its activities and relegating it to the background.”
The university is completely right. Setting up an institute was a core part of the drive to create greater prestige and esteem for technical education, and our new clauses aim to restore that degree of independence from the Secretary of State.
New clause 3(c) and (e)(i) also try to highlight, via an annual report, how the Secretary of State is steering Skills England, and how the body is responding to that. I mentioned earlier the Skills Federation’s submission to the Committee, which brings together 18 employer-led skills bodies and 150,000 employers. Its submission notes:
“The clauses in the bill which transfer powers from IFATE to the Secretary of State risk shifting the development of standards further away from employer demand…Too much centralisation leads to a lack of focus on sector needs.”
Surely that is right, which is why we propose a degree of decentralisation with these new clauses.
In a previous sitting, the Minister made the argument that the Secretary of State might need to write standards directly without external input from a group of people in fast-moving and technology sectors. We argued, in contrast, that those are precisely the kind of exciting sectors where industry input, rather than just ministerial enthusiasm, is most needed. That same argument was made to the Committee by the International Information System Security Certification Consortium—the international professional body for cybersecurity—which wrote:
“While ISC2 understands that Government is seeking to introduce flexibility and agility in the way apprenticeship standards are developed, we contend that without industry involvement in the development of standards, there is a risk that apprenticeships may not adequately reflect the evolving needs of certain sectors. This is especially true for cybersecurity where a changing threat landscape and dramatic shifts brought about by emerging technologies means that apprenticeship standards must stay relevant. It is essential that the voice of professionals and industry, as well as those directly involved in delivering educational provision, be heard whenever the Secretary of State exercises these new powers. Any decision to intervene and directly develop or approve apprenticeship standards or assessment plans should take into account the perspectives of those with hands-on expertise in the sector.”
That is surely right.
We have already voted on a very similar new clause to this—new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire—so we will not press this to a vote. But I want to log the concerns that are being raised by professionals and those in industry about the lack of independence, and I do hope—even though I suspect that the Government will not change their mind about bringing this into the Department—that they can at least find ways in its operating procedures and the way it evolves to try to create that sense of independence, and reassure all those who are worried about the idea of the Secretary of State taking the powers in this Bill to go it alone and write things without the input of those who are actually working in the sector.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. He is right; of course, we have just voted on something quite similar, and that vote was lost by the classic 11 to four margin, with which we have become familiar. But that does not mean the Government cannot do this, and indeed there have been some signs and indications that they might make Skills England a fully independent body on a statutory footing. Most people talk about Skills England in their speeches, but that is not what the Bill, as introduced, does; it abolishes something without actually creating something else, and hands the powers to the Secretary of State, in whose gift it is to hand on.
There was also the question that came up last Thursday about Ofqual, and what the Bill does to that, which I do not think we were 100% clear about. I think the Minister was going to write, but I do not think I have seen that letter—that is not to say it has not come, or been sent, but I am wondering if when the Minister comes to speak, if she could confirm whether that letter has come.
There have always been two fundamental questions about the Bill and the creation of Skills England: the first is about independence, and the second is about who should set the expectations and standards for various occupations—should it be the employers in those organisations or somebody else? There is also a third point, which is relevant to independence, about the heft of this body, putting skills right at the heart of cross-departmental work, and what statutory independence would do to the status of this body.
Particularly in education and training, one of the reasons that we have independent bodies is so that everybody knows that the standards are robust, they cannot be subject to political pressure, and there cannot be a temptation to make it a bit easier to get over a hurdle to make the numbers look better. We have had that system of independence for a very long time, and do to this day, and still will in the future for academic qualifications. As I said the other day, I think independence of this body is important to underpinning parity of esteem. IfATE is legally established as a non-departmental public body, whereas Skills England will be, as things stand, an executive agency. As a non-departmental public body, IfATE does therefore have some independence from the Department for Education because its functions and responsibilities are set out in legislation approved by this Parliament, whereas Skills England, as things stand, will simply be an integral part or unit within DFE.
When Skills England was first talked about in the King’s Speech, it seemed that it would be established as an independent body. As well as my question on Ofqual, the first of my other questions to the Minister is, what has changed? If that was the intent—perhaps we have all just misread the text—what is different now, that it should not be? Finally, if it is right for the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council to be put on a statutory footing, why is it not for Skills England?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
New clause 2 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to establish Skills England as a statutory body with a separate legal identity. It would transfer the functions the Secretary of State takes on under the Bill to a new body within 12 months.
The new clause would undo significant progress already made by the Government to establish Skills England. It has been operating in shadow form since July of last year. It is ready to take on the functions conferred by the Bill. I reassure Members that we considered different options for the model of arm’s length body for Skills England. It being an executive agency allows us to move fast, much faster than the previous Government did for 14 years. Skills England can take immediate action to plug the skills gaps that this Government have inherited, and we are focused on economic growth. An executive agency balances the independent Skills England’s need to deliver its functions at arm’s length from the Department with being close enough to inform decisions on skills, policy and delivery. That is good practice for all new arm’s length bodies.
The Department for Education will undertake a review of Skills England. The review will take place about 18 to 24 months after it is fully established, and that will align with the requirements of any future Cabinet Office review programme. It will consider how far Skills England is delivering its functions in the way intended; whether its mix of functions is still aligned to Government priorities; and whether there are alternative ways to deliver the Government’s objectives, including a different model of arm’s length body.
Delay, however, is not an option. We need to respond urgently to critical issues in the skills system to drive growth and spread opportunity. To encourage this Committee, in the first set of apprenticeship statistics under the new Labour Government, we saw an increase in starts, participation and achievements compared with the same period under the Tories in 2023. We remain an ambitious Labour Government. We do not dither or delay, and we urgently need reform to deliver the skills and technical education that is needed. That is what the Bill and Skills England will enable us to do.
New clause 3 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report setting out Skills England’s activities in the preceding year. It would also require Skills England to have regard to matters such as the quality of training and education, and value for money when performing its duties.
Well-established requirements are already placed on executive agencies for a high level of transparency and accountability in how they operate. That includes the publication of a framework document which, as I have mentioned, is a core constitutional document. It will be agreed between the Department for Education and Skills England in accordance with HM Treasury’s handbook “Managing public money”. Once finalised, it will be published online and a copy deposited in both Houses.
The Secretary of State, and Skills England acting on their behalf, is already obliged under general public law to take into account all relevant matters when exercising their functions. Those relevant matters are likely to include the ones in new clause 3. While the Bill was scrutinised in the other place, as I have said, my right hon. Friend the Baroness Smith of Malvern, shared a draft copy of the Skills England framework document with peers. She committed to include references to the need for Skills England to deliver its functions efficiently and effectively, and to ensure that training is high quality and provides good value for money.
In response to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire on Ofqual, the letter concerning Ofqual has been sent to the Chair of the Committee, and also addresses other issues raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston last Thursday.
I am happy to repeat the commitments that I have already mentioned, but finally, I would like to say there is precedent for non-departmental public bodies being closed and their functions being reassigned to newly formed executive bodies. For example, under the previous Government in 2011, the Standards and Testing Agency was established as an executive agency taking on functions from the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, a non-departmental public body, which was later closed.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Report on the impact on T levels
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on T-Levels.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the involvement of Skills England in the administration of T Levels, including the curriculum and assessment methods;
(b) an assessment of the independence of the accreditation of T-Levels, specifically whether there has been any involvement of the Secretary of State in this process; and
(c) an assessment of the extent to which T-Levels are meeting local demand for skills.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Neil O’Brien.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Report on the impact on Higher Education—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on the higher education sector in England.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Neil O’Brien
New clause 4 would require a report on the impact of the Bill on T-levels. We talked before about the measure in clause 8 to bring Ofqual into the regulation of technical qualifications, and the implication that that is focused on T-levels. I was going to say this anyway, but let me pause for a moment on that point about clause 8 and Ofqual—I have not seen from the Clerks to this Committee the letter that the Minister just referred to. I do not know whether you are about to guide us, Ms Furniss, about whether that letter has been made available to Committee members, but I may simply have missed it.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister said that the letter has been sent to the Chair, but the Chair says that she has not seen it.
Janet Daby
The letter addressing the issues that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire have raised has been sent to Sir Christopher, your co-Chair, Ms Furniss, and I am sure it will be shared in due course.
Neil O’Brien
It is a shame, as this is the last day of this Bill Committee. I do not know whether the letter could be produced before we finish today, but otherwise, those questions will effectively go unanswered because they have not made their way to Committee members. But this was a minor point about the interaction with clause 8 and the decision to bring Ofqual in potentially for T-levels, so I will turn squarely to T-levels now.
I was encouraged by the positive words about T-levels in the curriculum review, but it is very difficult to get a new qualification going, never mind a whole new system, which is what T-levels were intended to be in their initiation by Lord Sainsbury. After the big long debate on BTecs, Ministers in the end decided to add T-levels into the existing alphabet soup of qualifications rather than use them to replace and rationalise that system, which was the original goal of Lord Sainsbury’s project. I should declare an interest in so far as I worked on T-levels back when they were still known as Sainsbury routes. None the less it would still, despite the Ministers’ decision, be possible for them to grow and become a leading part of the system, but that would require a huge push from Ministers. It is difficult to get a new qualification going, never mind a whole new system, and it is much more likely that in the absence of a big push from Ministers that they will stagnate as an interesting, well-regarded and quality niche, but ultimately a small part of the system, which was really not what was intended.
For several years, the DFE has provided a 10% uplift to the funding rates for T-levels as a new qualification, but a couple of weeks ago the Government implied that they would stop doing that this year. They have not made a decision, and providers are now desperate for certainty on that issue. I ask the Minister directly to respond to this: will the 10% uplift be continued or not after this academic year? The sector is now making decisions about this, and urgently needs certainty. The Minister keeps saying that she wants to move fast: the providers, and I am asking her to move fast to give them the certainty on what the funding rate will be, and whether the 10% will continue, because if not, my strong sense is that many providers will conclude that it is not really a priority any more, and not worth the investment of time and resources, which are significant to get these things going. I hope the Minister can address that point, and I give her a bit of notice: will the 10% continue or not—yes or no?
The Government are notionally in a one-year “pause” on the move to replace BTecs, which should give the Government time at least to make up their mind on how they see the future of T-levels. If they want to preserve the option to be ambitious for T-levels, however, they need to keep supporting them now. Those of us who worked on their development and who still support them are not blind to the challenges. Although drop-out rates fell sharply in the last year, they are still high. Even though T-levels are meant to be a demanding qualification, we want young people to get to the end of them.
Although the huge element of work experience is a key advantage and attraction of T-levels to learners, it is expensive and hard to deliver, particularly in a way that is slick and gives clarity to students up front, rather than gives stress. I do not say this every day, but Gordon Brown was right to press the Government to be more ambitious here—
Neil O’Brien
We do not always cheer Gordon Brown on the Conservative Benches, but on that occasion he was absolutely right. Lord Sainsbury, too, is right to want to be ambitious. A huge amount of thought went into T-levels over a long period and on a cross-party basis. They have great potential to rationalise the system and to do what politicians have said for decades they want to do, which is to create a prestigious and clear alternative to the academic A-level route. At the moment, however, T-levels are still a fledgling qualification. They have great potential, but they are in need of a lot of care and attention.
My worry is that, amid all the commotion and disruption caused by the transfer of IfATE staff into the Department, that attention will be lost at the critical moment in the development of T-levels. The looming withdrawal of the 10% compounds my worries that attention will be lost at this critical moment. Our new clause therefore aims to ensure that the spotlight stays on T-levels, so that they do not get lost in all the reorganisation, that we preserve at least the option for them to become a widespread and leading qualification on the technical side, and that we achieve Lord Sainsbury’s vision of a more prestigious and higher-funded set of qualifications, more intelligible to employers, and with simpler routes and much more work experience. There is so much potential in T-levels that it would be a tragedy if they got lost in this reorganisation. That is why we are moving the new clause: to ensure that we continue to closely monitor everything going on with them.
New clause 5 concerns higher education. The Government talk about Skills England bringing everything together, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has pointed out, we can never quite do that—there are always other bodies and overlaps. In this case, for starters, we will have two continuing levy training bodies, the Construction Industry Training Board, or CITB, and the Engineering Industry Training Board, or EITB, as well as the many other bodies that my right hon. Friend mentioned—I am thinking about those involved in skills and supply, which includes the Migration Advisory Committee, as well as the workforce strategies of other Departments, such as the NHS long-term workforce plan, which spans technical education, higher education and apprenticeships.
The other big case in point, of course, is the overlap between the work of IfATE and the future Skills England, and the regulators of higher education. In our previous sitting, we talked about the welcome growth of higher apprenticeships and the Government’s imminent plans to axe them, which we are concerned about, particularly after so much work has gone into them. That is why new clause 5 would require a report on the impact of the Bill on higher education.
The Bill is about apprenticeships and technical education rather than higher education, but the two have become increasingly overlapping. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went up from a little over 3,000 in 2010 to 273,000 last year—a huge increase. For some universities, providing degree apprenticeships has become a very important part of their work.
I will not recapitulate the things I talked about in the previous sitting, but level 7 apprenticeships are a powerful tool to enable people to earn while they learn, and to allow employers the freedom to shape higher education to their needs. Employers are choosing—with their own money—to invest in level 7 skills. It would be false to assume that a reduction in funding here would lead to an increase in the lower levels. Contrary to the claims that are sometimes made, level 7 apprenticeships do not cater primarily to major corporations. Less than 10% of level 7 apprentices are in FTSE 350 companies. Level 7 apprenticeships in health and care are a hugely important part of the NHS workforce pipeline. In a previous sitting, I talked about how axing those apprenticeships would blow a hole in the NHS plan over the long term, equivalent to 11,000 senior nursing posts, but that would start right now, as there were 2,040 level 7 apprenticeships starts in health, public services and care in 2023-24.
The creation of the apprenticeship levy had two purposes: to stop employers that do the right thing and invest in their people from being exploited by employers that do not, and instead just wait to poach their staff once they are trained; and to make sure that employers drove and owned the system. Now that they do drive and own the system, we see that their revealed preference is to spend their money on higher and degree apprenticeships.
The growth has been spectacular. Between 2018-19 and 2023-24, higher and degree apprenticeship starts grew by 63%, while the growth in level 7 apprenticeship starts was even higher, at 105%. That growth was even faster in some critical sectors. Level 7 apprenticeships in health, public services and care grew 716%. Significant extensions occurred in construction, planning and environment, where they went up by more than 700%, and in digital technology, where they went up nearly 600%. Both are key skills areas for our economy and both are supposed to be key parts of the Government’s industrial strategy.
