(6 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI will look into the details of the case and write to the hon. Lady.
Research by London Economics and the Association of Colleges highlights that in recent years there has been a significant drop in level 2 apprenticeship starts. Will my hon. Friend the Minister outline the specific work being carried out to reverse this decline in an area that is so vital in promoting social mobility and levelling up?
At levels 2 and 3, apprenticeships make up 65% of all starts so far this year and there are almost 140 apprenticeships at level 2. We published data last week to show that level 2 apprenticeships rose by 2.5% in terms of attainment. We will do everything we can to make sure people have access to high-quality apprenticeships, and we have also invested £50 million over two years to boost starts in growth sectors including engineering and manufacturing. I am always happy to meet my hon. Friend.
(8 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberI join you in your comments, Mr Speaker. My thoughts are with the family of Tommy McAvoy.
Thanks to this Conservative Government, nearly 70% of all occupations are accessible via an apprenticeship. That is a far greater reach than countries admired for their technical education such as Germany and Switzerland. I am sure that many Members joined the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and more than 60 ministerial colleagues out and about during National Apprenticeship Week. I was delighted to join Harry, Chloe and other EDF Energy apprentices off the coast of Blyth, as well as apprentices who are launching exciting careers at J.P. Morgan in the City. Apprenticeships are the route to a successful career, no matter where apprentices live or what they want to do.
I thank my hon. Friend for his support at the recent parliamentary apprenticeship fair. Importantly, our apprenticeship programme is future focused. It includes a new battery manufacturing technician apprenticeship, which will benefit electric buses, and others including charging point installation and electric vehicle maintenance. Whether through T-levels, higher technical qualifications or apprenticeships, there are more training opportunities in industries of the future than ever before, in everything from AI to net zero.
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for those answers. Progress is being made, though the feedback that I am receiving is that the current maths and English functional skills requirement is an obstacle to a wider range of employers taking on apprentices. To remove that barrier, will my right hon. Friend consider embedding English and maths elements into the apprenticeships standards, so that they are relevant to the job role and employers can be confident that apprentices are acquiring the skills that they need to succeed?
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education works closely with employers to ensure that all essential skills, including English, maths and digital, are embedded into apprenticeship standards, and it will continue to do so. We are also increasing funding by 50% to help more apprentices achieve up to a level 2 English or maths qualification alongside their apprenticeship if they do not already hold one, to help them get on in work and in life.
(8 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Colleges Week 2024.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Robert, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate during Colleges Week, which runs from Monday until tomorrow. I should also point out that I chair the all-party parliamentary group for further education and lifelong learning, the secretariat for which is provided by the Association of Colleges, to which I am grateful, among others, for the briefings and support they have provided ahead of the debate.
This debate essentially falls into three parts: first, celebrating the great work that colleges do all around the country; secondly, highlighting where Government policy and support are working; and thirdly, pointing out the areas where more work and attention are required so that colleges can realise their full potential for the benefit of the people and the communities they serve.
It is important, first, to celebrate the great work that colleges are doing. All around the UK, they are an essential part of our education system. They are firmly embedded in their local communities, where they are fully cognisant of the opportunities and challenges and the strengths and weaknesses of their local economies. They enable people of all ages and backgrounds to realise their full potential. They are key players in boosting local regeneration and levelling up and in eliminating the gaps in skills and productivity, which are in danger of ever widening. They also play a vital role in preparing people for the jobs of tomorrow, which, all of a sudden, are with us today in areas such as digital, artificial intelligence and the low-carbon fields.
Colleges touch all our lives. English colleges educate 1.6 million students every year and employ approximately 103,000 full-time equivalent staff. Some 925,000 adults study or train in colleges, and 608,000 16 to 18-year-olds study in colleges. The average college trains 950 apprentices, and 100,000 people study higher education in a college. Twenty-three per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds and 27% of adult students are from minority ethnic backgrounds. Twenty-six per cent of 16 to 18-year-olds in colleges have a learning difficulty or a disability, and 58,000 college students are aged 60 and over. In summary, colleges do their job very well. Ninety-two per cent of colleges were judged to be “good” or “outstanding” for overall effectiveness at their most recent inspections. At times, however, colleges feel that they are doing their job with one arm behind their backs, and I shall touch upon that shortly.
