Qualifications Reform Review
Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Janet Daby(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now make a statement on the outcomes of the review of qualifications reform at level 3.
The priority for this Government is to build a skills system that will drive forward opportunity and deliver the growth that our economy needs. The post-16 skills system in England that we inherited from the previous Government fails both of those tests. In particular, the qualifications landscape is too confusing and fails to provide the clear routes to success that is needed by learners and employers. We heard strong arguments that the previous Government’s plans to remove level 3 qualifications and to limit the flexibility for schools and colleges meant that they risked leaving students with too little choice and too few opportunities.
This year, we have paused the defunding of qualifications and have undertaken a review of the qualifications that are set to have their funding removed, to see where we need to retain alternative qualifications, such as applied general qualifications or BTECs, and to consider how long we need to keep them in place. We undertook extensive stakeholder engagement, delving into the detail of qualifications with employer representative bodies, colleges, practitioners, awarding organisations and industry experts.
We recognise that certainty is very important to education providers, to students and to their parents and guardians. I reassure the House that our decisions make the position clear up to 2027. We are clear that students deserve high-quality qualifications that meet their needs, and that we must continue to develop and improve qualifications, so that they provide for the needs of students and employers.
The curriculum and assessment review will take a view on qualifications in the long term, as part of its wider consideration of how we prepare all young people for life and work, but there are some areas where we need to act in advance of its recommendations. The first change that we will make is that we will not tell providers and students which types of qualifications they can and cannot mix together. It should be for colleges and sixth forms to work with students, employers, mayors and higher education to devise the best mix for each individual and deliver the skilled young people that their local economy needs.
We will therefore not be applying the previously proposed rules of combination. There are a confusing number of qualifications in the system, and through this review, we have already identified more than 200 qualifications with low or no enrolments. We will remove funding from these in line with already published dates. This gives students and employers a simpler range of qualifications to choose from.
T-levels provide an excellent qualification option, which should be available to more learners. We introduced three new T-levels this September, and a further T-level in marketing is to be introduced from September 2025. It was fantastic to see the energy generated by this year’s T-levels Week, which highlighted the huge benefits that young people are gaining from T-levels, and their enthusiasm for the qualification. The unique industry placement aspect of T-levels is a real draw for students and is all too often not offered by other qualifications.
We have recently introduced new flexibilities to support industry placement delivery, to enable more young people to benefit from the opportunities that T-levels provide. It follows, therefore, that where learners wish to study a large qualification in a T-level route, the T-level should be the main option for them. We have moved away from blanket restrictions, such as automatically defunding any qualification that overlaps with a T-level. Instead, we have taken a practical, evidence–led approach, looking at the qualifications route by route. This will ensure that we can be confident that students have high-level choices.
On this basis, we have concluded that we will not proceed with defunding qualifications on published lists in agriculture, environment and animal care; legal, finance and accounting; business and administration; and creative and design before 2027. Following our review, we will retain funding for 157 qualifications that were due to be defunded by 31 July 2025.
In engineering and manufacturing, we will keep funding for the qualifications that were previously identified for defunding until 2027. This will allow time to update the occupational standards that are designed by employers and that underpin this large and complex route, and to establish new qualifications that meet the needs of learners, providers and employers.
In the digital sector, we are working with the T-level awarding organisation to make assessments more manageable, and plan to have the necessary changes in place for the next academic year. We are also making T-level placements more flexible, expanding the option for remote learning. This will be particularly important in the digital route. We will keep funding for the six existing large digital qualifications until 2026, to allow time to embed these key improvements. Beyond that, we will also keep funding for 13 smaller digital qualifications, so that learners have a range of choices until reformed alternatives are available.
On health, science and social care, the previous decision to defund social care qualifications left a gap, as there was a heavy T-level focus on health and science, rather than on social care. We will therefore keep funding for nine qualifications in health and social care until new qualifications in the care services route have been developed. We expect that to happen in 2026-27. We are also keeping funding beyond that for 11 qualifications in science-related subjects to give learners even more options.
On education and early years, we have heard strong support for the T-level, and so we will remove funding from existing large and medium qualifications as planned in 2025. This will direct learners who want to study a large qualification to the T-level as the highest-quality option. We are also retaining funding for six smaller qualifications to support specific occupations, such as teaching assistants, giving learners a smaller alternative.