The Bill changes the balance between the voices of employers and the voices of Ministers. Degree and level 7 apprenticeships are a good example of how ministerial priorities can be very different from employer priorities. I will not repeat the criticisms from lots of employers that I read out in a previous sitting—I quoted the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Chartered Management Institute, several solicitors’ firms and those providing higher apprenticeships into local government and the NHS. In this sitting, I want to look at the other side of the ledger and consider the impact on universities, which is the purpose of new clause 5.
I have said before that we would never accept the lack of independence for the academic side that the Bill proposes for technical education. We would not have Ministers setting the curriculums, specifications and exams for GCSEs and then taking on the role of Ofqual and marking their own homework. We would not allow the same for higher education either, in general, but there is a growing overlap between IfATE, which is to be centralised into the DFE, and higher education, which has all kinds of implications.
The context for higher education is a challenging one. The Government have increased fees, but wiped out the gains from that by increasing national insurance, meaning a real-terms cut in resources for universities this year. With widespread industrial action in the sector looming, the Government have also chosen this moment to dramatically lower the threshold for strike action with the Employment Rights Bill. To now axe level 7 apprenticeships, and potentially also level 6, would be very destabilising for universities and could whack institutions that have tried to do the right thing for their community and for those who do not traditionally go to university.
Sixty-six universities now deliver level 7 apprenticeship standards, and some have got really into it. Prestigious institutions such as Cranfield, a postgrad-only institution with deep industry links, will be hugely exposed if the Government wield the axe in the way they are planning—I suspect that level 7 accounts for a very large part of Cranfield’s UK students. Likewise, York St John University has something in the order of 100 level 7 apprenticeships. Other institutions that are heavily involved include the Open University, Manchester Metropolitan and the University of West London. Given the challenging context for higher education, which is partly a result of Ministers’ own decisions, axing these apprenticeships, which have become quite a big part of their work, could be very damaging.
Given that their action on fees, national insurance and strike action has been a connoisseur-level example of un-joined-up Government, I am not reassured that Ministers have thought through the implications of axing level 7 for higher education.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
It is my understanding that the Bill, as unamended, does not preclude the continuation of level 6 and 7 degree apprenticeships. I speak as somebody who worked in the higher education sector before coming here and sees the value of them. It is my understanding that nothing in the Bill rules them out at this point.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Lady is completely correct; this is not the Bill that abolishes level 7 apprenticeships. However, according to Ministers, the Government are planning to abolish those apprenticeships, which I think is a shame. I think I detected a note of regret in the hon. Lady’s intervention, which I certainly share.
New clause 5 would require a report on the impact of the Bill and the actions of Ministers, through their centralisation of power, on higher education, given that there is now this overlap. Someone might think, “They’re looking at a Bill on technical education and apprenticeships. What’s that got to do with universities?” The truth is that it has quite a lot to do with universities, for the reasons that I have just set out. I worry that the Bill’s implications have not been well thought through.
Can the Minister assure us that she has thought this through? For example, can she tell us how much income universities would lose if the level 7 levy funding really is axed, as Ministers plan to do? How much would universities lose if level 6 levy funding is also axed, an option that Ministers are keeping open? I would love answers from the Minister on those questions today. If she does not feel able to give them, I would be very happy for her to write to me. We have tabled new clause 5 to ensure transparency, so that it is at the back of Minister’s minds that, as they take greater control of everything to do with technical education and apprenticeships, they are not just thinking about those things in their own right, although they are very important.
Damian Hinds
In encouraging the Minister to write to him about the effect of the level 6 and level 7 restrictions, will my hon. Friend also ask her to comment on the potential effect of those restrictions on schools—the sector for which the DFE is responsible—and in particular on the postgraduate teaching apprenticeship?
Neil O’Brien
My right hon. Friend is completely correct. He will remember from the last sitting that I tried to lay out the incredibly damaging direct effect on our public services that the decision to axe level 7 apprenticeships would have. The most notable effect is on the NHS, where the doctor apprenticeship has already been axed—that is tragic and has left various people who were on it stranded. It will have a particular effect on advanced nursing, which is a critical part of the NHS long-term workforce plan, as well as management throughout the public services, including local government and the town planning skills that the Government claim are desperately needed.
Exactly as my right hon. Friend said, the implications are severe right across the public services, including teaching, where the DFE is the biggest user of this apprenticeship and the biggest beneficiary in the end, which is a terrible irony. That is why we bring have tabled new clause 5, so that we at least have transparency about the effects of Ministers’ actions, and we have it in the back of Ministers’ minds that they will have to explain their decisions, including not just their direct effect on technical education and apprenticeship funding, but their effects on the wider education system.
The Chair
We have located the missing letter, which Members should all now have on their desks. I will suspend the sitting for five minutes while we try to digest it. If the shadow Minister, or anyone else, wants to come back in with something, they are free to do so.
Janet Daby
My understanding is that there needs to be the option for Ofqual to decide whether to inspect certain technical qualifications and whether they should be accredited. That option needs to be available. At present, it has not been happening since 2002. We continue to support the growth and uptake of T-levels, in line with identifying skill needs in the economy. Skills England will gather and publish information about local skill needs. Skills England will also assess how far available provision, including T-levels, is meeting those needs.
I turn to new clause 5, which would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish, within one year of Royal Assent, a report on the impact of the Act on the higher education sector in England. Higher education providers play an essential role in meeting the nation’s skill needs and supporting the growth mission. Many of the jobs and sectors that drive economic growth rely on the skills delivered by higher education providers. It is therefore vital that Skills England works closely with and supports the higher education sector as it delivers each of its three key functions. Higher education providers have a deep understanding of local skill needs and growth opportunities. That provides a rich resource for Skills England to draw on, and it builds its authoritative assessment of skills needs in the economy.
Neil O’Brien
I am hugely encouraged by the Minister’s recognition of the importance of these higher degree-level apprenticeships to the higher education sector. Will she undertake to write to me setting out what the impact on universities of ending level 7 apprenticeships would be? I mean primarily the financial impact, but also the impact on numbers of students. The information available in the public domain is somewhat patchy, so it would be incredibly helpful to have that at either the point the Government make a decision on level 7 apprenticeships or—even better—before. Will she write to me, so that we are at least on the same page about what the impact on universities of changes to level 7 would be?
Janet Daby
I think the shadow Minister is well aware, having asked similar questions many times, that more information will be coming out from the Government.
Staying on level 7 apprenticeships, we are reforming apprenticeships, tilting the system towards young people in most need of developing skills and getting a foot on the career ladder. We are cutting through the red tape by removing the 12-month requirement, to support shorter-duration apprenticeships in key sectors. That flexibility will support apprentices in areas such as the creative industries, where training does not need to take 12 months and is currently putting barriers in the way of getting apprentices into key jobs. The Prime Minister also announced the development of new foundation apprenticeships, which will align to entry-level roles in key sectors and help to bridge the gap between employees, skills, staffing shortages and young people ready to begin their careers.
Neil O’Brien
I was a bit disappointed that the Minister would not undertake to write or set out the financial impact on universities of ending level 7 apprenticeships. When I speak to people in higher education, they are extremely worried about that. For some institutions, it will be a damaging blow.
Numerous people, including those I have already quoted, have pointed out that although the Government hope that all this money will flow straight from level 7 to level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, that is very unlikely to happen; it is more likely that it will flow to level 6. It is clear from the Minister’s comments that they are keeping that in crosshairs too, and that they might axe it at some point. That would compound the damage in higher education and our skills system more broadly. I was disappointed that the Government do not want to set out that detail, but I am not surprised.
I was also disappointed that the Minister could not give us any clarity on the 10% uplift for T-levels. People in the sector who are delivering these great qualifications—the Government agree that they are great qualifications—are crying out for clarity. They are making decisions right now. The Government keep talking about how they want to move fast—“We are very dynamic and ambitious”—yet on the things on which the sector wants them to move fast, they are not moving at the pace that people on the frontline would like. That is a great shame.
Likewise, we see with the funding decisions on national insurance that technical education is once again being treated as a bit second class. Schools get a funding decision at least slightly before the start of the financial year—during which the national insurance increase will hit them—whereas those in technical education will have to wait a long way into the academic year, when they will already be paying out significant sums in increased national insurance, to find out whether there will be compensation and how much will be covered. As schools are discovering, that is often a bitter experience, because they find that they have been short-changed by the Treasury.
We will not press the new clause to a vote. We have had a good debate in Committee, and we have set out our concerns, which are pretty serious. I hope that, even if the Government do not change their mind today, we will at least have given Ministers cause to think about how Skills England will operate. If they do not listen to us, I hope that they will at least listen to some of the criticisms, which we have been reading out, from stakeholders in industry and education about the decisions that they are about to make. I hope that they will act on those concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Neil O'Brien ExcerptsThursday 20th March 2025
(1 week, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 March 2025 - (20 Mar 2025)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Government amendment 1 lets the Secretary of State make regulations that determine the date, or dates, when clauses 1 to 8 and schedules 1 to 3 come into force. The other provisions of the Bill in clauses 9 to 14 come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed.
This amendment seeks to overturn the amendment passed in the other place that places a 12-month delay between the creation of Skills England and commencement of key parts of the Bill, including the clauses that transfer functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to be exercised by Skills England. It was hugely disappointing that, despite broad support for the urgent need for reform, peers in the other place voted for that delay. Reform is exactly what the Bill and Skills England will deliver. After 14 long years of complacency and neglect, this Government are driving high standards, and we have a plan for change. A delay will benefit no one.
Skills England is already operating in shadow form and, once the Bill is passed, it stands ready to become a fully operational arm’s length body. The leadership is already in place, with the chair, the vice-chair, the chief executive officer, the deputy CEO and a full team of senior civil servants already working as one. The work is well under way; Skills England reported on skill gaps in September last year. It is connecting decision making across regional and national Government, as well as working closely with training providers, trade unions and employers. It is collaborating with businesses to develop sector plans for the forthcoming industrial strategy.
Skills England is working with closely with the Migration Advisory Committee to access skills needs to identify shortages in occupations. That will help to identify and grow our domestic skills pipeline over time, which will reduce our reliance on overseas workers. We need to build our own skilled workforce, and Skills England is moving ahead. The Bill gives it some of its key tools, but there is no case for delay, and I commend Government amendment 1 to the Committee.
Government amendment 2 would remove clause 14(2) of the Bill. It is normal procedure for Bills originating in the House of Lords to require the insertion of a standard privilege amendment such as subsection (2). This formally recognises the privilege of this House to control charges on people and public funds. Therefore, in accordance with normal procedure, we now remove the privilege amendment so that any such charge is imposed by this House, rather than the House of Lords. I commend Government amendment 2 to the Committee.
Clause 11 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions contained within the Bill. This is a standard clause for all legislation. Clauses 1 to 7, clause 9 and schedule 2 extend to England and Wales. Clause 8 extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Clauses 10 to 14 and schedules 1 and 3 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I have already touched upon clause 12 as part of Government amendment 1, which states when the provisions of the Bill will come into effect. Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill, as amended by Government amendment 1. Furthermore, as is standard practice, clause 14 gives the Bill a short title by which it may be known once it becomes an Act. The short title given is the
“Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025.”
I commend clauses 11, 12 and 14 to the Committee.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Clause 11 talks about the geographical extent of the Bill, which it says is England and Wales. This is a very small point, but it is worth noting that the Bill and decisions under it will actually affect other parts of the UK as well, not least because they affect degree apprenticeships and higher education. For example, the University of Strathclyde is a leading provider of graduate apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships across Scotland and England; I will return to that overlap later on.
On a more substantive note, Government amendment 1 seeks to overturn the one-year pause inserted in the House of Lords. Why did peers insert that? Why was there so much debate, and such wariness about this Bill? First, because there were good reasons that standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. We heard from all parts of the House of Lords that this Bill is a centralisation and, alongside other changes the Government are making, it will risk directly damaging the status of these qualifications.
Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprenticeships, starting with the Budget. Rather than fixing those problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years. It is abolishing IfATE, which was created only seven years ago—yet more reorganisation, rather than a focus on the real issues.
Thirdly, peers had—and we have—real concerns that the reorganisation of the machinery of Government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues we face. Those concerns are borne out by the Government’s impact assessment, which states that there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while IfATE’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State. It says:
“The transfer of function from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the Bill…This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways for career advancement.”
Fourthly, peers inserted the delay because of concerns about what will happen as DFE tries to absorb all the staff of IfATE. Lord Blunkett, who was one of the most interesting speakers in the Lords, said:
“My fear…is that given the number of people currently transferable from IfATE, full- and part-time, which nudges 200…there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.
When two years ago I led on the learning and skills document that was a precursor to Skills England…we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards.”
He continued:
“A Skills England that has no legislative backing and no parliamentary references but is down merely to the changing face of ministerial and departmental appointments is in danger of losing its birthright before it has got off the ground.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]
That argument is somewhat different from the others. His argument, as somebody sympathetic to the creation of a body like Skills England, albeit outside the Department, is that it needs time to establish its own culture and balance, and to grow and develop some roots, before the IfATE elephant steps into the Skills England rowing boat.
Since we last met as a Committee, we have received further written evidence from the Skills Federation, which brings together 18 employer-led sector skills bodies, representing more than 150,000 employers. They add their voices to the concerns. The organisation warns:
“Transfer of IfATE functions risks disruption and a focus on operational rather than strategic priorities…The movement of functions and the people that carry them out will always be challenging. It is important that the transfer is planned effectively, and the time taken to think through the implications for IfATE staff, but also the impact on the system. Compromises will no doubt have to be made to balance the need for pace with the requirement to retain operational continuity.
However, there is a key risk that transfer of functions from IfATE will become the key focus for the set-up of Skills England and less attention (and potentially resources) placed on achieving the overarching aims.”
That is a direct reinforcement of the argument that Lord Blunkett made in the Lords. It is very sensible advice to take our time.
In contrast to employers’ groups, Ministers say there is no time to wait. In truth, there is no great obstacle to the Department doing all the things it might want to do, and establishing Skills England a little bit more before that big transfer of staff, but Ministers want to take this one-year pause out of the Bill with their Government amendment 1. They would be wiser to listen to the grey-haired people in their own party, such as Lord Blunkett, but it seems they are not minded to do that.
This group also includes Government amendment 2 to remove the Lords’ privilege amendment. For the benefit of those following the proceedings, as the Minister said, the Lords automatically insert these amendments when there is legislation starting in the Lords that involves levies and taxpayers’ money, to avoid formal infringement of the Commons’ privileges over those things.
There is nothing unusual about that, but the privilege amendment is put in as a deliberate reminder that the Bill has a significant impact on spending of both levy and taxpayers’ money. The sums involved here are non-trivial—it is billions of pounds of spending, governed by IfATE today and by the Department for Education in future. The ongoing chronic uncertainty about the Government’s plans to allow employers to take money out of apprenticeships is not just damaging for business—it is damaging on a significant scale.