I will briefly highlight the great work that East Coast College does in Waveney. It now operates from two campuses, in Lowestoft in my constituency and in Great Yarmouth in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Sir Brandon Lewis). It fully understands the challenges of coastal communities, the communities in which it is deeply immersed, and works very closely with local authorities, local businesses, the James Paget University Hospital, CEFAS—the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, where the Government’s marine scientists are based in Pakefield next to Lowestoft—and the two universities that cover the area, the University of East Anglia in Norwich and the University of Suffolk, which has its headquarters in Ipswich but operates across Suffolk.
In Lowestoft, East Coast College is an active member of the place board, of which I am also a member, which has overseen the projects carried out as part of the town deal. Its work focuses on two areas: first, the need in the health and care sector to support an ever growing elderly population. It has put in place the Apollo project —not a journey to the moon, but a two-year workforce programme designed to address recruitment and retention challenges in the health and social care sector. Secondly, opportunities are emerging in the energy sector. Among other projects, there are the offshore wind farms anchored off the East Anglian coast and the Sizewell C nuclear power project just down the coast.
In recent years, significant capital improvements have been carried out at East Coast College. Those include the Energy Skills Centre in Lowestoft and the eastern civil engineering and construction campus at Lound, midway between Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. At present, the college’s challenges centre more on revenue funding, and its needs mirror those of the rest of the sector, to which I shall now turn.
The good news is that, in recent years, there has been a realisation of the vital role that colleges play in providing people with the skills they need to realise their full potential, to address regional inequalities and to ensure that the economy fires on all cylinders. Some good initiatives have been put in place, such as the lifelong learning entitlement, and funding has improved, albeit from a low base. That said, significant challenges remain; some are structural and long term, and others derive from the cost of living crisis and the long and sharp tail of covid.
The Local Government Association points out that
“the national employment and skills system is too centralised”,
“short-term” in outlook, and that
“no single organisation is responsible or accountable for coordinating programmes nationally or locally. This makes it difficult to plan, target and join-up provision.”
It also identified that
“poor-quality, insufficient and fragmented CEIAG”—
careers education, information advice and guidance—
“is a persistent and key barrier to youth employment”,
notwithstanding the introduction, finally, of the Baker clause in the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022.
The Edge Foundation focuses on the problem that is all around us: the skills shortages that are getting worse. The shortages are numerous and have grown significantly. The rate of skills investment is in decline, and skills shortages have significant costs for UK businesses, the economy and the environment. The engineering sector is important to me locally, as engineering skills will be much in need to fuel the transition to a low-carbon economy. EngineeringUK, in its “Fit for the future” engineering apprenticeships inquiry, has highlighted the variability and quality of training provision and the problems in recruiting teachers and trainers.
Colleges Week normally takes place in the autumn. This year, however, for good reason, it has been brought forward to the spring—not only so that it takes place in advance of the general election campaign, to provide the sector with every opportunity to set out its stall, but so that urgent representations can be made ahead of next week’s Budget to meet many of the challenges that I have highlighted.
I confess that I was expecting the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), to be here, but it is great to see the Minister for Schools in his place, because he and I have discussed this issue a great deal. I would be most grateful if he conveyed some of these asks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in advance of his Budget statement next Wednesday.
As I have mentioned, there are skill gaps across the country in all sectors of the economy. To eliminate those gaps, I urge the Government to invest the extra money raised from the immigration skills charge to enable colleges to tackle the urgent priorities identified by employers in the local skills improvement plans that are now being rolled out across the country and those that are found in relation to the increased number of skills shortage vacancies revealed in the latest Department for Education employer skills survey.
At the Conservative party conference in Manchester in October, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister rightly announced a 10-year plan to give young people a better start in life through the advanced British standard, with more hours, a broader curriculum, and extra help for those who have struggled up to the age of 16. Those ambitions are the right ones, but if they are to be achieved —if there is to be any chance of having the teachers, the trainers and the facilities in place to deliver them—we must start investing now. To do that, three issues need to be addressed.
