Universities: Funding and Employment

Pam Cox Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for securing this important debate. I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I am a member of the UCU and a former professor in higher education.

As someone who dedicated over 20 years to teaching and research in higher education, I have seen at first hand the transformative power of that work. Students’ lives are changed, economies grow, communities are transformed and cities are lifted. Despite the challenging times facing the sector, I remain optimistic about the future of our universities and the vital role they play in our society, but we need to act before it is too late—which means sooner rather than later.

The current financial model for universities is the most challenging it has been since the previous Labour Government enabled so many to access higher education. Members will know that in 2012 a cap on the domestic tuition fee was introduced, which increased only slightly in 2017 and again this year. It has not kept pace with inflation, and the financial strain is felt across the sector.

Research funding is another area of concern. We cannot have universities without research, because the research informs the teaching. That is the nature of the beast and of the game. The UK rightly prides itself on being a global leader in innovation. Our universities are world class and attract people from around the globe. Research often runs at a loss and is subsidised by education provision, even though that research underpins our productivity and economic growth. That is the case in any sector I could name: AI, defence, health, life sciences and the creative industries. If the universities were taken away, where would we get that innovation—accessible innovation that is open to all—from?

As my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford said, international student recruitment has been severely affected. The University of Essex, where I taught, has seen a 47% decline in EU student enrolments post Brexit, and recent changes to visa policies have contributed to a 40% drop in international student numbers. The subsequent reduction in income exacerbates the financial challenges faced by the sector.

Despite the difficulties, universities have been proactive in seeking solutions—I was personally involved in creating those solutions over many years. At the University of Essex, we introduced efficiency measures, diversified income streams, invested in transnational education and merged departments. We have done an awful lot over the past few years—I felt myself slipping back into using “we” there, in a rather odd way.

The university also collaborated with local businesses. Indeed, I ran a doctoral training consortium that spanned 10 universities across the south-east of England, and my whole job was to get money in from business to support collaborative master’s and PhD programmes. Industry and business do need to step up in this regard. They benefit from universities and those who are educated there, and they need to step up and provide assistance.

The contribution of universities to economic growth is palpable. For every £1 of public money invested in universities, we get £14 back, so there is a good economic case to be made. I am encouraged that the Education Committee is to start an inquiry into higher education and funding on 8 April, and I urge the Minister to take seriously the issues raised. I encourage her to meet those of us who have worked in the sector to explore solutions that involve the unions, business and all the other stakeholders.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) for securing this important debate, which could not be more timely, and I am grateful to all colleagues who have contributed.

Our universities are among the most important institutions in our national life. They are centres of research, innovation and learning, and for many thousands of young people every year, they are the route to opportunity, economic independence and personal growth. Despite its great importance, the higher education sector has come under increasing pressure in recent years. The latest modelling from the Office for Students suggests that nearly three quarters of English higher education providers could be in deficit by 2025-26, and 40% would have fewer than 30 days’ liquidity. Indeed, as we have heard from many Members today, redundancy programmes are already under way in some institutions and, across the country, university staff are understandably anxious about the future.

I will say at the outset that I am deeply sympathetic to those who work in institutions that have found themselves in financial difficulty. Nevertheless, I believe it is past time for us to have a grown-up conversation about university finances, in which we look seriously at what is driving the pressures and what it might be possible to do to alleviate them.

I will begin by stating the obvious: decisions taken in recent years have increased the financial pressure on students and graduates, without necessarily addressing the deeper questions of value and sustainability. We have seen steady rises in student loan interest rates and tuition fees, which both fall heavily on students, and now, the spike in employer national insurance contributions is putting further cost pressures on universities.

Meanwhile, the Government’s proposals to cut funding for level 7 apprenticeships, which are essential qualifications in a number of fields, including education, health and engineering, risk further undermining key parts of the post-18 education ecosystem. Many university departments rely on that funding not just to sustain course provision, but to attract and retain highly qualified staff. The impact of the cuts will not be evenly spread, and it is right that we consider how they will affect institutions already under financial pressure.

[Pam Cox]

Will the shadow Minister take some responsibility, on behalf of her party, for the situation that many universities find themselves in?

[Rebecca Paul]

I suggest to the hon. Member that we need to deal with the situation that we have now, and that her questions should be targeted towards the Minister. We should make the right decisions to do the right thing for our country, and for our students and university staff.

We must confront an uncomfortable truth: there is mounting evidence, including from the Institute for Fiscal Studies, that a sizeable share of higher education courses simply do not provide good value for money either for the taxpayer or for the individual student. The IFS has concluded that around 30% of graduates, both men and women, would have been better off financially had they not gone to university at all. That raises important questions about how we can ensure that our higher education system delivers for those who fund it—namely, the students who invest years of their lives and take on significant debt, and the public whose taxes support the student loan system.