In the last Bill Committee sitting, the Minister promised to write to me to set out the Government’s position on the 50% flexibility. I hope she will tell me today when that letter is likely to appear, because businesses are starting to raise the alarm ever louder.
Since the Committee last met, even more businesses have come out with criticisms. Jane Gratton, the deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce has said that the lack of clarity about the future of the growth and skills levy was creating “fresh uncertainty among businesses.” She said that some employers had told the BCC that they had put training plans on hold until they heard what alternatives would be funded in future. She called on the Government to lay out a clear timeline for reform and said that threats to cut the levy before it had even been established are “worrying and destabilising”.
Likewise, Simon Ashworth, the deputy chief executive and director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said:
“there’s little room for manoeuvre—scrapping level 7 apprenticeships won’t yield savings for years…Until the programme budget more closely matches the levy take, it’s imperative funding priorities are aimed at maintaining the sustainability of apprenticeship standards, rather than introducing further non-apprenticeship flexibilities.”
That is a very important warning.
This is all happening against a backdrop where other types of technical education covered by IfATE are shrinking too. I am old enough to remember when Labour MPs spent years saying that adult skills spending was not generous enough—yet yesterday we learned that the DFE is to cut adult skills budgets by 6%. Amazingly, that came out at the same time as the welfare reform Green Paper, which overshadowed it and mentioned training 18 times. In the Chamber the other day, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made an argument—a good argument—that it is better to get people into training rather than parking them on benefits; yet elsewhere, at the very same moment, DFE Ministers were cutting the training budget.
Skills England was supposed to bring a joined-up approach to policymaking. There is not much sign of that here. Instead, it will reinforce the concerns of those who want technical education to be more independent and employer-led.
I ask the Minister a specific question on the funding that IfATE regulates. Yesterday, we got an announcement on schools funding. The Association of School and College Leaders and the Confederation of School Trusts are warning that the funding only covers part of the costs of the national insurance increase and is leaving schools with a funding gap ranging from 10% to 35%—but at least schools are getting the funding announcement before the start of the financial year, albeit only days before.
Technical education is not so lucky. Colleges and 16-19 institutions will have to wait. They will be told their allocations this May and will be paid in September, even though they will have to start making the increased tax payments from the start of the new financial year in just a few days’ time. As James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association points out:
“16 to 19 funding is uncertain at the best of times, but this year colleges are also waiting for their post-16 budget grant allocations (scheduled for May) and a decision on the 10 per cent T-level uplift…This is all very late in the day”.
He is right. Once again, technical education is being treated as the poor relation.
We already know that independent training providers and specialist colleges will not get any compensation, and it is unclear how much of next month’s national insurance rise will be covered by the grant. Can the Minister stand up and reassure the sector today that all the additional costs, including those for indirectly employed staff, will be covered by the grant? Or will they, like schools, find that they have been short-changed?
I will not labour the point, but many people, including employer groups and very experienced people on the Labour side, have warned about the rush to bring these powers and functions into the Department and the effect that that will have on the Government’s own plans for Skills England. Ministers would be sensible to listen.
Damian Hinds
That is not really the way we do it in Parliament. You respond for the Government.
Neil O’Brien
We ask you a bunch of questions. I do not know whether you have noticed, but you are the Minister.
Janet Daby
Across the UK, almost one in 10 of more than 2.5 million roles in critical demand—
Janet Daby
More than 90% of those roles require periods of work-related training or education.
Janet Daby
The point I am making is that the last Government did not solve the skills shortages. The last Government held back growth and opportunity. This Government are moving forward. We want to boost skills through Skills England. The last Government prolonged uncertainty.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister encouraged us to intervene. One of the things Labour complained about a lot in opposition was what happened to the adult skills budget. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have just announced a 6% cut in the adult skills budget? Can she explain how that fits with the Government’s constant rhetoric—as in the welfare cuts debate just the other day—about getting people out of unemployment and into training? How will a 6% cut help to move people from welfare into training?
Janet Daby
Ms Furniss, I fear we are straying far away from the purpose of the Bill and what needs to be achieved.
Janet Daby
I will continue to respond. Skills will power this mission-driven Government.
Janet Daby
I am sorry, Ms Furniss. This is very flustering.
As I said, we have had 14 years of complacency and neglect from the previous Government. Following the reforms they introduced, including the apprenticeship levy, apprenticeship starts have fallen by more than 30%. It is concerning that fewer young people are benefiting from apprenticeships. Apprenticeship starts for those under 25 are down by almost 40%. That is why, since the Prime Minister announced it in July 2024, Skills England has been operating in shadow form in preparation for full establishment.
The teams responsible for Skills England’s broader strategic functions are already operational and are establishing links with their counterparts in IfATE. By combining the analytical and regional functions, it is already delivering in shadow form. Detailed transitional planning has taken place to ensure that the functions moving to Skills England from IfATE will transition smoothly with no break in service. The planned continuity in staffing and team structures will ensure that occupational standards, apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications will continue to be approved, and T-level contracts will continue to be delivered, supported and monitored.
This approach will also ensure that Skills England maintains the vital links with employers and other partners that IfATE teams have previously established. The Minister for Skills in the other place recently met many peers and went through many of the processes and functions under the Bill. He has outlined that in a letter that is available for the Committee.
The Government are focused on establishing a coherent skills system with more flexible training options to support employers to fill skills gaps while driving growth and spreading opportunity. Businesses are backing the Government’s mission to grow the economy by breaking down barriers to opportunity for young people through our planned reforms.
Neil O’Brien
Speaking of gaps, I wonder whether the Minister will answer my question. Will she stand up and reassure the sector that all the additional costs, including those for indirectly employed staff, will be covered by the forthcoming national insurance contributions grant?
Janet Daby
As I have already said, the devolved areas will work on LSIPs with ERBs and maintain a close and strong relationship with Skills England.
LSIPs provide ongoing mechanisms through which local employers, strategic authorities, providers and other stakeholders come together to identify and address skills needs and issues. This supports Skills England’s aim to have the skilled workforce the economy needs at a national, regional and local level.
In response to the question about the impact of national insurance costs on skills and education, the Government have agreed that public sector employers will receive support in recognition of the increase in their national insurance contributions from April 2025. We are also providing £155 million for post-16 schools, academies and further education colleges. That is an increase of over £1 billion in the financial year 2025-26 for the education sector.
Neil O’Brien
Will the Minister promise to publish the methodology of how the figure of £155 million was arrived at? Can she reassure the sector that that sum is enough to cover all the costs of the national insurance increase, including the costs for indirectly employed staff?
Janet Daby
I hear what the shadow Minister is saying and will endeavour to get more information to him on those points. He asked about the flexibility of apprenticeships and levies. I wrote to the Chairs of the Committee yesterday addressing his question, but I understand that that was only yesterday.
Janet Daby
Government amendment 1 is crucial to ensure that Skills England is not unnecessarily held back. Transformation is under way—businesses and employers cannot afford to wait. Government amendment 2 is a normal procedure for Bills originating in the House of Lords. I urge the Committee to support the Government amendments and clauses 11, 12 and 14.
Neil O’Brien
I meant no disrespect, Ms Furniss, but the Minister promised in the previous sitting that she would write to me. She may say that the letter has been sent, but it has not arrived. It is telling that the things we are debating will be written into law and I have still not—
The Chair
Order. My point was that you were talking from a sedentary position. You had sat down and should have asked to intervene again.
Neil O’Brien
I take your point, Ms Furniss. We are keen to move on to a vote on Government amendment 1, which we think is a big mistake. We have already explained why—I will not recapitulate that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Commencement
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 12, page 5, line 6, leave out from “force” to end of line 7 and insert
“on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”. —(Janet Daby.)
This amendment provides for the substantive provisions of the Bill to be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Janet Daby
Clause 13 contains provisions to ensure continuity and consistency of functions that are transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State. This will allow functions already performed by IfATE to be treated as having been done by the Secretary of State. It includes a provision enabling the Secretary of State to continue things that are in the process of being done in relation to IfATE, immediately before the function was transferred. These will also ensure smooth commencement of the new legislation and transition from existing legislation. These functions may only become clear closer to when the functions are transferred.
Therefore, clause 13 includes a power to address this by way of regulations. Without this clause, there will be no statutory way of ensuring the smooth transition of the functions carried out by IfATE under the current legislation, to the Secretary of State under the new legislation.
Neil O’Brien
This clause is just a reminder that we are trying to make major changes to the engine of our skills system, while the engine is still running. I have already quoted from the Government impact assessment, pointing out that the impact of transition will be to slow down apprenticeship approval numbers—I will not recapitulate that. I will come back later to the challenges these changes to the engine while the engine is still running will cause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Short title
Amendment made: 2, in clause 14, page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (2).—(Janet Daby.)
This amendment removes the Lords’ privilege amendment.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Draft proposals for establishing new executive agency
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must produce a report containing draft proposals for the establishment of a new executive agency, to be known as “Skills England”, responsible for the powers transferred under this Act.
(2) A copy of this Report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) Within forty days of a Report under subsection (1) being laid, the Secretary of State must ensure resolutions are tabled, and moved, in both Houses of Parliament to approve the Government’s draft proposals.
(4) If the draft proposals are rejected by either House of Parliament, the Secretary of State must, within a period of six months, lay a report containing revised proposals before Parliament, and, within a period of forty days after laying the revised proposals, table a motion before each House of Parliament to approve the revised proposals.
(5) The Secretary of State may not establish an executive agency to carry out the functions transferred under this Act until it has secured, through a motion under subsection (3) or (4), the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
(6) If a motion under subsection (3) or (4) is approved by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make an annual statement in each House of Parliament on the work of the agency.
(7) Within twelve months of a motion under subsection (3) or (4) being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report evaluating the effectiveness of the “Skills England” governance structure in delivering on the organisation's aims and objectives.”—(Ian Sollom.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for the executive agency, to be known as Skills England, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I rise to move new clause 1, which addresses fundamental concerns about the governance and accountability of Skills England. While the Bill as amended in the Lords does now make reference to Skills England, which the original Bill presented to the Lords did not, it still does not establish it properly as an organisation, define its powers, or provide robust mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny of its work.
The Bill, as we know, simply abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers its functions directly to the Secretary of State, with only limited reporting requirements. The most recent evidence provided to the Committee reinforces those concerns, particularly the evidence from the Skills Federation, as was highlighted by the shadow Minister.
New clause 1 remedies that by requiring comprehensive proposals for Skills England to be laid before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval. It would ensure that both Houses have a meaningful say in how the organisation is structured and operates. It would establish ongoing accountability through annual statements to Parliament and formal evaluation of its governance structure within the first year.
The Government have positioned Skills England as transformative, and the Minister’s letter to peers, which was also shared with the Committee early this week, outlines hugely impressive ambitions for Skills England. I welcome those, as I think we all do. But the governance framework described in that letter is largely discretionary. The framework document that the Minister references in that letter, which has still not formally been published, will be finalised by agreement between the Department and Skills England, with no formal parliamentary input at all.
We are being asked to approve a fundamental restructuring of the skills system without proper guarantees about how the body will operate or be held accountable. The skills system is simply too critical to proceed just on faith. I think Members on the Government Benches would be making the same arguments if they were in our position. I want to stress that the new clause is not about preventing the creation of Skills England; it is about ensuring it is established with the proper scrutiny and accountability that an organisation of such importance deserves. If the Government truly believe in Skills England as the vehicle to address our skills challenges, they should welcome the provisions for proper accountability in new clause 1.
Neil O’Brien
I rise only to support the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. I shall speak to new clauses 2 and 3 later, but I do not want the hon. Member to feel that that is because I do not support new clause 1. I absolutely do. I think it is entirely sensible, and if the Government had sense then they would listen to him and include the new clause in the Bill.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The Bill does not set out any kind of clear plan or vision for our schools. It does not address the big challenges that need addressing. It is silent on discipline and behaviour—one of the biggest issues. It comes after the Government scrapped simple Ofsted judgments and will be followed by moves to dumb down the curriculum and lower standards further.
The Secretary of State has no positive vision. She has axed programmes for advanced maths, physics, Latin and computing because she thinks that they are elitist. She has axed behaviour hubs with no replacement, even though schools that went through the scheme were twice as likely to be good or outstanding. Yet, somehow, she is able to find £90 million for advertising. The Bill is the worst of all. We have tabled numerous amendments to it. It takes a wrecking ball to 40 years of cross-party reform of England’s schools. Those reforms worked. There is much more to do, but England has risen up the international league tables even as Labour-run Wales has slumped down.
Under successive Governments of all colours, England’s schools have been improved by the magic formula of freedom plus accountability. The Bill attacks both parts of that formula. On the one hand, it strips academy schools of freedoms over recruitment and curriculum and reimposes incredible levels of micromanagement, taking away academy freedoms now enjoyed by 82% of secondary schools. On the other hand, it strikes at accountability and parental choice, ending the automatic transfer of failing schools to new management, reversing the reforms of the late 1980s, which allowed good schools to expand without permission from their local authority—a reform that ushered in parental choice.
Let me unpack this. First, the Bill takes away academy schools’ freedoms over the curriculum. We have tabled amendments to that. As Sir Dan Moynihan, who leads the incredibly successful Harris schools, explained:
“We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects… why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 71, Q154.]
Likewise, Luke Sparkes from Dixons argued:
“we…need the ability to enact the curriculum in a responsive and flexible way at a local level…there needs to be a consistency without stifling innovation.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 79, Q167.]
Katharine Birbalsingh, the head of Michaela school, which has been top in the country three years in a row, wrote to the Secretary of State:
“Do you have any idea of the work required from teachers and school leaders to change their curriculum? You will force heads to divert precious resources from helping struggling families to fulfil a bureaucratic whim coming from Whitehall. Why are you changing things? What is the problem you are trying to solve?”
Graham Stuart
Like me, my hon. Friend finds these proposals tragic because of the removal of the curriculum freedoms that have allowed schools such as Michaela and Petchey and others all over the country to tailor their curriculum specifically to reach disadvantaged pupils so that they can engage better with their learning and have an achievement that previously they did not have. That door is being closed. I hope that Government Members reflect on this and seek a change of policy, if not in this House, then at least in the House of Lords.
Neil O’Brien
My right hon. Friend is completely correct. Some Government Members have reflected on this: the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum was of particular concern to her, and she is right. Ministers have never explained what they are trying to solve with this change, but the unions like it, so into the Bill it goes.
We have tabled further amendments on qualified teacher status. The Government are getting rid of academy freedoms over recruitment and the freedom to employ non-QTS teachers. Sir Martyn Oliver from Ofsted gave us a good example of how these freedoms are used. He said:
“In the past, I have brought in professional sportspeople to teach alongside PE teachers, and they have run sessions. Because I was in Wakefield, it was rugby league: I had rugby league professionals working with about a quarter of the schools in Wakefield at one point..”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 49, Q108.]