Construction is a key part of this Government’s mission, and I am delighted to report that two of the construction T-levels continue to grow and offer high-quality options for learners. The on-site construction T-level is also providing valuable education, industry experience and a positive route into employment for those who wish take it. However, its success has been limited because of a lack of overall demand for a larger qualification at level 3. We have, as a result, concluded that the needs of learners and the economy are best met through apprenticeships and other classroom provision, and decided to cease taking new enrolments for the on-site construction T-level. Those already taking it will be able to complete it as planned and progress into positive destinations post-graduation.
To meet the economic needs of this important sector and to ensure that we can support our missions around high-quality housing, we are also keeping one large qualification in site carpentry, and in 11 other medium and small qualifications.
We must continue to improve opportunities and the quality of qualifications. We will keep qualifications only until they are no longer needed, so that learners can do the T-levels that they need to do. We will invite awarding organisations to submit further new level 3 qualifications in the spring, to continue the process of reform.
We are currently considering whether proposed T-levels in catering and beauty therapy meet the needs of learners and the economy, and we will update the sector in due course. I can confirm that any new T-level in these areas will not be rolled out until at least 2026.
These changes are a fair reflection of what we have heard, and offer a balanced approach that supports our missions of spreading opportunity and supporting economic growth. We want high-quality options, strong choices and a simpler system that is easier for learners to navigate. The approach and timescales that I have set out today represent a pragmatic and achievable journey to where we want to be. We are putting the needs of learners and our economy at the heart of how we move forward. I commend this statement to the House.
Janet Daby
I thank the shadow Minister for his many points. The reason the review was so pertinent and needed to take place was because of the confusion around T-levels and how much work needed to take place—work that the Conservative Government had a lot of time to do. This Government believe that T-levels are an excellent qualification that should be available to more young people. Qualifications that overlap with T-levels will be able to co-exist while we continue to develop and improve qualifications, so that they provide for the needs of learners and employers, and support the transition to T-levels as the large technical qualification of choice. The Conservative Government’s rushed plans would have left young people looking to move into crucial sectors such as engineering or social care without options. Instead of blanket restrictions, the review will deliver on the Government’s ambition to fix the foundations of the economy and deliver growth.
As the shadow Minister mentioned, T-levels are still in the early stage of implementation, and the retention rate is improving. We expect that trend to be maintained as they continue to bed in. Career guidance for potential students is key, and we are raising careers advisers’ awareness of the benefits of T-levels. The shadow Minister will be aware of the announcement in the October Budget of £300 million of additional revenue funding for further education and £300 million of new capital investment. That settlement reaffirms and expands the Government’s commitment to skills by providing an additional £3 million for further education to ensure that young people are developing the skills that the country needs. In addition, the Government have provided £300 million of new funding to support colleges to maintain, improve and ensure the suitability of the FE estate, and address conditions and capacity issues. We will set out in due course how that will be distributed.
There are many areas in which the Government are making advancements, and we are very aware that students need to be supported. Combinations of learning are absolutely the right thing for them. We remain ambitious for students. I will endeavour to get back to the shadow Minister on the terms of reference.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I pay tribute to everyone who works in further education—a vital sector that makes a transformative difference, and whose importance is often not properly recognised. Vocational and technical courses and qualifications are a critical part of our education system, yet schools, colleges and students have faced great uncertainty as a consequence of the previous Government’s decision to defund a number of applied general qualifications. I welcome the additional certainty that the Minister has provided by committing to maintain some AGQs and pause any further changes until 2027.
The landscape of vocational qualifications is indeed too complex and confusing, but the cliff-edge approach adopted by the previous Government had significant adverse consequences. My Committee has heard evidence that the previous Government’s plans have already had material impacts, because some colleges have modelled the proposed reduction in courses and now face potential insolvency as a result. What support will the Government provide to colleges that have already planned and committed to their qualification offering for September 2025, based on the previous Government’s decision to defund, and now face further changes?
The Committee has also heard evidence of the success of T-levels for those who complete them, particularly in areas such as healthcare. However, T-levels account for just 10% of all vocational courses, and continue to have a worryingly high drop-out rate. What further work are the Government planning between now and 2027 to reform T-levels and make them accessible to a wider range of students, including students with special educational needs and disabilities, before any further changes to AGQs are made? My Committee understands the value and potential of T-levels, but it is vital that in pursuing this route as the predominant option for technical and vocational training, the Government are not locking some young people out of the opportunity to learn, succeed and thrive.