First, the pay gap between those teaching in colleges and those teaching in schools must be closed. It has been widening in recent years and now stands at £9,000 per annum. That pay gap cannot persist if the advanced British standard is to be a success.
Secondly, colleges are disadvantaged when it comes to VAT. Unlike for schools, VAT is not reimbursed for colleges—it cannot be recovered. Colleges in England were reclassified as public sector organisations back in 2022 and are now subject to all the controls that apply to academies, but, unlike academies and schools, they are unable to reclaim VAT under the refund scheme in section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994. That could be addressed by amending that Act. The funds that would be released, totalling around £210 million, could then be reinvested, helping colleges to deliver the improvements to the school system that the Government seek.
Thirdly, as I mentioned, covid has had a long and sharp tail, impacting harshly on young people’s education. The Government recognise that and are providing funding for tuition support to help those with the greatest need to obtain the necessary grounding in English and maths and to catch up on the vocational courses where assessments were deferred. That is good news, but the indications are that the demand for those lessons and courses is still growing. It is estimated that approximately 40,000 more students than last year need to resit their English GCSEs, with 20,000 needing to resit maths. I therefore urge the Minister to do all he can to ensure that the funding for that tuition support is extended.
I am reaching my conclusion, Sir Robert. I am sure that others in this debate will refer to FE and colleges as being the Cinderella of the education system. Indeed, that was right in the past, but my sense is that all parties across the House have recognised the error and folly of that. We are now, after a long time, travelling down the right road, with the importance of vocational learning as provided by colleges being acknowledged and accepted by all. However, we are driving down this road in third gear and we now need Government to provide resources, support and more policies so that we can quickly and seamlessly move into top gear. If we do that, we shall provide opportunity for many and eliminate all those stubborn gaps that I have referred to a great deal during this speech.
I am a shade disappointed, not by the quality of the debate but because there was high demand to take part and we have not had as many colleagues as I would have hoped for. There are loads of demands on people’s time. However, what we have lacked in quantity, we have made up for in quality. I am the odd person out in this debate; I am the only participant who has not had a Front-Bench role, so it has been interesting to hear the views of those on the frontline.
The three of us on the Government Benches—I, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones)—have all been here since 2010. Colleges are in a better place, generally speaking, than in 2010, particularly in terms of the quality of their estate. That has certainly improved, but we need to move on. While the shiny new buildings are important, we need the teachers and trainers to be able to help with the learning in those colleges. That is where we have a particular problem. Look at the energy sector that East Coast College is having to deal with: we have a crying need for welders and fabricators, but there is a real challenge in getting those teachers and trainers.
Lord Baker fought for the Baker clause for years. He took too long to get it, but he got it. At some stage, I would welcome some information on how it is going down in practice, because when I go around the community I represent, I cannot say, “Ah! That is a result of the Baker clause.” If we pull a lever in this place, it does not automatically lead to a gear change in the rest of the country.
The one disagreement we have had is on the issue of apprentices. If one looks at where we were in 2010 and where we are today, we are generally in a better place, but the journey has not been smooth—there have been ebbs and flows along the way. I am slightly confused by some of the statistics. It may be that we were in a better place two or three years ago than today. One of the challenges is to get SMEs properly involved in the apprenticeship system.
That brings us on to the levy. The levy is a great idea, and the Government were right to introduce it, but there have been teething difficulties and challenges with money being returned to the Treasury. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and I have been in events where I have said that we need to press ahead with a review now, rather than waiting for next year after all the hullabaloo of the election. It must take place now, so that we can iron it out and get it on the right journey.
Finally, here are my funding asks of the Chancellor. This is ultimately about ensuring a level playing field. Colleges are not on a level playing field with schools and academies when it comes to VAT. They are not on a level playing field when it comes to what teachers are paid.
At the beginning of the time that I have spent in this place, there was the problem of colleges having to pick up the pieces for young people who, for whatever reason, had not acquired basic literacy and numeracy skills in secondary education. That situation has improved dramatically, but covid has thrown a big spanner in the works and the colleges are having to work very hard to address that. It is not going to go away immediately, and that is why they need those funds to be extended.
Sir Robert, thank you for bearing with me for a few extra minutes. It has been a good debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Colleges Week 2024.