Brilliant. The Government’s own impact assessment to the Bill says of this change:
“some schools may struggle to find the teachers that they need.”
Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Association of Headteachers gave a good example of how this freedom is currently used. She said that she urgently needed an early years lead, and was able to take on someone who had run an outstanding nursery, even though they did not have QTS and nor did they plan to get it. But in future, she would not be able to do that. Former headteacher David Thomas told us in Committee that this freedom allows them to recruit people who may be at the end of their career, who have a huge amount of experience that they want to give back to the community. They do not want to go through the bureaucracy, and if we put up barriers, they will not end up in the state sector.
Ministers have not produced a single shred of evidence that teachers without QTS are of lower quality, or for why they cannot be a good supplement to QTS teachers. Ministers have never explained why they, sitting in Whitehall, think that they are in a better position to judge who to employ than headteachers on the frontline. Ministers claim that is vital, but a footnote at the bottom of page 24 of the impact assessment reveals it would, in fact, not be applied to lots of different types of schools, including 14 to 19 academies, 16 to 19 academies, university technical colleges, studio schools, further education colleges and non-maintained school early years settings. It is supposedly vital but is not being applied to loads of different types of school. Yet Ministers are imposing it on loads of other schools. As the former head of Ofsted pointed out this week, taking that flexibility out of the system feels like a retrograde step, and she is right.
Under the Bill, Whitehall micromanagement is back, too. Clause 44 allows the Secretary of State to direct academy schools to do pretty much anything. The Confederation of School Trusts is really worried about that and has suggested a way to bring such unlimited power under some limits. They say:
“We do have concerns about the power to direct…It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with Government to restrict it to create some greater limits. Those limits should be around statutory duties…statutory guidance, the provisions in the funding agreement”.––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 81, Q169.]
Yet Ministers voted down our amendment to put that suggestion from schools into effect.
Likewise, as we discovered in Committee, clause 34(5)(2) will require academy schools to get permission from the Secretary of State to make any change to the buildings they occupy. That includes any change to
“(ii) either part of the building, or
(iii) permanent outdoor structure”.
Literally, if an academy school wants to build a bike shed, it will have to go to the Secretary of State. It was clear in Committee that Ministers had not even realised that that would apply to academy schools. Those are just two of the many, many centralising measures in the Bill.
While freedom is being taken away on the one hand, accountability on the other side of the ledger is being watered down too. The Government already got rid of single-word Ofsted judgments and replaced them with something much more complicated that does not seem to have left anybody very happy. Then, clause 45 ends the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has said,
“The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 902.]
She also said,
“the DfE will find itself mired in the high court in judicial review. When we tried to transfer our first failing school to a Harris academy we spent two years in court, and children…don’t have that time to waste.”
She is so right.
Rob Tarn, the chief executive of the Northern Education Trust, has made the same point:
“If there’s no longer a known, blanket reality…There is a risk that, where it’s been determined a school needs to join a strong trust, it will take much longer and we will go back to the early days of academisation when people went to court.”
The Children’s Commissioner makes that point too. She says that she is
“deeply concerned that we are legislating against the things we know work in schools, and that we risk children spending longer in failing schools by slowing down the pace of school improvement.”
She is right.
The Confederation of School Trusts has said that the current system offers struggling schools “clarity” as they
“will join a trust, and that process can begin immediately”.
In contrast, they warn,
“We are not clear on how commissioning part-time support through the RISE arrangements makes that any easier.”
The former national schools commissioner, Sir David Carter, has warned that the
“arguments and legal actions that will arise if a school in Cumbria is told to join a trust while a school in Cornwall just gets arm’s length support will only add delay to delivering a fairer and better offer to children.”
Worse still is clause 51, which attacks school choice and the freedom to go to good schools. It was in 1987 that Mrs Thatcher announced that
“we will allow popular schools to take in as many children as space will permit. And this will stop local authorities from putting artificially low limits on entry to good schools.”
That agenda became known as local management of schools and of it the former Labour Minister Lord Adonis wrote,
“Local Management of Schools was an unalloyed and almost immediate success…school budgets under LMS were based largely on pupil numbers, so parental choice came to matter as never before.”
In contrast, the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill says:
“We want the local authority to have more influence over the PANs for schools in their area”.
It goes on to say:
“It could also limit the ability of popular schools to grow…If a school is required to lower their PAN, some pupils who would have otherwise been admitted will be unable to attend the school. This will negatively impact on parental preference”.
Michael Johnson, the leader of the very successful Chulmleigh trust, warns that that “could be disastrous for successful schools…The Government are not better placed than parents to decide which school a child attends.”
Graham Stuart
Does my hon. Friend, like me, reflect on the irony that the success from 2010 to 2024, which we on the Conservative Benches would naturally celebrate, was only possible because of the Labour visionaries who drove the academies programme forward, made changes, developed the argument, rolled the pitch and allowed us to lift our schools to much higher levels of performance and our children from deprived backgrounds to much better results. Labour Members were the creators of that, and now this Government are disowning it.
Neil O’Brien
It is tragic. It is not us criticising the Bill; it is the professionals—the people who have given their lives to education. I will give another example. Gareth Stevens, leader of Inspiration Trust, another high-performing trust, gives the example of his local council wanting to halve places at an outstanding school to prop up other schools. He says that
“the idea that we could have the rug pulled out from under us and the number of places in our high performing school cut is the most worrying thing…It will mean fewer places at high performing good or outstanding schools”.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
I rise to speak to new clause 6 tabled by children’s food champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and to amendments 212 to 220 in my name. I also put on record my support for new clause 1 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), new clause 7 tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and new clause 49 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). It will come as no surprise that I am also a fan of new clause 34 because, thanks to the last Government, over 4 million children are in poverty, and I will always support anything that makes their little lives and that of their families more bearable.
New clause 6 would introduce a much-needed national monitoring system for school food. Of course, school food standards already exist, but not all schools are meeting them. There is far too much variance. There are some brilliant examples of heart-healthy, nutritious meals that fuel children for the rest of the school day. Then, there are examples where unhealthy fizzy drinks and fried food are the norm. Some 60% of secondary schools have been found not to follow the school standards at all. A study from Impact on Urban Health shows significant differences between what is mandated by the school standards and what is on menus and what ends up on plates. There is far too much free rein. There is no mechanism for school food standards to be checked against what pupils are being served. The new clause would end the postcode lottery of school food so that standards no longer just exist on paper but are on our children’s plates.
The amendments in my name all relate to strengthening school breakfast club provision. After years of pushing my School Breakfast Bill, no one was happier than me when the Labour Government legislated for school breakfasts. It is great to see that three of the pilots are in schools in my constituency. Some 2.7 million children live in food-insecure households. The previous Government’s national school breakfast programme is missing 86% of those children. Most of them will have arrived at school ready to learn, but with a gnawing hunger in their stomachs. Their day is marked with that persistent worry that comes with hunger—a worry that will permeate their entire school day.
Hunger has a significant impact on children’s learning, because hungry children do not learn, no matter how bright and determined they are and no matter how amazing or dedicated their teachers are. Numerous studies have shown the links between nutrition and cognitive development. Hungry children suffer developmental impairments, language delays and delayed motor skills, not to mention the psychological and emotional impact, which can range from withdrawn and depressive behaviours to irritable and aggressive ones.
I have always believed in the transformational power of education. It is certainly not standard for children from my background to end up in this place, so the power of a good education can never be overestimated. The food that fuels that ability to learn and develop should never be underestimated. These clubs will ensure that socioeconomic status is less of a deciding factor in good educational outcomes. My amendments would help realise the full potential of our breakfast clubs.
There is no provision in the Bill to monitor or measure the success of school breakfast provision. It is difficult to scrutinise the efficacy of any policy if there is never any analysis of it. The pupil premium, free school meals eligibility and the income deprivation affecting children index are good indicators of the very children who will need these clubs the most. Any policy should be measured by its impact on these groups, so that we know that those who are most in need are benefiting.
More worryingly, without proper data to prove the success of the policy, a future Government may decide to scrap it altogether. That is why amendment 212 is so important. Not all staff are nutritional experts, and some will have never delivered school breakfast provision before, so it is right that they have the right advice on hand and why a more mixed model and flexible approach is needed from the Government. Amendments 213 and 216 to 218 would achieve that.
The flexibility shown in the models adopted by Magic Breakfast has resulted in a take-up that is 375% higher than in non-Magic Breakfast schools. Yet the Bill requires only one model be delivered: the traditional breakfast club, held in a canteen for 30 minutes before the start of the school day. Many schools already use different models of breakfast clubs, including ones that suit particular schools, such as classroom breakfasts, grab-and-go takeaway models, nurture groups and late provision. A rigid model of delivery will have less success and schools that cannot fit that model will feel that they have to be exempt from delivery. Amendments 214 and 215 would ensure that if a school were to seek exemption from the Government’s school clubs, other models had been considered.
I know that the Minister knows that SEND schools often cater for primary and secondary pupils on the same site. That means that in those schools some children will be excluded from school breakfast clubs. I know from discussions with dedicated teachers and school staff in my constituency that they will not allow their pupils to be disadvantaged in that way, so it is likely they will use their already tight budgets to make sure older pupils also get that nutritious, healthy start to their school day.
Amendment 219 would apply only to approximately 100,000 pupils in England. That would be a modest 2.22% increase in the policy if all those children took up the offer—and we know that that is unlikely, because the children with complex needs do not always require the same food provision accessed by other pupils. For those who do require it, however, it is right that they should have the same nutritious start to their day as other children with whom they share a school site.
I am, of course, pleased that at long last there is legislation for school breakfasts. However, it is essential that we get that right. My amendments will do just that, and I know that the Minister will have carefully considered them. I look forward to her comments at the close of the debate.
Neil O’Brien
With the leave of the House, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon, as we did in Committee. I will pick out only a few of the contributions. We had important words from the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who pointed out how quickly the Bill had been prepared and pushed through. That is why we have so many amendments on Report and, to be honest, one reason that the Bill has run into such trouble.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) gave a great speech, drawing on his experience as the Chair of the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) gave an excellent speech, laying out why the provisions on home schooling are an excessive burden and go too far. We all agree that it is about making sure that children are not just “not in school”; however, the provisions really are overly burdensome. The hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and lots of Conservative colleagues pointed out the same thing.
I have to say that my jaw hit the floor when I first read the Bill and saw the provisions that treat the parents of children in special schools the same as people who are being investigated by social services. Those people are not criminals, they are not doing the wrong thing and sometimes they need to move to look after their vulnerable children. I hope the Government will think again in the other place.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
I agree with the shadow Minister on the point about special schools. Additionally, in Committee in January, he raised the point about local authority consent for some children to be withdrawn from school, and how that should be extended from children who are subject to a child protection plan to children who are regarded as a child in need. Why are the Opposition not pushing that to a vote today?
Neil O’Brien
We have a limited number of things that we can press to a vote, but I hope, as we go to the debate in the other place, that we are in complete agreement on the excessive nature of some of the requirements being made of home schoolers, who we must not treat as illegitimate just because they choose to educate their children in a certain way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) used his huge experience to take us on a rather bleak journey from the reforming agenda of the early Blair years to the regress that we are seeing now. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) explained why this was such a mistake and took us through the Bill in bleak detail.
I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), but I do agree with her on Andrew Tate, whom I regard as totally abhorrent. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Justice Secretary, is leading the charge to get the Tates deported to this country so that they can face justice here. I find their work utterly, utterly abhorrent.
My brilliant hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) contrasted the reforming rhetoric that we at least see in other Departments with the rather retro agenda in the Department for Education. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who did so much work in Committee, gave us another brilliant and witty speech. He talked about how Labour reformers had always been swimming against the tide, and I think that is right. He also talked about the free school breakfast numbers that the Government have used and the claim that they are going to save parents £450. This is a mysterious figure, because if we want to give £450 to every primary school child, that will cost north of £2 billion, but the Government are spending £33 million, so they are two orders of magnitude apart. Why will the Government not publish the workings behind this figure? I think the truth is that the source is the back of a spad’s fag packet, to be completely honest.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) gave a good speech, and the thing I absolutely agree with him about is the importance of teaching. It is one of the best and most noble things anyone can do with their life. All of us as MPs do school visits, and we might do an hour of highly energetic chat with people in year 6. We then realise the energy required to be a teacher and to keep that up all day, so I absolutely pay tribute to those who are doing this noble work.
One of the most interesting speeches this afternoon was the one from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). Various Labour Members said that things under the last Government were not nirvana, and that is right. Various people said that there were more things to fix, and that is right too. We absolutely agree with that. But the hon. Member said that things were so much better in Wales because they had avoided the Blair-era reforming agenda, they had avoided academies, they had got rid of league tables for a time, they were still using other methods such as cueing rather than phonics, and so on and so forth. But let us just have a look at the numbers to see what that has done.
The PISA tables show that, under the last Government, England went from 11th to ninth on science, 19th to ninth on reading and 21st to seventh on maths. That is a huge increase. In Wales, the best bit was on maths, where they went from 29th to 27th. They were flat at 28th on reading and collapsed from 21st to 29th on science. A pretty dismal record, really. I would encourage those who say that things are brilliant in Wales to read the searing report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is known for its mild-mannered work and cautious judgments. The report states:
“PISA scores declined by more in Wales than in most other countries in 2022, with scores declining by about 20 points (equivalent to about 20% of a standard deviation, which is a big decline). This brought scores in Wales to their lowest ever level, significantly below the average across OECD countries and significantly below those seen across the rest of the UK…Lower scores in Wales cannot be explained by higher levels of poverty. In PISA, disadvantaged children in England score about 30 points higher, on average, than disadvantaged children in Wales. This is a large gap…Even more remarkably, the performance of disadvantaged children in England is either above or similar to the average for all children in Wales.”
Disadvantaged children in England are doing better than all children in Wales, and the IFS also points out that the disadvantage gap is bigger in Wales. It concludes that the explanation for lower educational performance is not ethnicity or deprivation, and that it
“is much more likely to reflect longstanding differences in policy and approach, such as lower levels of external accountability and less use of data.”
That is the damning indictment of the IFS.
As Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things”. We have seen what this agenda does in Wales. It is a disaster, and those who are the most deprived are the ones who lose out the most. That is why this afternoon we are going to be pushing our amendments to protect academy freedoms, to protect the ability of good schools to grow and to protect parental choice. This Bill shifts power from parents to politicians, and we will always resist that. We will be moving to a vote now to stop this destructive agenda, which has failed in Wales and will fail in England too.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I want to concentrate today on our new clause 36, which would ban phones from our schools. The new clause would also write into law some of the content of the very good private Member’s Bill drafted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), because this does not need to be a party political issue.