The current funding model is failing under the enormous weight of rapid expansion, marketisation and insufficient quality controls. The ability of an institution to prop itself up on the backs of overseas students who pay vast fees is coming to an end. Although fee income from international students has grown by an average of 15% a year between 2017 and 2023, the recent international recruitment environment has been challenging. Recent Home Office data indicates that 393,125 visas were issued to main applicants in 2024. That is down 13.9% year on year and down 18.8% compared with two years ago.

While some institutions have embraced innovation, strong outcomes and world-class research, others have pursued growth at all costs, adding courses with limited market value, often to attract overseas students or to maximise short-term income. We cannot and should not return to a time when university was accessible only to a wealthy minority, but we do need to have a serious conversation about the purpose of higher education, who it is for, and how it can be sustainably funded in a way that delivers for students, taxpayers and the wider economy. That means looking at systemic reform, rather than simply demanding that young people pay more without addressing the underlying issues. We need to examine course quality, graduate outcomes, student choice, and the role of further education and apprenticeships alongside traditional degrees.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]

Pam Cox Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was rather blown away by that. My birthday was actually on Saturday, but thank you so much.

It is a pleasure to speak in favour of this Bill, as a member of the Public Bill Committee and of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. The Bill is vital because it paves the way for the creation of Skills England, a new and ambitious body that will bring a fresh urgency to the task of upskilling our young people—and there is an urgency about this.

As the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) said, Skills England will build on the extremely valuable work of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, and I would like to pay tribute—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Could you be seated for a moment? We are talking about the amendments to the Bill, not the overall Bill. The idea is to discuss the amendments and whether you disagree with them, but you need to bring your contribution in line with the debate this evening.

[Pam Cox]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issue is whether we should delay the introduction of this measure to allow more time to set up Skills England. A lot of preparatory work has already been done to set up Skills England, as we discussed quite fully in Committee, and we should get going on training up the carpenters, plumbers, electricians and other apprentices that we all know we need.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Derby is seeing a fresh boost to its city centre with a new performance venue, a restored marketplace and the Friar Gate goods yard, which had stood derelict for 50 years, but is now being transformed into 276 new homes. What we do not want is for our ambition for our city to be held back by skills shortages. Does my hon. Friend agree that, rather than the dither and delay proposed by Conservative Members, we need to get on with this legislation so that we can train the next generation of bricklayers, roofers, plasterers, scaffolders and electricians that our country so desperately needs?

--- Later in debate ---

[Pam Cox]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and I agree. This morning, before I travelled to Westminster from Colchester, I visited JTL, a national organisation with a base in our city that trains thousands of apprentice electricians and plumbers, and I had similar exchanges with them. So I very much agree, because the urgency I have mentioned is about their futures—securing their futures.

We debated this in some detail in Committee, and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has outlined the Minister’s responses. To my mind, those responses stand. I am satisfied that we should not delay in setting up Skills England, because the young people of Colchester—and, indeed, of Derby and elsewhere —simply do not have the time to wait.

On that note, last week the Government announced plans to train 60,000 new construction workers to help build the 1.5 million homes we will see going up in the course of this Parliament. Moves such as that and many others show that we are working at pace to reverse the many years of stagnation—

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Pam Cox]

I will not give way, if the hon. Member does not mind.

I hope we can work at pace today to pass this Bill.

[Edward Morello]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Is the hon. Lady taking an intervention?

[Pam Cox]

I am sitting down.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Has the hon. Lady concluded her speech or is she taking an intervention?

[Pam Cox]

I have concluded.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I want to make a short contribution to this Report stage debate, particularly in favour of new clause 4 and amendment 6. On the train coming up to Westminster, I typed into my tablet “Short IfATE speech”, and every time I did so, it kept changing it to “Short irate speech”. Unfortunately, I am not very good at irate speeches—it is not really my thing—so I will make a slightly disappointed speech, but with a hint of optimism, because I hope this Minister may take this opportunity to do something of significant benefit for the technical and vocational education and training system in this country.

I know why the Government came forward with the idea of a new quango—it is not even a quango, but a sort of semi-quango—called Skills England. They did that because they were going to have to talk to British industry about a lot of other things. They knew deep down that they would be doing things that were really very unpopular, such as the Employment Rights Bill and the massive hike in national insurance contributions and business rates, and that aspects of those things are bad for employment and unpopular with employers. With Skills England, Ministers—then campaigners, but now Ministers—had come up with something they thought business would really like and want.