(1 year ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Dr Huq, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) on securing this debate, which is well synchronised with the Chancellor’s autumn statement.
If we are to unleash sustained economic growth and enhanced productivity, we need a fully functioning labour market. It requires an entry system that enables people to pursue their chosen career path and opens up opportunities in sectors that are vital to our future economic prosperity, such as low-carbon energy on the East Anglian coast. A vital means of achieving that goal is through the apprenticeship levy, which the Government introduced in 2017 as part of a package of reforms of the apprenticeship system. Those measures were rightly ambitious, and they were based on two principles. First, for apprenticeships to succeed, they must have a long-term, sustainable funding source. Secondly, apprenticeships must be rigorous, so as to gain the confidence of both employers and learners. The apprenticeship levy is designed to deliver the first of those objectives.
Six years on, I think that we can say that the levy is here to stay, but it has had a challenging start, and it has had to go through a great deal, including covid, the consequences of the war in Ukraine, and the cost of living crisis. There have also been outcomes that were neither intended nor foreseen. Now is the time to pause and refine the system.
The Association of Colleges provides the secretariat to the APPG on further education and lifelong learning, which I chair. It has identified the following challenges. There has been a dramatic decline in the number of people undertaking apprenticeships in recent years. It is now down to 60,000 young people starting apprenticeships each year. In the past six years, we have lost 160,000 engineering and manufacturing apprenticeship training places, at a time when those sectors are crying out for more staff.
The levy has been very successful in creating higher-level apprenticeships in larger firms, but there is a need to provide apprenticeship opportunities for younger people and new labour market entrants. Many small businesses are put off by the bureaucracy, as we have heard. Local skills improvement plans provide an appropriate local framework for meeting the needs of local labour markets, but we need a national strategy, so as to address such challenges as the technical skills gaps at levels 4 and 5. There is a worry that the budget allocated is nearly fully committed, though I accept that it is not necessarily all being spent. There is a need to consider how to either increase the levy and maintain growth through existing funding, for example by reforming the transfer mechanism, or look for savings that will not impact on quality.
As to how to improve the system, there should be a focus on new job starters, and consideration should be given to returning to the recommendations of the 2012 Government review, which stated:
“Apprenticeships should be redefined…clearly targeted at”,
and promoted to,
“those who are new to a job or role that requires sustained and substantial training.”
In addition, the following technical changes to how the apprenticeship levy operates should be given full consideration. First, there is a sense among some in the industry that the two-year expiration on levy funds is inadvertently encouraging the adoption of a “spend it or lose it” mentality, leading to rushed financial decisions, rather than strategic workforce development. A more nuanced, flexible approach is needed. Extending the expiration period could encourage more thoughtful expenditure, in which training initiatives are aligned with long-term business strategies.
Secondly, I am receiving feedback that the apprenticeship minimum duration requirements are too rigid. The 12-month minimum length for an apprenticeship, while suitable for some programmes, does not necessarily align with the operational demands of others. We need a more flexible approach to minimum length requirements that enables better tailoring of apprenticeships to specific job roles and industry needs. Thirdly, poor retention rates in apprenticeships require attention. High drop-out rates appear to be due to a combination of factors, including the apprenticeship wage structure and lack of clear progression pathways. Some have argued that increasing the apprenticeship minimum wage could help, by providing financial stability and demonstrating to apprentices the value of their contribution, thereby enhancing job satisfaction and increasing commitment. That is an option that, among many others, the Government should consider to improve retention rates.
In conclusion, the 2017 apprenticeship reforms, including the introduction of the levy, were good. However, the economic landscape is rapidly changing, both in the UK and globally. There is a need to listen, adapt and refine. The refinement is about more than making minor tweaks; it is about ensuring that our apprenticeship system remains relevant, responsive and effective. If we do that, people, whatever their background, can realise their ambitions and fulfil their potential, and the UK economy will be able to motor forward in fifth gear, not third.
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberMy hon. Friend is right to say that tribunals are costly and stressful, but it is important to say that most education, health and care needs assessments and plans are concluded without a tribunal hearing. We will be introducing new national standards, strengthened mediation and greater system-wide accountability to give families the support they need earlier and reduce the number of tribunals.