When I was on the Science and Technology Committee back in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Back then, the evidence was already very concerning, but by now every alarm bell should be ringing. Over the last decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world, over the exact same period that smartphones and social media have become dominant in children’s lives. The growth in mental health problems is focused almost entirely on young people, not older people. Children now get smartphones at a very early age. As the Education Committee pointed out in a good report last year, one in five of the UK’s three and four-year-olds now has their own smartphone. By the end of primary school, four out of five kids have a smartphone.
There are many different ways in which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. They displace time in the real world with friends. US data, for example, shows that prior to 2012 children spent over two hours a day with friends, but that had halved by 2019. The proportion of children feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world. But smartphones are not just a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Children are tired in school, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip feed users dopamine.
At a recent school meeting that I organised in my constituency, I heard from local doctors about how excessive screen time is damaging eyesight and giving young kids the kind of back problems that one might expect from someone in late middle age. Eight out of 10 children are exposed to violent porn before the age of 18, many at a really young age. The average age at which kids see porn is now 13. The shift to a smartphone-based childhood is also leading children to be exposed to graphic violence, sextortion and self-harm encouragement, and is doing terrible things to girls’ self-image. According to the Office for National Statistics, one in five children aged 10 to 15 says they have been bullied online, and 72% of that is happening during school time.
As well as being bad in their own right, these negative effects come together to damage education. Although a ban of phones in schools cannot fix everything, it is a vital first step and can make a big difference in itself. I spoke to one headteacher who said that when they went from a policy of phones not being out to a full, “start of the day to end of the day” ban, with phones being handed in, the number of detentions they had to hand out fell by 40%, and teacher recruitment and retention improved, too.
Chris Vince
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he should take this as a constructive intervention. As a former teacher, I know some of the challenges of mobile phones—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), will remember when hers went off during my speech in a debate on financial education. Will the shadow Minister also consider those groups who may require a mobile phone—I have perhaps given him a hint as to what I was going to mention—in particular young carers, who obviously need contact with family and those cared for?
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Member has brilliantly anticipated a point I was going to make, and if he looks at the text of the amendment he will see it is carefully drafted exactly to allow carve-outs for those who need them, for example as health devices, so I hope he is reassured on that point.
Attempts by the tech industry to lobby, to muddy the water, to run interference and to sow confusion are unconvincing. The problems hitting our children all over the world are not just a coincidence; there is more and more evidence for a causal link. For example, Sapien Labs asked questions about adults’ mental health and combined them into a mental health quotient score. They asked the same people when they first got a smartphone and the results were stark: the earlier someone gets a phone, the worse their mental health, particularly for girls. As with smoking, a powerful social gradient is also developing with smartphones and social media. That is going to widen gaps in school achievement unless something decisive is done.
Sadly, many people still do not know about the risks from smartphones but a growing number of parents do know and are worried about the problems with smartphones and social media, but we face a collective action problem: we worry that our kids will miss out if they are the only ones without them, and that is the problem that needs solving and Government need to be part of that. Across this country there has been an explosion of parent-powered campaign groups aiming to fight back including Smartphone Free Childhood, Safe Screens, Delay Smartphones and the new “Rage Against the Screen” campaign. Over the last year they have gained hundreds of thousands of members and together with the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition we met some of them this morning and I pay tribute to them for their work.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
When I visit schools across my constituency, I find that many have instituted policies banning mobile phones, or indeed are consulting on doing so. Sometimes there is a small degree of pushback from pupils, and sometimes indeed from parents, but does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government take up this amendment, it will make it clearer and easier for schools to ban these phones and produce a safe and nurturing environment for our pupils in school, and it would be easier to take this forward?
Neil O’Brien
My hon. Friend is completely correct, and I was going to come on to that very point.
The Children’s Commissioner has said,
“I honestly think that we will look back in 20 years’ time and be absolutely horrified by what we allowed our children to be exposed to”,
and she is right. the very first thing Government could do is implement a proper ban on phones in our schools. Parentkind recently said to me, “Effectively, we are allowing our kids to be fed digital drugs and we are even allowing the dealers into the schools.” That has to change.
The last Government issued guidance; it was a good start, but it is not enough and is not working. While 90% of schools say they have some sort of policy or some sort of ban, a survey by Policy Exchange last year found that only one in 10 secondary schools has a full start-to-finish ban, the policy that works best. Lots of schools are still trying policies where kids have their phones on them but are not supposed to have them out. The effect is that the kids are distracted, the teachers have to stop lessons to tell them to put them away, and we get all of the issues about bullying and social media during break times and more.
As the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), a Labour Member, pointed out the other day, guidance introduced by the previous Government is not working. We still have students using phones during break time and during lessons and this causes significant problems. I have had many teachers say to me, “This takes up so much time. It’s a huge distraction. It interferes with learning.” That is right and we are now in the strange situation where Labour MPs and the Conservative party agree that the guidance has turned out not to be enough, but the Labour Front Bench is insisting that it is; we are through the looking glass.
Why do we need a full ban, not just guidance? Our general approach is of course to give autonomy to schools but, first, the guidance is not working. The Department for Education’s own national behaviour survey published in April last year found that 35% of secondary school teachers reported mobile phones being used during lessons without permission, and the problem was more pronounced for older children: 46% of pupils in years 10 to 11 reported mobile phones being used when they should not have been during most or all lessons, and last month a survey by Parentkind found that nearly half of secondary school children say they see phones being used in class where they should not be every single day. So the idea that the guidance has done the trick and there is no longer a problem to solve is contradicted by the Department’s and the Government’s own data.
Secondly, we need to support schools and have their back. I know from speaking to teachers and school leaders that the pressures from a minority of parents to allow phones can be very severe. A minority of parents can be unreasonably determined that they must be able to contact their child directly at any minute of the day, but unfortunately that comes at a cost to everyone else’s education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) pointed out, a national ban would make things much simpler. We, the politicians, should take the flack and take the heat off schools.
Thirdly, a full and full-on ban is needed as the start of a wider resetting of social norms about children and smartphones and social media. We need a proper ban so that kids’ smartphones are put away for a whole day, including breaks. Breaks should be about physical activity, not just scrolling and scrolling. Schools should be the beachhead and the first place where we re-create the smartphone-free childhood that most of us got to enjoy—seven hours in which we de-normalise being on the phone all the time for young people.
A ban on smartphones in schools will, of course, not solve all the problems overnight, but it is a vital first step. When I was a Health Minister, I wanted us to develop an equivalent of the five bits of fruit and veg a day campaign, or public health campaigns such as “Don’t Die of Ignorance” or “Clunk Click Every Trip”, which older Members might remember. We need to do some big things to reset the culture. The heavy exposure of our kids to addictive-by-design products from the tech industry is the smoking of our generation.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I rise to speak in favour of new clause 35 and amendment 174, both in my name, as well as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).
The Corporate Parenting Forum was one of the more enjoyable committees I was on when I was a local councillor. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that the forum has quite a cold name, given all the warm work that it does. It shows the dedication of social workers, the compassion of foster carers and adoptive parents, and the resilience and character of the children. However, anyone involved in that forum would also have seen that the hard work of those involved was often undermined by a system that held people back from caring to the best of their ability.
I am pleased that the Bill will make significant progress in that regard. However, there are areas where it could go further, and I intend to speak about a couple of them. One area of particular interest to me is the so-called care cliff edge. Those leaving the care system at 18 are forced to grow up so much faster than their peers. I have raised the issue on the Floor of the House before—in particular the age differential for universal credit. That impacts young care leavers far more than any other group.
The Bill seeks to lessen the care cliff edge. The “staying close” support requirements are of particular of interest to me, as is strengthening the support provided up to the age of 25. However, there is an anomaly on housing. I understand that the Government may accept that care leavers should not be regarded as becoming homeless intentionally, but my new clause 35 would go a step further and extend priority need status under the homelessness legislation to all care leavers up to the age of 25, regardless of all assessed vulnerabilities. The Bill provides that status to young care leavers aged 18 to 20, but that is out of line with the rest of the support available to young care leavers. Given all we know about the vulnerabilities of care leavers, which have been spoken about in the Chamber today, we should not put them in a position where they have to prove their vulnerability at that crucial crisis point.
Last Friday, I was at a homeless shelter in my constituency. I met a young carer who had spent eight months in a tent prior to arriving at the shelter. He told me the story of how that happened. He had been in supported accommodation before the age of 18, but that home shut down just as he reached the age of 18, so his transition plan was completely undermined in a moment. He bounced about from place to place for the following few years. He has now reached the crucial age of 25, but he has not received the support he needed in the last few years. New clause 35 could help rescue people like him in the future.
My other area of interest is kinship care. I must admit that I had not heard of kinship care until a few years ago, but I grew up in kinship care. I was the eldest of three boys. My mum had me at 19, and times got pretty tough as a teenager. Things boiled over, and eventually the relationship with my parents broke down. I left home and I never went back. As cocky as I was at 14 or 15 years old, I could not have lived on my own. but luckily my grandparents stepped up to take me on. My Nan and Pops, as I knew them, helped pick up the pieces and put me back on the straight and narrow. I went from being a boy who had started to fall behind in school and drink a bit down the park, to slowly taking my education more seriously and getting my act together.
If it had not been for my grandparents, I am pretty sure that I would not be sitting on these green Benches today. It was not easy for them, though: they were on a state pension, lived in a council house and did not have a lot to give, but what they did have to give was love, guidance and support. Crucially, that was accepted readily by me because they already had my trust and respect, and they had authority over me because they were my grandparents. That is the real power of keeping care within the family. There are bonds that are ready made, which is difficult to replicate in any other form of care, and they provide the foundation that children need to thrive. I acknowledge that the Bill is groundbreaking on kinship care, but we have so few opportunities to make change in this area, and I am determined to get it right the very first time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has tabled amendments on kinship care leave, kinship allowances, extending the pupil premium and prioritising school admission arrangements, all of which I have put my name to. I strongly hope that the Government can find a way to support those amendments. I have also tabled amendment 174, which would ensure that kinship families are actively engaged in shaping and forming the local authority policies that are outlined in the legislation, as families are in developing policies for children with special educational needs. The simple principle is: nothing about us without us. Kinship is a particularly complex form of care. The relationships have history. We need to appreciate the special nuances, and listen to kinship carers when developing policy. We must ensure that the authorities hear the voice of kinship families when designing the system to support them.
I wish that my grandparents had lived long enough to see me take my place on these Benches; they would have been very proud. I hope today that we can begin to say thank you to them, and to the thousands of kinship carers like them, by working towards the strongest possible rights and support.
Neil O’Brien
We have heard some superb speeches this afternoon. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), gave a brilliant and thoughtful speech, which ended with her talking about the welfare reforms that the Government will propose tomorrow. Our proposal for a ban on smartphones in schools is part of a general drive to undo the damage that a smartphone childhood is doing to young people’s mental health. We see that the driver of ballooning welfare claims, which the Government are really worried about, is young people and their mental health claims. If we want to be serious about prevention, a good place to start is with the amendment that we will vote on in a few moments. I am a glass-half-full kind of person. Although various Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), said that they would not be voting for the smartphone ban today, I could sense chinks of light in what they were saying; perhaps they were starting to come round to the idea.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) gave a great speech, in which he mentioned the challenge posed by the large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the system, who now represent a third of all looked-after children in some local authorities. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) gave a fantastically powerful speech about safeguarding, in which he spoke about the tragic case of Sara Sharif. Although we will have to disagree about the policy, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) gave a good speech arguing for a smacking ban. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) raised important questions about unique identifiers, on which we all agree in principle, but getting it right will be crucial.
One of the most important speeches was the excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). She talked good sense and gave the Government good advice on part 2 of the Bill, and on schools. She also proposed sensible measures, which we support, to ensure that the flow of information around the system is all that it should be, and that the same kind of information that is provided to the Department is provided to those working on the frontline with children.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) gave bleak but important testimony. Her idea of a covenant was important. There were other good speeches that I have not mentioned, but we ended on an excellent note with the contribution made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). He made the case for kinship care powerfully; we are in agreement on that, and I hope that we will make progress on the issue as the Bill goes to the other place. It was a wonderful speech, and he was completely correct that his grandparents would have been very proud to see him in this House.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Neil O'Brien ExcerptsThursday 13th March 2025
(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 March 2025 - (13 Mar 2025)
Janet Daby
It sounds as though that college is doing excellent work. The Bill is part of the process of delivering Skills England. It is our intention, following the Bill’s Royal Assent, to make commencement regulations promptly to bring into force the provisions that transfer IfATE’s functions, as well as the powers to transfer its assets and liabilities to the Secretary of State and to deliver those services through Skills England.
Skills England will be very different from IfATE, as I have mentioned. It will bring IfATE’s functions together with others that are not currently in statute to identify skills needs and to work with regional partners to ensure that they are being met. By bringing together those different functions in a single organisation, we can make a more responsive skills system that acts fast on the evidence to address skills gaps, uninterrupted by organisational boundaries, administrative hurdles and imperfect data flows. That would not be possible if the key functions were split across Skills England and IfATE. Clauses 1 to 3 are essential to achieving that transformation, so I commend them to the Committee.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The Opposition have three main concerns about the Bill, which are all relevant to this group. First, there were good reasons why standards setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. As we heard from Members on both sides of the House of Lords, this Bill is a centralisation. Alongside other changes that the Government are making, it risks directly damaging the status of the qualifications.
Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprenticeships. Rather than fixing the problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years. The Government are abolishing IfATE, which was created only seven years ago. This is yet more reorganisation, rather than focusing on the real issues. IfATE will now follow a long list of predecessors, including the Manpower Services Commission, the Learning and Skills Council, the Skills Funding Agency, skills advisory panels, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, training and enterprise councils and more, into the lengthening history of skills acronyms. We have a bad history of institutional churn in this country generally, and particularly in this area.
Thirdly, we have real concerns that this reorganisation of the machinery of government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues that we face. Those concerns are in fact borne out by the Government’s impact assessment.
As the Minister just said, the first three clauses are all about abolishing IfATE. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which transfers functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State. It does not transfer them to Skills England, but to the Secretary of State.
The words “Secretary of State” appear, amazingly, 90 times in this short Bill. That is one reason why the Bill has come in for criticism from a number of different sides of politics. Instead of setting up Skills England as an independent body, which is what a lot of people—including many in the Labour party—assumed it would be, it is going to be part of the Department for Education.
In its briefing on the Bill, the Construction Industry Training Board noted that this was
“contrary to the previous characterisation of Skills England that was outlined in the…King’s Speech…and contrary to the vision for Skills England to be an independent body, established in law, with a cross-governmental role”.
Obviously, those two points are linked. If it is going to be cross-government, it is easier for it to be independent of the DFE rather than part of one Department.