Janet Daby
I join the Chair of the Education Committee in praising many colleges, the sector, and teachers themselves. She is right to mention the track record of the previous Government. We very much want to support students in their learning, and especially colleges. Where colleges find that they have to change course, or where there are issues with courses, I invite them to make that known to the Department, to see what support can be provided. The £300 million that has been invested in this area should go some way to providing it. T-levels need much focus through positive communication, and we need to ensure that young people enrol in the right courses. There is a series of events and webinars to inform schools, colleges and other professionals working in educational settings about the outcomes of the review. The Department will publish further information, advice and guidance in relation to 16-to-19 study programmes in the new year.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Janet Daby(3 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Janet Daby
My hon. Friend is right. This Government have committed to recruiting 8,500 additional staff across children and adult NHS mental health services. That will help to reduce delays, provide faster treatment and ease pressure on busy mental health services. Family hubs are also crucial to providing that.
Uyghur Tribunal Judgment
Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Janet Daby(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government have no justification to deny that this is genocide?
Ms Ghani
The Government can fall back on the line, “It requires the United Nations to determine genocide”, but the discussion today is that once the Government are made aware that there is an intent of genocide, that unlocks legal obligations to assess that risk for the Government and for the British public.
As I just mentioned, the Government must carry out risk assessments and undertake due diligence to make sure that they and the British public are not at risk; it is a responsibility of Government, not the courts, following the 2007 legal determination. Before we are told, “It is impossible. It is impractical.”, let me point out that that is just wrong and that other Governments are acting. Our allies in America last month introduced a landmark piece of legislation, the Uyghur Forced Labour Prevention Act, which will stop imports arriving in America from Xinjiang, putting the burden of proof on companies to show that they are not selling goods stained red with Uyghur slave labour. Our public, the British public, do not want to be duped into putting money into the pocket of firms—British firms—selling slave labour products on our shelves. This gets even more absurd, because if we are set on seeking a free trade agreement with America, the Government must strongly consider how enthusiastic our allies in Washington will be about the prospect of the UK being the gateway for whitewashed Uyghur slave labour goods imported from Xinjiang through the UK and ending up in the United States. The Government’s position is now making us a laughing stock. There is no point talking tough but not taking any action.
Let me give the House some examples of that. Last year, the Government promised a bundle of measures
“to help ensure that British organisations are not complicit in, nor profiting from, human rights violations in Xinjiang.”
There has been zero progress. The Government promised
“a Minister led campaign of business engagement to reinforce the need for UK businesses to take action to address the risk.”
There has been zero progress. The Government promised
“the introduction of financial penalties for organisations who fail to meet their statutory obligations to publish annual modern slavery statements, under the Modern Slavery Act.”
There has been zero progress. We cannot even go to Xinjiang to do basic due diligence, so how can we prove that no slavery is taking place? We just have to act—the law is on our side.
Let me leave the House with the story of Tursunay Ziyawudun, a Uyghur camp survivor I had the honour of meeting last year. Many have argued that this is the most technically advanced genocide that has ever taken place, so survivors are really rare. Tursunay was tortured and later gang-raped on many occasions, and had an electric device inserted into her vagina. The biggest damage is that Tursunay feels ashamed, but it is us who should be ashamed that we have taken no action to stop her people being destroyed by genocide. We have taken no action to protect the British public and prevent those British companies from making profit on the back of this genocide. I urge the Minister—I know that Tursunay would be pleading with the Minister here and that the House, with its unanimous support for backing the previous amendment, implores the Government—to live up to their moral and legal obligation and carry out the urgent assessment of genocide in Xinjiang, and to do so for the Uyghur people and to protect the British public.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
So far, the speeches in this important debate have been disturbing, powerful and heartfelt. There is clearly cross-party support for the motion. I thank the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) for securing the debate and for responding to the recent tribunal judgment, and I thank every other Member who has spoken.
The Uyghur Tribunal, led by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, is the most extensive independent legal investigation to date of allegations of genocide and crimes against humanity in the Uyghur region. The Uyghur Tribunal judgment, published in December last year, found it “beyond reasonable doubt” that the Chinese Government were perpetrating genocide, crimes against humanity and torture against the Uyghurs. That should be enough for the UK—our Government—to agree that genocide is taking place in Xinjiang.