I was one of 31 MPs from across the Chamber who signed the f40 letter to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor urging significant investment in SEN. Will my hon. Friend, behind the scenes at least, endorse that campaign and also look at how we can reduce the reliance on education, health and care plans, which are a barrier to so many young people getting the education they need?
It is probably worth saying that I am an f40 MP myself, and I met the group just last week to hear its concerns. On my hon. Friend’s point about EHCPs, through the reform plan we are working to get parents the support they need for their child at an earlier stage so that they do not always need an EHCP to get that support.
(1 year, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallWestminster 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
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir George. I congratulate the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) on securing this debate and opening it in such a comprehensive and diligent way. As he said, I chair the APPG for further education and lifelong learning, and I would like to thank the Association of Colleges, which provides our secretariat, for all the work it did in supporting the second stage of the inquiry, focusing on the challenges faced by further education students.
An online evidence session was held, during which we heard harrowing feedback from FE students about the experiences they are facing. Many of those in further education come from less well-off backgrounds and are already making enormous sacrifices to go to college. They are working long hours in part-time jobs, and many are supporting members of their wider family. The cost of living crisis has piled further pressure on them; for some, the burden has become intolerable and they have had no choice but to give up their studies.
Colleges are provided with funding to support students, but this is inadequate, and in many respects the crisis is deepening. East Coast College, with campuses in Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth, has been providing bursaries and free school meals. Two years ago, it was supporting 1,400 16 to 18-year-olds. Last year the number rose to 1,842, and this year the college has already received 2,200 applications, which represents two thirds of its student cohort. The situation is intolerable, and the negative knock-on effects are far-reaching. Many people are being placed under intolerable pressure and are making enormous sacrifices. Colleges themselves find their budgets stretched to breaking point, and that in turn leads to the ever-widening skills gap that affects our economic performance so dramatically.
As we have heard, the July report put forward six recommendations. I would like to highlight one that we speak about a great deal in FE debates: the need for additional core revenue funding for the sector. I acknowledge that in recent years, particularly with regard to capital funding, the situation has improved, but FE gets a raw deal. I urge the Chancellor to address that at the forthcoming autumn statement by providing £400 million additional revenue funding that can address the problems that the sector faces and also alleviate the particular challenge that FE students face.
(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberAs my right hon. Friend the Minister has said, this Bill has the potential to be truly transformational. It can play a key role in enabling people to realise their full potential, help cure the current British disease of low productivity and be a vital component part in work to deliver meaningful levelling up. However, it is only one piece of the jigsaw. Without other reforms and initiatives, there is a risk that it will not deliver and its objectives will not be met.
Times are changing rapidly and we must deliver meaningful lifelong learning. We have an ageing population, and the days of a job for life are long gone. Climate change means that a raft of new emerging jobs require upskilling and retraining. The fourth industrial revolution is well and truly under way. We are, in effect, in a global race and if we do not step up to the plate, the UK will be left far behind. If the Bill is to succeed, we must recognise the vital importance of adult education, which has been neglected for too long, with participation rates today half what they were in 2004. Investment by employers in workforce skills must increase. We must ensure that the least advantaged have every opportunity to participate. There must be better co-ordination across the whole education and training system. Further education, higher education and apprenticeships are currently treated as distinct and separate systems, imprisoned in their own silos. There also needs to be better alignment of welfare, economic and skills policies and strategies right across Government.
Questions remain about the Bill and its implementation, which I urge the Government to address as it continues its passage through Parliament. If the Bill is to succeed in its objectives, we must quickly develop a new culture of lifelong learning. The role of employers must be developed and clarity must be provided on how the lifelong loan entitlement will work alongside the apprenticeship levy. There is a risk that the policy will result in the take-up of loans for short courses by employees that would otherwise be funded by their employers. There is a danger that the lifelong loan entitlement becomes something that well-educated people use to add a year after their degree rather than people who have not yet got a level 3 qualification. The pathways from lower levels need strengthening with better funding and maintenance support at level 3 and below.
As I mentioned at the outset, the Bill is important and it has enormous potential, but it is only one piece of the jigsaw. Other reforms and new strategies are required if we are to deliver meaningful lifelong learning. That must take its place as part of a coherent post-16 education and skills strategy that properly aligns with wider Government policies.