The CITB makes an important point. IfATE existed to serve all employers, both public and private, and across every Department. In contrast, Skills England will be firmly part of the DFE. The chief executive officer of Skills England will be a job share between the two civil servants who currently run the post-16 skills bit of the DFE.
Likewise, the Institute of the Motor Industry, representing employers and professionals across the UK automotive sector, says in its evidence to this Committee that it has
“significant concerns about the abolition of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education…and the transfer of its functions to Skills England.”
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Did the shadow Minister note the submission from the Association of Colleges, which offered very strong support for the Bill? As it represents a large proportion of providers of this education, its views should be taken into account.
Neil O’Brien
I saw that, and I wonder whether the hon. Lady noted in that submission the organisation’s pretty strong criticisms of the Government’s decision to cut adult skills spending. That is an example of what I was just talking about. Instead of addressing the real issues, we have reorganisation. I was not going to bring up the document from the Association of Colleges, but I am glad that the hon. Lady has.
Let me return to the Institute of the Motor Industry. Its evidence states:
“Without dedicated attention to the unique challenges faced by the automotive industry, Skills England risks creating further disconnection between education policy and real-world workforce demands.”
It talks about the risk of losing employer-led standards:
“Transitioning to Skills England could introduce additional confusion and delays, undermining apprenticeship approvals and disrupting funding streams critical to maintaining employer confidence.”
In fairness, that is what the Government’s impact assessment said. It stated that the issues around transition are likely to lead to delays, which will have a real-world impact. I will come back to that point in a second.
The criticisms from different people in industry of the move away from independence and employer ownership —those two things go hand in hand—take us back to the origin of IfATE. It was set up alongside the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. It was, in a sense, a quid pro quo. There was employers’ money and, in return, employer ownership of the system, for the first time. The move away from this being something independent and properly arm’s length to it being run by a bit of the DFE, by just some DFE officials, is a move away from that sense of employer ownership.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister explain why he does not think that the rationalisation of unelected and largely unaccountable arm’s length bodies—quangos—is a bad thing? Why should the Secretary of State not be the person who is held accountable for post-16 skills education?
Neil O’Brien
That is a perfectly good question. Of course, this Government are a big fan of quangos and have, I think, created—net—28 more quangos since it came to office. Some can be the right thing to do, so I am not necessarily criticising the Government for that. In this case—I cannot remember if the hon. Lady was around when we were creating the apprenticeship levy—the reason why it was made independent of Government and an employer-owned body was that we were, for the first time, creating something that is quite common in the rest of Europe, the apprenticeship levy.
The levy is intended to stop—to be blunt—good employers who invest in their workforce and the skills of their workforce being taken advantage of by those who do not. That meant doing something controversial, which in effect was requiring them to pay into the levy—in many ways, it is like a tax—but they could get their money back through the apprenticeship levy. However, in return for that big change, requiring larger employers to put their own money into skills, we wanted to ensure that the whole thing would be truly employer-led, rather than politician-led.
Of course, current Ministers are brilliant—this is not any criticism of them—but we legislate for the ages, not for whoever is currently the Minister. Ministers change, and sometimes there have been instances—I am horrified to tell the Committee—where politicians have foibles or funny ideas of their own, which are not necessarily reflected in the wishes of employers and what they want from the skills system. That was why we put the system more into the hands of employers.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is interesting to hear the shadow Minister speak about business’s view of the apprenticeship levy. When I speak to businesses in my constituency, they tell me that the apprenticeship levy was not flexible enough and was not working, and it was preventing them giving opportunities to young people. That is exactly why so many businesses have welcomed the changes that this Government are bringing in. Has he not heard the exact same from businesses in his constituency?
Neil O’Brien
Even before we set up the levy, I always heard employers expressing concerns about the idea of a levy of any kind. In many instances, they would prefer just to keep their money and not spend it on skills at all. The fact that they were not spending on skills is the reason why we brought in a levy—it was quite a contentious thing, and quite a centrist thing in lots of ways.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in its recent paper on the Government’s proposals to change the levy, the danger, if we start to make these things too open-ended, is that we completely collapse the concept. It notes what happened with things before, such as Train to Gain, where what we end up with is pure dead-weight—we get zero additionality.
To reduce the idea to absurdity, if we were to say that employers can spend the apprenticeship levy on whatever they like, there is no point in having a levy, is there? That is because we would have just gone around in a circle. There is no point taking money off people and saying, “You can do whatever you want.” The whole point of containing that expenditure to apprenticeships was, as well as wanting to prioritise apprenticeships, to avoid the very real problems that the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out with previous schemes such as Train to Gain, where we ended up with huge amounts of dead-weight. It did not work, and the amount of money spent by employers on such things went down.
I am absolutely ready to hear criticisms of, and improvements to, the idea of the levy. In a moment, I will talk about some of the challenges that will be thrown up by the Government’s proposals to move large amounts of money out of apprenticeships through the reforms to the levy.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
On the shadow Minister’s previous point, I spoke to businesses in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, and one pointed out to me that 90 pieces of paperwork were required, with multiple contract stages, just to get, for example, a plumber apprentice to take part in any scheme. The college in my constituency, which is outstanding and has a 72% completion rate compared with the national average of 58%, is doing strong work, but the businesses, in particular the small and medium-sized enterprises, are saying that the apprenticeship levy does not work for them and has excluded them from skills development. I am interested to hear what the shadow Minister has to say about that.
Neil O’Brien
As I said, I am absolutely ready to hear detailed thoughts and to have the detailed discussion about how one improves all these different things, and I am pleased that the hon. Lady’s local college seems to be highly successful in delivering these things. Every year, on average, twice as many people started apprenticeships under the last Government as started them under the previous Labour Government, so we did get a lot more of them, as well as higher quality. I do not know what the 90 bits of paper are, but I am absolutely ready to hear and to talk about ways we could improve those matters.
On the point about SMEs that the hon. Lady raised, that is exactly why last March we moved to 100% funding for SMEs—to make things easier for them. I agree with the hon. Lady: there is a lot to do to make it easier for SMEs to participate in the levy-led system. I am just not convinced that any of the concerns she raises will be addressed by shutting down IfATE or setting up Skills England. She might hope that they will be—I hope that they will be—but I do not see anything in this legislation that will fix any of the problems that she complains about. Obviously, we hope that collectively we will solve the problems in the system.
There are quite a lot of concerns—including concerns among those on the Labour Benches, which I will come on to—about the transfer of IfATE’s powers to the Secretary of State compromising the independence with which apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications, such as T-levels, are accredited, and diluting the voice of employers. As numerous people have pointed out, we would not and do not accept that on the academic side, where we have both independent exam boards and Ofqual creating and monitoring specifications and exams. This is yet another example of our treating the academic side—the route that most of us went down—differently from the technical side. As the Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out:
“The problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels like the second half is missing. The second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body…Being subsumed within a division of the Department for Education…is problematic. The Minister needs to reflect on it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC87.]
As another Labour peer, Baroness Blower, pointed out,
“the appropriate move from where we are would be to a statutory body”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC90.]
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, said that giving Skills England legislative backing
“would…cement the body’s independence.”
In contrast, the Bill originally introduced by the Government did not even include the words “Skills England”. The very act of a further reorganisation, even if one thinks it is a good idea, is likely to further compound the effects of the Budget and the decision to move apprenticeships money to other things. I will just rehearse that for a moment. Obviously, the Budget saw a £40 billion overall tax increase and the largest part of that is a £25 billion increase in national insurance, which is squarely targeted on part-time and lower-income workers. It hits exactly the tier of the workforce that is typically the apprenticeship kind of tier. Of course, apprenticeships do not require payment of national insurance, but when we see lots of employers, as we do now, shedding jobs in that tier, that is inevitably bad for the number of apprenticeships.
That is compounded by what the Government want to do in terms of taking money out of apprenticeships. There has been some confusion about that, because safely before the election, Labour in opposition had the idea that it was going to let employers take 50% of the money from the levy and spend it on things that were not apprenticeships. Then, as the election drew nearer, that idea seemed to disappear and did not feature any more. Lots of people assumed that it was gone. Then I assumed it was definitely gone, because I asked the current Minister—whom we have here today—in Westminster Hall whether the 50% target still stood, and the Minister said that the policy was under review. Then a couple of weeks later, in oral questions, when we asked the Secretary of State whether the 50% target still stood, she said that it did, even though lots of people in industry think that that is not the plan.
This whole question about how much of the money will be taken out of apprenticeships and put elsewhere is shrouded in confusion. I would love it—I would be delighted—if the Minister could talk about that point today and tell us whether it is still 50%. It is a binary thing: it either is 50% or is not. I would love the Minister to tell us the answer one way or another. At the moment, the levy raises about £2 billion a year. If the Government take 50% of that money out, they might think that is a good thing. They might say, “Yes, we want employers to be able to spend a billion quid on other stuff.” But if they take all that money out of apprenticeships, one thing they will definitely have is fewer apprenticeships. They could say it is fine—
Melanie Onn
The shadow Minister references the number of apprentices, and he pointed to the previous Government’s record on that, but, in my constituency, apprenticeship starts fell year on year under the previous Government. Lots of young people have been completely disenfranchised, having had their apprenticeships end early without getting to completion. There has to be some kind of change so that we are not failing young people. There has to be a review of the levy, which employers have said is far too restrictive. The hon. Member’s points do not actually bear scrutiny when we get down to constituency-level data, do they?
Neil O’Brien
I give the hon. Lady the national-level data—I think I did already—because I do not have in my head the data for every constituency. At the national level, we had twice as many apprenticeship starts every year under the last Conservative Government as we did under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Lady might say, “That’s not enough; it should’ve been even higher,” and I would perhaps even agree with her. I would have liked the number to be even higher as well.
The hon. Lady said that numbers fell. What we saw was that, even though the overall number of starts was twice as high under the Conservatives as it had been under Labour, absolutely, the shift from frameworks to standards and to a higher quality of apprenticeships did reduce numbers. It did not take them down to where they had been under Labour, but it did reduce them. However, that shift was essential, and I do not think that anyone wants to go back from standards to frameworks.
There was a damning 2015 Ofsted report, which the hon. Lady will remember well, that found that quite a lot of people—a lot of learners—had been on an apprenticeship for more than a year and did not even know they were on an apprenticeship.
Neil O’Brien
Such was the low level of quality—such was the total absence of any training or meaningful content in the apprenticeship. What we had was an abuse. What we had was employers being able to pay below the national minimum wage—below the rates even for young people—and, at the same time, not providing meaningful training and what all of us want, which is proper, high-quality apprenticeships. I do not think the hon. Lady is really going to argue for a move back to those previous frameworks—
Neil O’Brien
But, as she rises to her feet, perhaps she will tell me if she does want to go backwards to frameworks.
Melanie Onn
That is not what I am rising to my feet to say. It is interesting that the shadow Minister points out the differential rates of pay between young people and older people, because we have just had the Employment Rights Bill going through Parliament, during which Conservative Members were absolutely incandescent that we might seek to raise the pay of young people, equalise it and recognise fair rates of pay regardless of age.
I am interested in that 2015 report. The hon. Gentleman said “a lot of people”; was that the actual wording in the report?
Neil O’Brien
I am not sure what the question is. Is the hon. Lady asking whether what I said about the 2015 report was correct?
Melanie Onn
I was asking the shadow Minister to clarify the numbers. He refers to the report and makes a sweeping generalisation about it, so what exactly were the numbers? What is the accuracy of the report?
Neil O’Brien
Just to reassure the lady, the numbers are correct. Although I do not encourage people to use mobile phones in Committee, Sir Christopher, the hon. Lady can google her way to the 2015 Ofsted report. She can read it for herself and be chilled, as I was, by its description of the pre-reform system and the low level of quality that was being provided in it.
The hon. Lady tempts us off the topic to talk about wider issues. On those different rates, I would say that most systems around the world, including ours, have different rates of minimum wage by age. That is about making the so-called “bite” of the minimum wage similar for different ages. Different groups of people at different ages have different productivity levels and different typical rates of pay. Therefore, if a Government do not want to create large rates of youth unemployment—and most systems around the OECD do not—they end up with different minimum wage rates for different ages. That system has been there since the start; it was there when Labour created these things, and it was still there when we turned it into the national living wage, so none of that is novel.
I will say one thing about the Employment Rights Bill, since it has been brought up. We do not have the skills Minister herself with us, because, of course, she is in the other place, but I do just note that the Government have created a situation in which a lot of universities are facing industrial action—because the national insurance increase has wiped out all of the increases in fees, and one broken promise on fees is now being used to pay for another broken promise on tax. The Employment Rights Bill makes it easier to take industrial action. I think that a lot of universities, as employers, are dreading the impact. Having addressed that point, I will get back on topic.
Neil O’Brien
Sure. A shadow form exists at the moment, but that does not change the longer-term point that if we do not give it its own legislative basis and make it independent of the Department, all the criticisms and concerns about the dilution of the employer voice and so on still stand. I am not having a go at those who are setting up Skills England.
Leigh Ingham
On the point about independence, the chair has been announced as Phil Smith, the former CEO of Cisco. Surely that in itself is a sign of significant independence.
Neil O’Brien
A fantastic person—all good. It is like having NEDs—non-executive directors—in a Department; it is good to have external people. As I noted, however, the CEO of the organisation is literally not a civil servant; it is a job-share civil servant. They are people who currently work in the Department doing post-16 skills, so I am not sure about idea that this is an independent body. Can the hon. Lady tell me where Skills England is based? Physically, where is it located? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Is it in Sanctuary Buildings, by any chance? Sanctuary Buildings is none other than the headquarters of the DFE. Is this, in fact a desk in an open plan office that is part of the DFE?
The Government can bring in good people. It is good to bring in good people. The DFE has some good NEDs, by the way, but that is not the same as having an independent institution. That is why Lord Blunkett and other Labour peers are warning that the Government are making a mistake. Those are their words, not ours. Lord Blunkett has a lot more experience of those things than me.
All I would say to the Minister and to hon. Members on the Government Benches is, instead of overturning what peers have put into the Bill, this might be one of those times when it is more sensible to listen to people on their own side, people with some serious grey hairs and a lot of experience, people in their own party, who are advising them that they are making a mistake here. Instead of overturning what they have done, the Government should allow it to stand. The criticisms being made by people in the industry and people with experience in education and skills are serious. I hope that the Government will listen to them, rather than simply overturning what they have done and ignoring them.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
We are debating clauses 1 to 3 stand part and schedules 1 to 3. The Minister, in her opening remarks, talked a lot about the intention to create Skills England, how it will operate and so on. That is not in clauses 1 to 3.