In truth, however, if the Government are going to fix the two big underlying issues in our system—the productivity gap we have in this country compared with France, the United States and Germany, and the parity of esteem we all say we want, and that the Conservatives do want, between academic learning and vocational learning —we need to make technical and vocational education better. We also need to make it simpler and more appealing, but above all it needs to be made better. That is entirely what the Sainsbury review—spearheaded by the noble Lord Sainsbury, a Labour Lord—was all about. It was about giving us a simpler, more appealing system, led by business, which would deliver the highest quality of technical education.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)

Pam Cox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Pam Cox Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

Government amendment 1, which we will come to when we debate clause 11, seeks to overturn that short delay—only a short delay—that peers put in to allow for a more orderly transition, so that Skills England could at least get up and running in the Department before it attempted to onboard 200 new colleagues. I have seen many different machinery of government changes, and they always cause disruption.

[Pam Cox]

Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that an awful lot of preparatory work has gone on to establish Skills England already? Once the Bill goes through, we will be in a good position to set this up quickly.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Pam Cox]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I have missed one!

[Pam Cox]

The right hon. Member has missed one: the Statute of Artificers 1563, known as the Statute of Apprenticeships. We have been trying to do this for many centuries, and it is only right that each generation tries to do so. We are still not getting it right for our young people, hence the need for speed.

Apprenticeships

Pam Cox Excerpts

Tuesday 4th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Jardine. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) for securing this debate as we approach National Apprenticeship Week.

We are fortunate in my Colchester constituency to have a diverse range of apprenticeship opportunities—from healthcare roles at Colchester hospital and in other parts of the NHS, to retail law and engineering—many of which are offered via the Colchester Institute university centre. Data from the Department for Education shows that there were 370 apprenticeship starts in Colchester in 2023-24, with over 1,400 people participating. Those numbers are good, but they are not great; we really need to raise them in Colchester and across Essex.

Unfortunately, there has been a fall in the take-up of intermediate-level qualifications—a reduction of nearly 50%, as I understand it—in the past five years. That must be addressed, because apprenticeships often give people a vital entry into the workforce. I encourage the Minister to consider how we can support intermediate and high-level apprenticeships in the near future, and to give employers and universities maximum flexibility in tailoring a new apprenticeship offer for new times.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr. Jardine, and to respond today for the first time for His Majesty’s Opposition. I congratulate the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) on securing this debate on the value of apprenticeships and National Apprenticeships Week.

We have heard some tremendously insightful points this morning and, like others, I thank all Members for their contributions. I think it is apparent that everyone who has spoken today recognises the inherent merit of apprenticeships and it was we in the Conservative party who acted to deliver a world-class apprenticeship system that has created opportunities for countless young people, which would otherwise have remained out of reach, allowing them to earn while they learn.

Since 2010, there have been more than 5.8 million apprenticeship starts, with 736,500 people participating in an apprenticeship in England in the 2023-24 academic year alone. The numbers are impressive, but what truly makes the system we put in place one of the most laudable in the world is the sheer diversity of occupations that have been opened up to our young people. In England today, the apprenticeship system reaches into nearly 700 different occupations—everything from finance to agriculture to construction to nuclear physics. That means that today it is more viable than ever before for young people to chart their own paths and take those vital first steps into the careers that they have been dreaming of.

Of course, a robust apprenticeship scheme offering access to qualifications ranging from level 2 through to master’s degrees at level 7 cannot be delivered on the cheap. That is why successive Conservative Governments always sought to fund apprenticeships properly. In our final year in office, we delivered £2.7 billion for apprenticeships. As Members will appreciate, even the most excellent apprenticeship schemes are of little use without the anticipated uptake. That is why, when in government, we set out to cut red tape for businesses offering apprenticeships. We fully funded young people up to the age of 21 undertaking apprenticeships in small businesses, increased the amount of money apprenticeship levy payers could give to SMEs to hire an apprentice and put all apprenticeships on UCAS so that young people can compare apprenticeships in the same way they would a university degree.

[Pam Cox]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rebecca Paul]

I am sorry; I will need to make progress so that the Minister has sufficient time.

Crucially, it was a Conservative Government that brought the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 into law, ensuring that all pupils now meet providers of technical education so that they understand the wide range of career routes and training available to them, such as apprenticeships, T-levels or traineeships—not just the traditional academic options.