We must improve careers advice so as to ensure that those who need lifelong learning the most are able to access it. Further consultation is needed on the regulation and quality of modular learning. It is important that regulatory burdens and risks do not stifle innovation and limit the delivery of short courses and modules. It is important that we create a maintenance support system that enables everyone to live properly while studying or training. This will be crucial for mature learners who often have family commitments and caring responsibilities.
Finally, the whole education and skills system must be sustainably funded. FE has been poorly funded for far too long. If we are to have a truly collaborative, streamlined and more flexible system for learners to study throughout their lives at different places, on a modular basis, this underfunding must be addressed.
In conclusion, the Government are to be commended for recognising the importance of lifelong learning in the modern world. The Bill’s ambitions and aspirations are the right ones, but they will not be delivered in a vacuum. They must be part of a wider, coherent and co-ordinated strategy. As I have outlined, there are issues that should be addressed as the Bill now moves to the other place. There are also wider implications that must be considered right across Government, and I hope that they will figure prominently in the forthcoming Barber review and the autumn statement.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
(1 year, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberActually, we are spending £5 billion helping schools to tackle the disadvantage gap and help children catch up. We funded schools fully throughout the covid pandemic, and we provided over £400 billion of support to the UK economy and to families up and down the country during the covid crisis.
The lifelong loan entitlement will ensure everyone has access to opportunities to upskill and reskill to progress in their careers. We have led a huge raft of reforms to the skills system since 2016 to deliver on this ambition, building on the reviews led by Professor Alison Wolf, Lord Sainsbury, Sir Philip Augar and others. Over this time, we have worked with over 5,000 employers to deliver apprenticeships, backed by the landmark £2.7 billion apprenticeship levy. The £3.8 billion we are investing over this Parliament will support more people to benefit from apprenticeships, skills bootcamps, T-levels, free courses for jobs and new returnerships, and will deliver our flagship institutes of technology.
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that comprehensive reply. It is welcome that the Government, in their response to the lifelong loan entitlement consultation, have acknowledged the need for maintenance support. However, so that lifelong loans are available to the many and not to the few, can my right hon. Friend ensure that there is a clear pathway for those who do not yet have level 3 qualifications, such as A-levels, to participate in this vital initiative and ensure that it is the game changer that will unleash the skills revolution?
I thank my hon. Friend, and I agree with him that there should be a clear pathway. That is why level 3 courses are fully funded for a range of individuals through funding streams such as free courses for jobs, the adult education budget and advanced learner loans. The adult education budget allows eligible adult learners aged 19 to 23 undertaking their first full level 3 course to be fully funded, and free courses for jobs gives eligible adults the chance to access high-value level 3 courses—423 of them—for free. The Government aim to support learners building up or stacking up LLE-funded modules on pathways to full qualifications across their working lives.
(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberI am grateful for being called to speak in this important debate. The Bill is somewhat technical in nature, but its objectives are to be welcomed and applauded. We need to ensure that its provisions are implemented as soon as practically possible and that, thereafter, they deliver the desired outcome. The Bill is vital to address the skills crisis that this country faces. Moreover, we need to ensure that people from all backgrounds and of all ages have every opportunity to realise their dreams and to pursue their chosen careers; that businesses of all sizes can recruit and retain staff with the necessary skills and expertise; and that the stubborn productivity gap that has plagued the UK economy for so long is at last vanquished and eliminated.
In East Anglia, there are exciting opportunities emerging in a wide range of new industries: zero-carbon energy production, life sciences, and food and agriscience. However, a skills mismatch is holding back those sectors, and if we do not address it, businesses will go elsewhere and we will have lost a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity not only to revolutionise the local economy for the benefit of local businesses, local people and local communities in East Anglia, but to benefit the whole of the UK, not least the Treasury.
I will not go into detail on the provisions of the Bill, because the Secretary of State has already done so. I shall focus instead on why the Bill is needed, why it is welcome and what more needs to be done if it is to have the desired impact. It is first necessary to put the Bill in context. In February 2018, the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), announced a post-18 education and funding review. Sir Philip Augar’s report, which was published in May 2019, described post-18 education in England as
“a story of both care and”—
I am afraid—
“neglect”.
The Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022 subsequently provided the framework for embedding lifelong learning in our tertiary education system.
The Government have quite rightly recognised the problem and the need for action. They are to be commended for introducing a comprehensive framework that can deliver much-needed reform, but I do feel a sense of frustration that the challenges are not being tackled more quickly. At times, I feel we need to be more radical and send a clear message to communities, people and businesses that wholesale change for the better is on the way.
Why is the Bill necessary? It is part of a drive to embed lifelong learning in our education and training system. The need for a lifelong learning culture is clear. Given the ageing population and the lack of people with the technical skills needed by employers, as well as technological change and the need to move rapidly to a net zero economy, we need every adult to have the capacity, motivation and opportunity to carry on learning throughout their life.
We have an ageing population. By 2030, the population aged 60 is projected to have increased by 42%, while the population aged 14 to 64 is forecast to have grown by just 3%. That has critical implications. First, people living longer might choose to work longer and must therefore be able to upskill and reskill. Secondly, those who are out of work might well benefit from accessing education and training to support them to be healthy and active in retirement. Thirdly, the pressure on public finances that an ageing population brings requires us to ensure that people of working age who are out of work or underemployed can upskill and retrain as quickly as possible.
We must address the challenge of climate change, which will lead to dramatic changes in the world of work. New and emerging sectors, jobs and working practices will require upskilling and retraining a very large number of people. The target of net zero by 2050 requires a radical shift in the response from our skills system—a challenge that I am afraid is not currently being met.
A fourth industrial revolution is taking place in information and communication technologies. Artificial intelligence, virtual reality and robotics are profoundly changing how people work, learn, communicate and live. That will require smarter and more agile ways of living and working. People will need higher, more specialised and socialised skills. As a result of the changes in the world of work driven by digitalisation, by the fourth industrial revolution and by the transition to a green economy, CBI research predicts:
“Nine in ten workers will need some form of reskilling by 2030”.
The Bill should not be considered in a vacuum or in isolation. If it is to be a success, it must form part of a comprehensive package of measures. Let me briefly list five of them. First, there is the need to ramp up participation in adult education. Since 2004 participation rates have almost halved, from 29% to just below 15%, which means that millions of people are missing out on opportunities to retrain and upskill for a new job or career and employers are unable to fill key vacancies. Secondly, there is a need to address the consequent low levels of employer investment in work for skills. While much recent reform has rightly focused on the role of employers in the skills system, there has at the same time been a decline in the amount of investment on the part of employers themselves.
Thirdly, we need to address the situation whereby the least advantaged suffer the most and have the least opportunity to advance. At a time when more jobs require education at level 3 and above, only 60% of young people reach that level by the age of 19, while 15% fail to reach level 2. The number of people taking higher and intermediate and technical college courses is lower than it should be, given both the current skills shortages and those that can be predicted owing to retirements and economic change in the coming years. Those who do participate are far more likely to be well educated and better off. The poorest adults, with the lowest qualification levels, are the least likely to access adult training, despite being the group that will benefit most. They must not be left behind.
Fourthly, there is poor co-ordination across the education system. Further education, higher education and apprenticeships are currently treated as distinct systems in their own silos, which makes it hard for employers and others to access the overall system. There is insufficient alignment across welfare, skills and economic strategies, and that needs to change. Fifthly and finally, there has been a neglect of level 4 and level 5 provision. Sir Philip Augar’s review notes that the small number of level 4 and level 5 students translates into persistent skills gaps at technician level. That gap, I am afraid, makes England an international outlier, with our numbers declining.
What else do we need to do? As I have said, the Bill is to be welcomed, for it has a vital role to play, but it is only one piece of the jigsaw. We need more detail on the lifelong loan entitlement ahead of its introduction in 2025. It has the clear potential to be a game-changer, introducing a stronger lifelong learning culture in England. However, there are issues of detail that need to be addressed, as well as wider issues relating to how it fits into the whole tertiary education offer, including further education and apprenticeships.