The Bill is all about transferring functions from the independent Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to the Secretary of State in central Government. Colleagues may have seen the, as ever, helpful and pithy descriptive notes from the House of Commons Library. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which will transfer statutory functions from the institute to the Secretary of State. Clause 2 introduces schedule 2, which will allow the Secretary of State to make schemes for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the institute. Clause 3 will abolish the institute and introduce a schedule 3, which makes consequential amendments to the 2009 Act and other Acts.
The history of this sector is the history of many changes in the machinery of government and the creation of many quangos. There have been 12 in the past five decades. This one will be lucky—no doubt—13. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister helped us with some of the history and some of those previous bodies. I have a slightly longer list.
We have had industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission, and the training and enterprise councils known as TECs—but those TECs were not the same as another type of TEC, the Technical Education Council, which existed alongside the Business Education Council or BEC in the 1970s. The two would merge in the 1980s to give us, of course, BTEC, the Business and Technology Education Council. There were national training organisations, the Learning and Skills Council, sector skills councils, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, the Skills Funding Agency or SFA, which would later become the ESFA, or Education and Skills Funding Agency, and most recently LSIPs—local skills improvement partnerships—and IfATE.
Neil O’Brien
I, too, pay tribute to the work of Lord Sainsbury. Those points, which were inserted into what were then called the Sainsbury routes, drew on the experience of the best technical systems in the world, particularly those in Germany and Switzerland. What characterises those systems is the unbelievable level of employer ownership and the incredible constancy of the organisations, which are external to Government, that run them. The Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung has been around for, I think, 50 or 60 years. Are those not the characteristics of a good system—employer ownership and independence—and the things that Lord Sainsbury was talking about?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right. If we take the full etymology, we can go back a lot further, to the creation of guilds centuries ago, which evolved into the modern system.
Damian Hinds
No, I do not, but there is a definition of what an apprenticeship is. There are perfectly good reasons to have all manner of training courses, including entry-level ones, that do important things, but they are not apprenticeships. The shadow Minister talked about Germany. In our country, the minimum length of an apprenticeship is shorter than the typical length of one in Germany. The time off the job—the time in college—is shorter. As I say, we can add on other things, but we cannot stretch the definition of what an apprenticeship is indefinitely. I may come back to that later.
On the face of it, this is a simple Bill—it has 13 pages and is on a simple subject—so it should be fairly easy for a Committee to dispatch in a couple of Thursdays. I have no doubt that Government Members will take the opportunity to make speeches on this subject, and I am sure those will be rather good. Members may make what could be described as great speeches and what they say will be largely unarguable. I fancy that we may hear the word “mission” from them, perhaps even more than once. They will talk about the importance of skills in our economy, investing in the next generation, valuing every single person for what they can do and the value of joining-up across Government Departments.
That will all be correct, but it will be largely beside the point. To turn a great speech that includes those things into a truly outstanding speech in this Committee, they would have to explain why taking away the independence of the body overseeing the system that upholds the standards would make those entirely laudable and shared goals more likely to come about. I know of no reason to believe that it will, but I am keen to hear from anybody who has such an idea.
In the Labour manifesto, there were some very laudable aims. It said that it wanted to empower
“local communities to develop the skills people need”
and to
“put employers at the heart of our skills system.”
Labour said that it would
“establish Skills England to bring together business, training providers and unions with national and local government”,
in order to deliver its industrial strategy. The manifesto said:
“Skills England will formally work with the Migration Advisory Committee to make sure training in England accounts for the overall needs of the labour market”.
It mentioned a commitment to
“devolving adult skills funding to Combined Authorities…alongside a greater role in supporting people into work”,
and Labour will
“transform Further Education colleges into specialist Technical Excellence Colleges.”
There are different ways that those aims could be achieved, and I would argue that there are better ways. The Government could, for example, keep IfATE as the standard-setting and upholding body, and create a new, small body, possibly inside the Treasury, to assess the needs of the economy and allocate funds accordingly. They could also strengthen the powers of local skills improvement partnerships, working closely with devolved authorities and mayors, to ensure that what is delivered at a local level in individual colleges matches what the local economy needs. I would have probably chosen that architecture, but plenty of other variations are possible.
To be clear, the Bill does not do any of those things. It simply abolishes the independent body that convenes employers to set the standards and then uphold them, and it hands those powers to the Secretary of State. It does nothing else—I say that, but it is not totally clear to me what it does to Ofqual, and we may debate that when we get to clause 8. I suggest that the Bill presents two fundamental questions: first, about independence; and secondly, about who should set the expectations and standards in any given sector of work—should it be the employers in that sector or somebody else? We will come to that debate when we reach clauses 4 and 5.
Ultimately, this is about whether we believe enough in the phrase “parity of esteem” to do the things necessary to achieve it. As I said in the House the other day, parity of esteem is not something one can just “assert”, and it cannot be legislated for. We cannot pass a law to give something greater esteem. Esteem is in the eye of the esteemer and it can only be earned. In part, that comes from knowing that the qualifications of the technical and vocational strand in our country are just as rigorous and have the same integrity as the academic strand.
By the way, independence is not totally a left/right issue. There are plenty of people on the right of politics who share the Minister’s desire not to have independent bodies. There is a general “anti the quangos” strand, and I have some sympathy for that. By the way, a debate is going on at the moment about removing the independence of the national health service and bringing it into the Department of Health and Social Care. That can be argued both ways. On the one hand, it will be harder for the NHS to do some things, particularly what they call reconfigurations, when they become subject to political pressure. On the other hand, it can be argued that there should of course be direct control from a democratically elected Government over the most important institution in our country. However, I think an independent body for upholding standards in education is in a separate bracket.
Neil O’Brien
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the context in which this is happening matters? We are talking about getting rid of a prestigious and independent institution, and at the same time, T-levels will not do what Lord Sainsbury hoped they will do. They were supposed to replace the existing standards but, in fact, they will be just another thing in the alphabet soup. We are seeing apprenticeships being made shorter again, and we are going back towards shelf-stacking types of apprenticeships. The mood music is already pretty ominous, and that is against the backdrop of Ministers getting more power by taking this back into the Department and abolishing independence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an issue?
Damian Hinds
I do. Funnily enough, my hon. Friend anticipates my next paragraph. Any Government rightly want more young people to pass their GCSEs, get good A-levels, or start and complete apprenticeships. The truth is that the quickest way to have more people getting any qualification is to make it a bit easier, and there is plenty of history of that, I am afraid. The entry requirements or length could be reduced, the pass mark could be made lower, or the credits that count towards the outcome could be changed. One of the reasons we have independent bodies setting standards is so that that temptation cannot be succumbed to, and crucially, everybody can see that it cannot, so they can have total faith in the standards being upheld.
Essentially, the rationale for why there is an independent Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is the same one as why the Chancellor sets fiscal rules, or why Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent: it is specifically for the Government to keep themselves within certain tram lines. We do this for academic qualifications. I have asked the Minister this question I think three times, and I will ask it again today: it would not be acceptable, would it, to say, “I’m going to put the pass mark, standards and specification for A-levels in the hands of a Government Minister”? If that is not acceptable for A-levels, how can it possibly be acceptable for T-levels? And we still say that we believe in parity of esteem.
In the good, possibly great, speeches that we will hear from Government Members, one other thing they might say—in fact, they have already started to say it; they pre-empted me—is that apprenticeship starts have fallen since the peak, but that under this Government, they will rise. Well, of course they will rise. If we look at the time series over the last decade of apprenticeship starts, we are not comparing apples with apples; we are comparing apples with oranges, because we had major changes in what counts as an apprenticeship, with the move from frameworks to standards as well as the minimum duration and minimum time off the job.
In discussing the overall numbers, we should also mention that the falls were in the intermediate level and that there were rises in the advanced level, and especially in higher-level apprenticeships. If the specification is reduced, of course that will increase the numbers. To be fair, the Government are not waiting for Skills England. They have already been doing this, by bringing the minimum length down from 12 months to eight months. They have also announced what they are calling foundation apprenticeships, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what those are—they sound a bit like traineeships, but let us hear it—and crucially, whether they will count towards the number of apprenticeships that are being undertaken in the country.
Janet Daby
Hon. Members have given me much to think about and feed back. I remind Opposition Members that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, a third of vacancies in our country are due to a lack of skills, and many people are in jobs for which they are underqualified. Young people need to know that when they undertake skills training, there will be a guaranteed job at the end of the process. We are committed to ensuring growth in this country. We want to get young people into work to ensure that they succeed and progress in life. We absolutely know that what we are trying to achieve with Skills England is the right thing to do.
I will attempt to respond to the various points that hon. Members have made. There have been previous arm’s length bodies with functions partially linked to those intended for Skills England, but none provides a direct comparison, given Skills England’s distinct remit.
Establishing Skills England is a manifesto commitment, and will support the delivery of the Government’s missions. As an Executive agency, Skills England will be subject to clear requirements on governance, transparency and accountability, and Ministers will be accountable to Parliament. The Government have put in the Bill a duty for the Secretary of State to publish information about matters they will take into account in deciding whether to prepare a standard or apprenticeship assessment plan without a group of persons. This new power will therefore be subject to the same level of transparency as existing powers being transferred from IfATE.
An Executive agency is a widely used model of arm’s length body. It has a clearly defined status and must be established and governed in line with official Cabinet Office guidance. Executive agencies are appropriate for the delivery of specialised functions separate from a primarily policy-focused Department, but within a policy and resources framework set by the Department, and for delivery of services to other parts of central Government using specialist skills. The Executive agency model will give Skills England the independence to focus on the delivery of its functions at arm’s length from the Department for Education, while ensuring sufficient proximity to the Department that Skills England can quickly and efficiently inform decisions on skills policy and delivery.
Skills England is operating in shadow form and is working extremely closely with IfATE, which also currently has a base in Sanctuary Buildings—the Department for Education. Following a vigorous recruitment process, in line with civil service guidance, we have appointed Skills England’s chief executive officers. Tessa Griffiths and Sarah Maclean have been appointed co-CEOs. They are senior leaders with long-standing experience in the public sector. Tessa and Sarah have been leading Skills England while it has been in shadow form, since last summer. They have driven the rapid progress that has seen Skills England start to deliver its important work ahead of the passing of this Bill. We do not believe in delay; we want to get on with establishing Skills England as an arm’s length body.
Skills England’s being run by CEOs at civil service director level is consistent with the approach taken by IfATE and other Executive agencies of the Department for Education. It is really important that I make those points so that there is a clear understanding of what is happening.
We considered, but ultimately decided against, expanding or otherwise retaining IfATE. We want to set Skills England up to build on IfATE’s work with employers, and to shape technical education and apprenticeships, but it will be very different from IfATE. It will have a much broader remit and will be more ambitious. It will bring IfATE’s functions together with others that are not currently in statute. We need to go further and do more to identify skills needs and work with regional partners to ensure they are being met. By bringing together those different functions into a single organisation, we will really be able to accelerate change. That will help the skills system to be more responsive to emerging skills needs. We need a flexible system that acts fast on the best available evidence to address the skills gaps that threaten to hold back our country. I am sure none of us wants to do that.
IfATE has worked with employers to design over 700 occupational standards. Skills England will build on that important work and retain a strong role for employers. But the skills system in England has matured since IfATE was created in 2017, and the scale and urgency of the skills challenge that we face means we need a new approach.
The Government are committed to delivering skills for the sector, as I have already pointed out, and we are listening to the needs of employers. This can be seen in our reform, growth and skills offer. Skills England will build on the work of IfATE and employers will continue to play a critical role in the design and delivery of apprenticeships and technical education. Indeed, that is already happening. The changes being brought about through the Bill have been designed in response to employer feedback and will simply mean that employers are not overburdened by repetitive and drawn-out processes, which we know can lead to disengagement.
I welcome the written submissions from the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Association of Colleges, JTL Training and the Royal Society of Chemistry. I thank those organisations for contributing to this important debate. I completely agree with the Institute of the Motor Industry’s view that Skills England must maintain an “employer-led ethos” with “strong industry collaboration”. That is why Skills England is already working, and will continue to work, closely with industry, while also building a clear picture of the challenges facing employers, including regional skills gaps, in order to support growth in our skills sector.
It is pleasing to hear the Association of Colleges, which represents more than 98% of further education colleges, express strong support for plans to establish Skills England and recognise the critical role that Skills England will play in the Government’s broader post-16 education and skills agenda.
Although many Members of the other place support the aims of Skills England, it is disappointing that peers voted for an amendment that would delay its full establishment. The Government are clear that employers need a fully formed Skills England now; they cannot wait. That is why we have tabled amendment 1 to overturn that amendment made in the other place.
Gaps in our economy are holding back growth and opportunity. We need the Bill to give Skills England the key tools that it needs to tackle them now, and not in 12 months’ time. Skills England has been operating in shadow form since July. Due to extensive transition planning over several months, it is ready to move fast to deliver the functions made possible by the Bill. Delay simply is not an option.
With regard to whether employers can spend up to 50% of levy funds on non-apprenticeship training, I do not want to put a target or limit on flexibility. It will be led by what employers need and driven by Skills England analysis. We have already introduced flexibility through new foundation and shorter apprenticeships, and we will continue to work with employers to understand where future flexibility will be most helpful.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister says she does not want to set a limit, but there was a commitment from the Secretary of State that employers would be able to spend up to 50% of their funds on non-apprenticeships. That was a Labour commitment. If I understand her, it will no longer be up to 50%; it will be some other number. Or is she saying that it will be up to 100%? Which of those things is she saying?
Janet Daby
What I am saying is that we have already introduced flexibility and we will continue to work with employers to understand where future flexibility will be most helpful. That will be worked through with Skills England. I am happy to get the hon. Member some further information.
The Chair
Order. The Minister is not giving way. As the shadow Minister knows, in Committee people may speak more than once in a debate, so if he wishes to come back after the Minister has sat down, he is free to do so.
Neil O’Brien
We have mysteries wrapped in mysteries here. As well as the lack of clarity about the future caused by the Bill, even in this debate on one group of clauses, we have had an extraordinary statement by the Minister. Businesses would like to know how, in just a few months’ time—next year—they will be able to spend a couple of billion pounds of their own money. This is employers’ money. Labour have oscillated between, “We will let 50% of this go on other things”, “No, we will not” and, since being in government, “We are reviewing this. This is not our policy any more.” On the Floor of the House, the Secretary of State has been saying, “No, it is absolutely our policy—50%. That is the number.” That is what she has told the House. Now we have another position—a fifth—on the spending of this money: “No, that is not the number any more.”
Employers will be jaw-to-the-floor agog at what is going on in the DFE. What is the policy? This is billions of pounds of employers’ money, in a difficult economic situation, being spent imminently, and yet the DFE cannot say—the Minister literally would not take a further question on it—what the policy is. What an extraordinary situation. What a shameful situation. Unbelievable.