I know that Members will have their own accounts of how this fantastic system is working to nurture and support young people in their constituencies, and we have heard many of them today. I could not miss the opportunity presented by the debate to highlight one of my own. I was recently fortunate enough to visit the UK headquarters of Toyota, located in Burgh Heath, in the Reigate constituency. The visit included the chance to meet and hear from some of the outstanding apprentices working at the company. I was struck by the truly impressive enthusiasm, intelligence and dedication of these young workers. Though still in the early stages of their careers, the apprentices were already making hugely valuable contributions across departments from engineering to finance to marketing. In return, they received experience and training that I have no doubt will leave them in excellent standing for the duration of their working lives. That is an example of apprenticeships done right—an exemplar of what Conservative Governments have been working to enable and support for the last 14 years.

It is of real concern that today the very framework that made these apprenticeships, and so many others like them, possible now appears to be in some jeopardy. That jeopardy arises from a Government commitment to replace the apprenticeship levy with a growth and skills levy that will allow firms to spend up to 50% of their levy contributions on non-apprenticeship related training. If we make the plausible assumption that businesses will take maximum advantage of that flexibility, the number of apprenticeships on offer could slump from about 350,000 to just 140,000, a 60% decrease.

Of particular concern is that the worst of the impact would be felt by our youngest workers at the very first stages of their careers. If we again assume the full 50% decrease in spending, the number of apprenticeships available to those under the age of 19 would crash to below 40,000. That would be a drop from 106,000 in 2017. I concede that the Government’s intended approach might make some degree of sense if a significant portion of the apprenticeship levy remained unspent and would otherwise be serving no useful purpose. However, this is simply not the case. A full 98% of the apprenticeship budget has been used up over the last two years. That funding has gone to support high-quality, career-boosting apprenticeships of the sort we have been discussing this morning. It is concerning that this commitment risks seeing apprenticeship funding diffuse out into lower value courses, or even seminars and programmes that employers would have offered anyway. That is clearly not in the best interests of our young people, and risks creating a cohort with markedly worse life chances than that which came before.

It may well be the case that the Government intend to have their cake and eat it. It would be possible to both allow firms the flexibility to spend 50% of their levy contributions elsewhere and to maintain the current number of apprenticeships, but that could only be achieved with additional Government spending. To maintain the number of apprenticeship starts at the current level—assuming the 50% flexibility on levy spending—the Government would be forced to invest an additional £1.5 billion of new funding.

I ask the Minister to provide clarity on the Government’s intentions. Will firms be given 50% discretion to divert funding away from apprenticeships, as was previously announced? If so, will the Government step in with fresh investment to maintain numbers or will they allow our dynamic apprenticeship system to wither? If Ministers intend to intercede, where will the £1.5 billion they need be found? I pose those important questions not to score political points, but because we derive enormous value in this country from the transformative effect of apprenticeships and want to see as many young people benefit from them as possible.

With one eye on the clock to ensure the Minister has sufficient time to respond, I will say a brief word on defence. As of November 2023, the Ministry of Defence was the largest single deliverer of apprenticeships in the UK, with over 22,000 personnel engaged on a nationally recognised apprenticeship programme at any one time. In addition, over 95% of our non-commissioned military recruits are offered an apprenticeship after their trade training. That includes schemes with focuses on digital, nuclear, analytics and much more. Apprenticeships are a thread that runs through our armed forces, the Ministry of Defence and those private sector organisations that support both. It is of great importance that in their rush to redefine the way apprenticeships are delivered in this country the Government do not deprive our armed forces of the much-needed talent and capacity that is now nurtured and developed through apprenticeship schemes.

I have left the Minister much to address, so will now end where I began, by congratulating the hon. Member for Peterborough on providing us with this valuable opportunity to express our support for, and commitment to, apprenticeships. I wish everyone participating from 10 February a successful National Apprenticeship Week.

Education, Health and Care Plans

Pam Cox Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Marie Goldman]

Yes, and it is very hard to disagree with that point. Of course provision needs to recognise what the local challenges are, and those differ in different localities. I thank my hon. Friend for making that point.

Let me return to LSAs and the support they provide in schools. Often, there are several children with EHCPs in a class, so it is sometimes necessary to have more than one LSA to support them. However, it is hard to recruit LSAs, because, as schools have told me, the salaries do not match the skills that LSAs require. Also, LSAs are not suitable in all cases, because young people with severe special educational needs can—through no fault of their own; I want to make that very clear—be very disruptive and, unfortunately, endanger other children if they are not properly supervised. That is why it is really important that we have LSAs, teaching assistants and all the support staff necessary to support these children. One special educational needs co-ordinator told me:

“As much as the LSA children don’t need 1:1 support full-time, there are some children that really do require 1, or sometimes 2, adults with them throughout the day if everyone is to be kept safe and for the child to have their self-care needs met in a mainstream environment.”