As the Bill progresses through Parliament, three big systems issues need to be borne in mind. First, there is a need to instil a new lifelong learning culture. Arguably, the biggest hurdle when it comes to the success of the lifelong learning entitlement will be the issue of how quickly a new culture of lifelong learning can be developed. Secondly, there needs to be clarity on the role of employers and how the lifelong learning entitlement will work with the apprenticeship levy. Employers are central to the working of the new system being developed as part of the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, and it is important that they are fully involved in the development of the lifelong learning entitlement. Thirdly, there is a need for changes in regulations to develop a coherent post- 16 education and skills strategy that is properly aligned to wider Government policies, redressing the inefficient competition that exists across the system and setting out a co-ordinated approach to an expanded lifelong education service. This should include legislation to introduce a new tertiary post-16 commission.
In addition, I have two concerns that must be addressed when the Government publish their response to the consultation carried out last year that we have heard about. First, there remain questions about eligibility and who will be entitled to access the lifelong learning entitlement. This includes rules around equivalent or lower qualifications. Secondly, the matter of maintenance support needs to be addressed. The Government are still considering how maintenance support will be adapted for the lifelong learning entitlement. This will be crucial for mature learners, who often have family commitments and caring responsibilities.
As I have mentioned, there is a danger that the lifelong learning entitlement becomes something used by well-educated people to add a year after a degree rather than by people who do not yet have a level 3 education. The pathways from lower levels need to be strengthened with better funding and maintenance support at level 3 and below, with universal credit recipients being given every opportunity to access training without loss of benefits. It is important that the provisions of the Bill are accompanied by the necessary careers advice and guidance, so that those who need it most can take full advantage of the opportunities that will become available. A strategy is needed that sets out how the lifelong learning entitlement will fit into the careers advice and guidance for individuals to access throughout their lives.
If the Bill is to be successful, it must be accompanied by systemic change, and if the House will bear with me for a few minutes I will briefly outline what the ingredients of this change might be. They could include: a 10-year education and skills strategy; a new tertiary education system with a joined-up approach to regulation and oversight; the creation of a maintenance support system that enables everyone to have a fair and reasonable standard of living while studying training at college, across both further and higher education; the reform of the benefit entitlement system so that people who would benefit from attending college while unemployed do not lose out; and ensuring that the whole education and skills system is sustainably funded. For too long, the college system has been the Cinderella service of the education system. Significant improvements have been made, but more work is still required. Finally, we should have a support fund for providers branching into new resource-intensive areas at levels 4 and 5.
In conclusion—I think you will be pleased that I have come to this point, Mr Deputy Speaker—this Bill is to be welcomed, but it is only one part of a wide range of policies and initiatives that must be provided so that all people, whatever their backgrounds, are able to realise their full potential. If we do this, it will in turn enable businesses to prosper and allow the economy at last to move into top gear, eliminating that stubborn productivity gap. This is what is needed if we are to deliver sustained economic growth and meaningful levelling up. As the Bill moves forward, I would urge the Government to consider reasoned amendments—I know my right hon. Friend the Minister will do so—to quickly bring forward any necessary enabling and secondary legislation, and to work collaboratively, not only across this House but with universities, colleges, employers and, most of all, those people that we represent, to whom this Bill gives the opportunity to realise their full potential.
(1 year, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberI thank the hon. Lady for her question. Actually, Ofsted data shows that the number of childcare places has remained broadly stable at 1.3 million since August 2015. At the spending review in 2021 we announced additional funding of £160 million in 2022-23, £180 million in 2023-24 and £170 million in 2024-25 compared with the 2021-22 financial year. That will allow local authorities to increase the hourly rates paid to childcare providers.
We are transforming people’s life chances by enabling them to climb the education and skills ladder of opportunity. On 9 January, we announced that in financial year 2023-24 we will increase funding rates to invest a further £125 million in 16-to-19 education. Some £18.5 million has been invested in 16-to-19 education in institutions that cover the Waveney constituency.
I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Taking into account both the urgent need to address acute skills shortages in key sectors of the economy and the fact that participation in adult education fell from 4.4 million in 2003-04 to 1.5 million in 2019-20, it is vital that further education capacity is significantly expanded. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor highlighted the importance of investment in skills in his autumn statement. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Minister could set out the work that has been done to meet that challenge ahead of the spring statement.