In April 2020, this House unanimously agreed to a motion declaring that Uyghurs in Xinjiang were suffering crimes against humanity and genocide. There was a clear parliamentary consensus on the issue, as I believe there still is now. However, since then the Government have not done enough to push back against the atrocities. It has already been said in this Chamber that our Government need to stand on the right side of history, and I implore and encourage them to do so. Will the Government follow the House and recognise these atrocities and breaches of the United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide, and play a leading role?
Democracy is in retreat across the globe, but the Government must be rock solid in their commitment to democracy, human rights and the rule of law. I remind the House of the real experiences involved, many of which have already been discussed: the unbelievable situations inflicted on Uyghur men and women, including mental torture, physical abuses, rape, isolations and killings. We have already heard about babies being born and then killed. None of these things should be happening in this day and age. We must not be silent bystanders; we all have to accept responsibility. Our Government need to act for the United Kingdom.
Ms Ghani
As the hon. Lady has mentioned, the evidence presented to the Uyghur Tribunal is gruesome and it is hard to comprehend the numbers involved. Of course the Chinese Communist party had the opportunity and the absolute right to present to that tribunal, but it was unable to because it is afraid of the spotlight.
Does the hon. Lady agree that it is surprising and a little disappointing that the UK Government also did not come forward and give whatever evidence they had to the Uyghur Tribunal? Perhaps the Minister can respond to that in her closing remarks.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Lady for that remark, and all the others she has made. They are totally on point. It is astonishing, shocking and an absolute disgrace that our Government did not participate and give evidence and that they have not come forward with a statement agreeing with the judgment that took place last month. It is a disgrace that we should have to stand here trying to cajole and encourage our Government to take the spotlight, take the lead and take control.
These abuses against humanity should not be happening. Our Government have a history of slavery, in the past; we need to make sure that we are doing better than we did in the past. We can do better and improve our history by standing with a whole community of people being wiped out in Xinjiang. We need to stand against the Chinese Government and for the Uyghurs.
Even those who avoid the camps that I have spoken about find themselves enslaved. Uyghurs in Xinjiang suffer under intense surveillance, and much of the rural population have been moved into labour factories in the western region of the province. Research seen by the BBC showed that up to 500,000 people are being forced to pick cotton for long hours and with no rights in Xinjiang. Will the Government accept the recommendations of the fifth report of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee? Will they force UK companies to finally rid their supply chains of forced labour?
Finally, as I have already said, will the UK take a leading role and work with our international partners to end this infliction on the Uyghurs and hold those responsible—the Chinese Government—to account?
District Heat Networks
Debate between Nusrat Ghani and Janet Daby(3 years, 7 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate with you as Chair, Ms Ghani.
This is not the first time that I have spoken in a Westminster Hall debate on district heat networks. Such technologies are important for bringing green energy into ordinary people’s homes and making Britain carbon-neutral as soon as possible. However, as we have heard, work needs to be done to ensure that district heat networks provide not only energy efficiency, but cost efficiency. District heating providers must be brought under the control not just of formal regulators, but of consumers.
The Catford Green area of my constituency is home to leaseholders, private renters and social tenants. All those residents are locked into a heating scheme that is more expensive and less functional than the standard heating system—they are paying more money for less energy. I am sure that all colleagues agree that that does not make sense, but they have no choice.
One constituent told me that he found out about the contract with E.ON only on the day he moved into the flat that he had just bought. Unable to shop around, he feels trapped in a contract that suits his building’s owners’ finances, rather than his own. Another constituent in the same estate told me that the nature of the contract meant that she could not opt out of bills when her flat was empty. She went travelling for a few months but still had to pay a minimum of £30 to £40 a month for energy that she did not consume. Catford Green residents have also reported frequent power outages with a lack of acknowledgment or compensation from E.ON. Again, that is not fair and not right.
District heat networks clearly need regulation. With an uncompetitive market, consumers are being overcharged for a low-quality service. The current Government position of relying on voluntary membership of the Heat Trust network cannot continue. Regulation must be enforced by the Government with exactly the same expectations that are placed on other parts of the energy industry, and the same consequences for breaching standards. There must be a cap on the standing charges that companies rack up, and greater transparency in pricing tariffs. Customer service must improve and customers such as my constituents in Catford Green must be listened to and respected.
Like me, the residents I spoke to are committed to reducing their environmental impact. They support the objectives of district heating, but their valid points about high costs and low standards must be addressed to ensure the effective progress of this innovative technology. It is not good enough for the Government to say that they will look at this; they must regulate the service. My residents deserve it, and so do the public.