We talk a lot about schools, but this issue also affects further education—for example, sixth-form colleges. They tell me that the annual reviews that are done as part of the EHCP process focus too much on educational attainment and on academic achievement and progress, when colleges in fact need to understand what special measures they need to put in place to best meet the needs of the children who are coming in. That is not necessarily about academic achievement; it is about how colleges can best manage the behaviour that pupils exhibit and keep them safe. Colleges say that, unfortunately, EHCPs do not place enough emphasis on behaviour, and their plea—I hope the Minister is listening—is that if we look at the EHCP process, we should encourage it to focus on that issue and not just on educational attainment. Colleges also say that some information in the annual review of behaviour is historical, and might put sixth-form colleges off accepting pupils, even though it would be perfectly appropriate to accept them because their behaviour had changed and they could be supported in different ways.

I also want to emphasise the importance of early intervention, because addressing issues early is key. Some children will not need support throughout their entire life or even their entire school life, but getting in early, especially with speech and language issues, can help children to progress just as well as children who did not need additional support. It is not necessarily always about long-term support; sometimes it is about early intervention, and then we can save money later.

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

It was good to hear yesterday from the all-party parliamentary group on special educational needs and disabilities about the importance of early intervention. We heard from the Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board, which showcased its really interesting work. On the back of that, I reached out to my ICB in Suffolk and North East Essex and I understand that the health response there on early interventions is quite good. Bearing in mind that the hon. Lady and I both represent Essex constituencies, it would be worth her looking at the ICB connected to her area. Perhaps we could work together on improving outcomes for parents and kids in Colchester and Chelmsford.

[Marie Goldman]

Of course, I would be delighted to work with the hon. Lady on that sort of issue. I was also at that APPG on SEND meeting, although I could not stay for the whole thing. I am glad she raised it, because at that APPG meeting, an example was given to us of a child who had situational mutism. The intervention they received early on meant that they were able to progress and achieve their full potential, which I thought was fabulous. Unfortunately, I have an example of exactly the opposite in my constituency, where a child with selective mutism did not receive that support and is now not in school at all. The importance of that support cannot be overstated.

We could talk a lot about why there has been an increase in EHCP applications, about covid and its impact, about the lack of socialisation and what that has led to and about the lack of early intervention. Maybe some parents are asking for EHCPs because it is the only way to get the support that might ordinarily have been available if schools were not feeling the pressure so much. Ultimately, this is a systemic failure, and I want to move on to some solutions.

We need to do this quickly—remember, every single day that children grow up without that support is another day they are suffering. Other than root and branch reform, we need better communication between schools and colleges, between local authorities and parents, and between schools and parents. The list could go on, but I remind everybody that communication is two-way. It is not just the local authority sending out a briefing pack—that is not good enough. We need them to listen, and we need the Government to listen.

We need more training. We need qualified and experienced people working with children. A qualified and experienced SEND professional told me:

“People like me, who are trained to work with SEND children and adults, often find there is no structured role for us within councils or government systems to support schools, families, or nurseries effectively.”

We need to do more about that. There are people who are willing to work and have amazing experience in the system, so let us help them get the qualifications to be able to help parents and young people. One SENCO said that SENCOS need more career path options. Could we have an option, for example, to fast-track some training? Could there be some kind of associate ed psych qualification? I do not know, but maybe that could be looked at. We need to make it easier for parents to understand what is going on.

Returning to the issue of tribunals, when local authorities are losing 99% of cases, something is seriously wrong. I wonder whether some of those delays, where the local authorities are deciding to take parents all the way through to tribunal, are—to be very cynical—a way to avoid having to pay the costs of providing the support to the children during that time.

I welcome the Education Committee’s inquiry on solving the SEND crisis and advertise to everybody that the deadline to contribute is 30 January. I say to the Minister that, at the risk of repeating myself, we really do need some action now. I urge the Government to work on what steps they can take now to make children’s lives better because, at the end of the day, this is about supporting children’s futures. I look forward to hearing from colleagues across the House and thank them for taking part in this incredibly important debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) for securing this debate. As she said, Essex county council is one of the worst-performing local authorities in the country for delivering on EHCPs. It is vital that we hear from the frontline—from parents, teachers, educators and assessors. I recently held a roundtable on these issues in Colchester with those groups, and I am delighted to say that the participants are now sharing their experiences through an Education Committee inquiry. I urge the Minister to pay close attention to that evidence and those voices, and to make the change that we so badly need.