We have been saying that, down the line, there might be some things to worry about in this transfer of power away from an employer-led and independent system towards the tender mercies of the DFE, but employers have got something to worry about right now. The Government do not seem to know what their own policies are. On that basis, I really do want to press clause 1 to a vote, and we will vote against it.
Janet Daby
We have been listening to businesses and employers, and they are absolutely telling us that they want greater flexibility in our apprenticeship systems and in how employers can spend their levy funds. We are reforming apprenticeships to deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers, including through shorter and foundation apprenticeships. I have attempted to answer the shadow Minister’s questions, but he is not satisfied. I have also offered to ensure that we get some more information. I want to make one more point: we are not putting a target or limit on flexibility; this will be led by what employers need.
Neil O’Brien
I am not asking for a target; that is a complete mischaracterisation. I am asking for clarity on the Government’s own policy. The Government said that that they would allow employers to take up to 50% of the money and spend it on things that were not apprenticeships. Either that is still the policy or it is no longer the policy. Which of those two things is the truth?
Janet Daby
I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. I will make sure there is a written response.
Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(3 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. This statutory instrument effectively kicks the can down the road for a year while the Government come to a decision on the CITB’s future. That is obviously not ideal from the sector’s point of view, but I can see that it gives the Government time to think.
The Opposition thank Mark Farmer for his thorough and very frank review, and for his analysis of the big challenges facing the sector in building a proper skills pipeline. His recommendations for a “fundamental reset” were very clear, including merging the two remaining ITBs into a single workforce planning and development body for both construction and engineering, supported by a statutory levy. The Department for Education has already said in response that it will not merge the two ITBs.
I have some questions I would like answered today. I appreciate that it can be difficult for Ministers to answer everything in these short debates, but I would be very grateful if the Minister undertook to write on some of these issues if there is no time to answer today.
In its briefing for this debate, the CITB explained that £143 million, or more than 12% of all the funds raised from the levy over the lifetime of this Parliament, will be spent on
“running the business, including grant and levy administration”.
That equates to about £28 million a year. Does the Minister think that kind of share—£1 in every £8—is appropriate? If not, what share would be appropriate?
My second question is about the Government’s emerging thinking on the CITB. The Farmer review noted that the CITB had delivered useful training, but
“it is not delivering the level of strategic forward thinking, scale and pace of influence or tangible bottom line impact that the industry now requires”.
Specifically, the review said that the CITB had too little focus on upskilling the existing workforce, did not police well enough how levy funds were used, and needed a clear, modular, unitised system of qualifications. Can the Minister say anything about her emerging thinking on the future of the CITB?
A third question is about the growth and skills levy. The Government have said that they will allow employers to take funds out of the current apprenticeship levy to spend on things that are not apprenticeships. The Secretary of State for Education has recently talked about allowing 50% of funds to be spent in that way.
Other things equal, of course, we will end up with fewer apprenticeships if we take a lot of money out of apprenticeships. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact of allowing employers to take 50% out of their levy funds to spend on non-apprenticeships in, for example, construction? What will that do to the number of apprenticeship starts and participation? There is an overlap between the apprenticeship levy and the CITB levy for firms in this industry. If, for example, it turns out that employers are allowed to take out 50%, what would that do to the number of apprenticeships in construction? I ask not least because the CITB has identified apprenticeships as a key route into the sector.
Fourthly, what assessment has the Minister made of the extraordinary joint appeal by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institute of Building and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for level 7 apprenticeships in the built environment to be exempt from the Government’s plans to cut level 7 apprenticeships? Those organisations say that they are “deeply concerned” by the Government’s plans and that cutting level 7 apprenticeships in this sector will be bad for upskilling existing workers and will be particularly bad for access to the profession for less well-off people.
Will the Minister heed those warnings from a sector that is very worried about the Government’s plans by protecting level 7 construction apprenticeships from the planned cull so that less well-off people can get top-level jobs in these very important professions? I hope the Minister can answer some of these questions today, but if not, I hope she will write to us.
Janet Daby
I will endeavour to answer those four questions. As the shadow Minister has suggested, if there are any questions I am unable to answer, he is welcome to write to me, or I can write to him.
This mission-led Government are kick-starting economic growth, delivering on net zero commitments and breaking down barriers to opportunity. The Government have committed to building 1.5 million homes in England during this Parliament for the growth mission, delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation.
In 2023, as the shadow Minister is aware, Mark Farmer was commissioned to carry out an independent review of the two remaining industry training boards, the engineering construction ITB and the construction ITB. That was part of the standard cycle of Cabinet Office reviews of public bodies. As I have said, the review’s publication was delayed until 30 January 2025 due to a lengthy fact-checking process and the need to consider our response in the light of our missions following the general election. A headline finding was that the construction and engineering construction sectors face common strategic workforce challenges. The review recommended merging the ITBs to focus on improving workforce resilience across both sectors.
As we press ahead with delivering 1.5 million homes, now would be the wrong time to distract the construction sector by consulting on changes to legislation. What the sector needs now is continued investment in skills and training to create a larger and more effective workforce. We are driving that through increased voluntary collaboration between ITBs, initially focused on the commonality of purpose in infrastructure, as demonstrated by the recent signing of the skills charter by both ITBs and Sizewell C. There is no immediate plan to legislate to merge the ITBs.
The CITB levy is specific to the construction industry. It has a wider remit on the types of training that can be funded, such as providing grants to deliver training to existing staff to meet any construction-related training needs, as well as setting sector occupational standards to assure the quality of qualifications.
The CITB has also used its levy funding to address barriers specific to the construction industry, including the creation of a new entrant support team. This mainly supports smaller businesses to identify appropriate training, and it provides mentoring and other support for learners. In less than a year, NEST has supported 2,506 distinct employers and 5,230 apprentices. Of those apprentices, 96.6% remain on their training or have achieved their apprenticeship, which is an excellent result. The ITBs are working with the Department for Education as the growth and skills offer is further defined, to ensure that ITB levy-funded training complements that provision. As I have already said, there are no immediate plans to legislate to merge the ITBs.
The CITB’s running costs are currently at 15% and include the cost of administering the levy, grants and funding schemes for employers. Its underlying corporate costs—including human resources, finance and other back office services—are at 10%. The 2023 ITB review recommended that there should be more transparency on the ITBs’ funding costs, that their corporate service costs should be benchmarked against suitable comparators, and that both ITBs should look to make 5% efficiency savings. In 2023-24, the CITB made efficiency savings of 11.3%. The Government agree with those recommendations, and a steering group will be convened to monitor their implementation.
The Department for Education’s response to the ITB review is on the Government website. We have accepted the majority of the review’s recommendations. Where the Department has partially accepted the recommendations, or accepted them in principle, it is because the recommendations are complex and are likely to require additional scoping of form and function. In some cases, consultation with the industry is likely to be required.
We must see a step change in construction skills delivery to achieve many of the Government’s infrastructure and housing ambitions. Over the next 12 months, we will work with ITBs and other Government Departments through a cross-departmental steering group to scope the different ways of implementing the more complex recommendations. All that work will need to be carried out before final policy decisions can be made on whether to fully accept and implement the recommendations. I am happy to write to the shadow Minister on his other financial points.
This draft order is designed to enable the CITB to concentrate on its job at hand, which is turning the dial on the provision of a growing and skilled construction workforce, alongside everything else this Government and industry will also bring to the table. The CITB levy ensures that the construction industry invests in training and skills. It provides businesses of all sizes with access to ringfenced funding estimated at almost £224 million over the next financial year. Hon. Members will know that we cannot afford to turn down such investment, given our ambition for growth and our ambition to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.
Neil O’Brien
I think the hon. Lady has already covered this, but is she happy to write to me about the level 7 apprenticeships?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for raising that again—I had it in my notes. Further information on the level 7 apprenticeships will shortly be made available to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(3 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
One reason why England’s schools rose up the international league tables in recent years is that they spent more time on core academic subjects such as English and maths. Having fallen sharply under the last Labour Government, the share of pupils doing double or triple science at GCSE has also gone up from 70% to 98%. Can the Minister reassure the House that time will not be taken away from the core academic subjects, and that their content will not be cut back, as a result of the curriculum review?
Catherine McKinnell
The Government entered office to unprecedented challenges, including crumbling public services and crippling public finances. In the face of a significant financial black hole we are taking tough decisions to fix the foundations, but we are protecting key education priorities, rebuilding schools and rolling out breakfast clubs, and we will continue to do so.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq). What is displacing reading for pleasure among children is smartphones and social media, including in schools. The Department for Education’s own behaviour survey found that nearly half of pupils in years 10 and 11 report that in most or all lessons, mobile phones are being used when they should not be. The guidance is not working, so why are the Government continuing to block our proposals for a proper ban on smartphones in schools?
Catherine McKinnell
Last year, under the previous Government, we saw the steepest year-on-year drop in the number of children and young people enjoying reading. The hon. Member should look at the record of his Government before pointing the finger. Phones should not be out in schools; it is a simple as that. Heads have the power to impose rules that suit their school community. Just a year ago, his Government claimed that they were “prohibiting” mobile phones in schools, and that their guidance meant a “consistent approach” across schools. Those were their words. The then Secretary of State said:
“We are giving our hard-working teachers the tools to take action”.
Was that Secretary of State right back then, when they backed the Tory Government’s measures, or is the hon. Member?
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Labour’s plan says that the early years must be the top priority, but a survey by the National Day Nurseries Association finds that nursery fees are going up by 10% on average because the Government are not compensating nurseries for the cost of the national insurance increase. Will the Government rethink that decision, which the Early Years Alliance has described as “catastrophic”, or will it be just another example of a tax on working people?
Bridget Phillipson
We are investing more in the early years system through the Budget; there are record levels of investment to support families with the expansion that they were promised by the Conservatives, but for which there had been no funding for delivery. We have also delivered the single-biggest uplift in the early years pupil premium, alongside an expansion grant, because we know that, in too many parts of the country, parents are unable to access the places that they have been promised. We are determined to turn that around. Our ambitions to roll out primary-based nurseries will also make a big difference by supporting parents in the childcare deserts left by the Conservatives.
Education
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(4 weeks, 1 day ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
Where the adjudicator upholds an objection to the published admission number, I cannot foresee a circumstance where that might be the case—
Catherine McKinnell
It will very much depend on the local context. Obviously, it will be for the adjudicator as an independent professional to take that decision for maintained schools. To be clear, for academies it will be for the Secretary of State to end a funding agreement, and for maintained schools it will be for the local authority to determine.
[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025; c. 430.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):
Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss.
Through these regulations, the Government are increasing tuition fees to £9,535 a year. The maximum maintenance loan for students not living at home is £10,227, or £13,348 in London, so after a typical three-year degree, a graduate will need to pay back up to £59,000, or up to £68,600 for those who studied in London. If the Government continue to raise fees in the same way throughout this Parliament, those figures will increase to about £66,400 in the rest of the country, or £76,900 for those who studied in London. Those are two very large numbers.
As it happens, this year’s fees hike has not made universities any better off because the cost of the national insurance hike wipes out the benefit to the sector of the decision to increase tuition fees. Effectively, one broken promise on fees is paying for another broken promise on tax. The Secretary of State’s website still has the ironic headline, “Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour Government”, but in reality they are paying higher fees and more tax, too.
The current system produces some incredibly high marginal rates for young people. Those who have a postgraduate loan, or who pay the high-income child benefit charge, face incredibly high marginal rates, even on middling incomes. Sadly, the new Government have abandoned plans to reform the HICBC, so this problem will not go away any time soon. Graduates have 51% of their income taxed away at just £50,000 of earnings, a sum which will not feel like being rich for those renting in an expensive city. At £60,000 of earnings, graduates with kids, particularly postgraduates, face marginal rates in the 58% to 73% range—the kind of rates that used to apply only to super-taxes on the very wealthy.
One way things have changed since the launch of fees is that we have much better data, particularly thanks to the creation of the longitudinal education outcomes dataset under the last Government. This lets us look at a degree’s value added compared with something else, and something else can sometimes be better. The latest data shows that the median first-degree graduate earnings five years after graduation are £29,900, compared with £33,800 for level 4 apprentices; the apprentices are earning substantially more.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has taken the deepest look at this question. It has considered how graduate earnings are evolving for those who study at different types of institutions and on different types of courses, and it has tried to compare that with counterfactuals for people with similar prior characteristics. It looked at how many people saw their earnings boosted by a degree and what the costs were, and worked out the net benefit for the individual and the taxpayer, and it combined these perspectives to get a final score. The conclusion of its 2020 report was that
“seen over the whole lifetime, we estimate that total returns will be negative for around 30% of both men and women.”
That is a huge share for whom it is proving not to be worth it.
The IFS also noted that
“While getting an undergraduate degree is worthwhile financially for most students, there is significant variation across subjects. Some subjects, such as medicine, law and economics, offer a springboard to very lucrative careers…However, a significant minority of mostly men are likely to not see positive returns as a result of going to university…lifetime earnings returns remain low or negative for subjects such as creative arts and English.”
Today’s Times has a report based on my freedom of information requests to the Student Loans Company. That in itself is telling: the whole process of assessing public spending on higher education needs to be radically more transparent. We should not need to rely on freedom of information requests just to get this data, but now that we have it, it reveals the vast variations between higher education institutions in the share of loans that are being repaid. Where we see that only very small fractions of the money loaned out by the taxpayer is paid back, it often means that the courses are not that great for either the taxpayer or the student, who may feel that their degree has cost them a lot without necessarily taking them to where they hoped. Yet the Government seem to have looked first at jacking up young people’s fees, and they seem to have given up on reforming the system to weed out courses that offer low value for money.
Speaking of value for money, one university that will benefit from these regulations is the University of Greater Manchester. The Minister will have seen the extremely concerning reports in the press, particularly The Manchester Mill, about the attempts to pay huge sums of what is effectively taxpayers’ money to relatives of the university’s managers, and to what appears to be a shell company in Casablanca. Can the Minister assure me that he is investigating those concerning allegations?
I am very sympathetic to the plight of staff at universities where the leadership have got them into financial difficulties, be it through taking out ill-judged, expensive loans, overspending on buildings or becoming overdependent on one particular group of overseas students—I am sympathetic to universities and lecturers more generally, as it is a hugely important job. I am not saying that all universities are awash with cash, but it is worth saying that up-front real-terms funding per student is still substantially above the level of the pre-fees era, even as student numbers have exploded.
There are many wonderful, valuable courses in our universities, which I hope will expand and prosper, but young people in Britain are now facing really large repayments and high marginal rates, which make it difficult to get on in life. We need to do right by our universities, but we also need to do right by our young people. I believe that reforms offer scope to get them a much better deal. We should look first to reforms, rather than simply increasing the burdens on young people. That is why we are sceptical about these regulations.