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

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Ian Sollom]

I will come to my preference for an executive agency that fits what the Government want to do. That is the reason for my new clause, and I do not think that it need delay efforts. Ultimately, a statutory, departmental body would have more clout. On the basis of what we understand, at least, I think that the remit for Skills England is very different from the remit for IfATE when it comes to that cross-departmental working.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

This Government have just taken bold action by abolishing NHS England, the largest quango in the world. Part of the motivation for doing so was the need to ensure that when something is not going right in the NHS, the buck does not stop with a quango that we Back-Bench MPs cannot question directly, but with Ministers. That is better for governance and for scrutiny; it means that when the Health Secretary says that something is not going well enough, we can question him robustly and challenge him to improve. Surely the hon. Gentleman sees that the way to push Skills England to be as robust as possible is by having strong governance.

[Ian Sollom]

There are different options, and I will come to this issue later. Given the scale of cross-departmental working required, having Skills England sit outside a single Government Department is probably more effective. Moreover, such bodies can be held accountable effectively by Parliament, as we have seen with some other quangos. Indeed, I believe the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council will be set up as a statutory independent body when time allows, and I suggest that Skills England is of the same order of magnitude.

Beyond the concerns about accountability and cross-Government authority, there are practical, operational risks to the approach laid out in the Bill. The Skills Federation warned in its evidence that

“there is a key risk that transfer of functions from IfATE will become the key focus for the set-up of Skills England and less attention (and potentially resources) placed on achieving the overarching aims.”

There is significant concern that the broader strategic purpose of Skills England could be lost in the rush to transfer operational functions. That concern was echoed by Lord Blunkett, who suggested that

“there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]

The Government’s impact assessment also acknowledges risks, noting that the transfer of functions could

“potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process”,

which

“may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners.”

In Committee, the Minister emphasised the urgent need to address skills shortages and said that delay “is not an option.” Although we share the Government’s commitment to addressing skills shortages urgently, I respectfully suggest that there is wisdom in heeding the warning that the University of Warwick gave in its evidence. Getting the foundations right is more important than hasty construction.

In light of those concerns, I tabled new clause 1, which I proposed in Committee. It provides a constructive solution to many of the issues that I have outlined, and proposes a clear pathway for establishing Skills England as a dedicated executive agency within the Department for Education. As I said, my party ultimately believes that a fully independent statutory body with cross-departmental authority is the optimal approach, but we recognise the Government’s preference for the executive agency model, so new clause 1 works within that structure but provides essential safeguards. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would produce draft proposals for establishing Skills England within six months, lay the proposals before both Houses, secure parliamentary approval before establishing the agency, provide annual statements on the agency’s work, and evaluate its effectiveness 12 months after establishment. This approach strikes the right balance between allowing the Government to implement policy at their desired speed and ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny and meaningful stakeholder engagement.

As I said, I tabled new clause 1 in Committee because I believe that parliamentary scrutiny is essential for an organisation with such far-reaching responsibilities. The Minister argued that the standard accountability mechanisms for executive agencies are sufficient. However, I contend that Skills England is not just another executive agency; it is central to the Government’s economic growth mission and to creating opportunities for millions of people.

Standard executive agency protocols are built for “business as usual” functions, not for what should be transformative bodies at the heart of the Government’s economic strategy. Having a properly accountable Skills England, even as an executive agency, would ensure that employer voices remain central to standards development rather than being merely consultative; that technical expertise is maintained and developed across economic cycles; that Parliament maintains appropriate oversight for this critical area of policy; and, crucially, that political short-termism does not override long-term skills planning.

In Committee, the Minister argued against new clause 1 on several grounds. First, she suggested that it would cause unnecessary delay in addressing urgent skills challenges. Secondly, she pointed to the existing accountability mechanisms for executive agencies, including framework documents and reporting requirements. Thirdly, she emphasised that Skills England is already operating in shadow form and is poised to take these functions when the Bill passes. Let me address those concerns. On the issue of delay, new clause 1 would require reporting and parliamentary approval within six months—a reasonable timeframe that would not significantly impede progress. As the Skills Federation noted, proper planning for the transfer of functions is essential for success, and parliamentary scrutiny would reinforce, rather than impede, the effective delivery of Skills England.

The existing accountability mechanisms are indeed important, but they are surely insufficient for an organisation of Skills England’s significance. As the University of Winchester argued in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee, Skills England should be structured

“to ensure and protect its regulatory independence from Government and other agencies.”

The framework document and annual reports are important tools, but they are prepared by the Executive without any meaningful parliamentary input.

Skills England’s current shadow operations are welcome preparation, but operating in shadow form, without parliamentary scrutiny or approval, only underscores the need for new clause 1. Important decisions about structure, governance and priorities are being made right now, without any oversight in this place.

The Secretary of State indicated on Second Reading that the Government may review Skills England’s status in 18 to 24 months to consider whether it needs to be an independent statutory body, and the Minister confirmed that timetable in Committee. But why wait? Why create uncertainty about the future status of an organisation that needs to establish credibility with employers now? It is worth noting—as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), did in Committee—that the Government plan to put the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on a statutory footing “when parliamentary time allows”, according to their own documentation. This suggests that they recognise the value of key strategic bodies’ statutory independence, so why should Skills England be treated differently?

New clause 1 offers a constructive path forward, building on the debates we have already had. Personally, I was disappointed that the Government opposed it in Committee, but I believe that the case for proper parliamentary scrutiny remains compelling. Although my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I ultimately believe that a fully independent statutory body would be the ideal model for Skills England, new clause 1 would work within the Government’s executive agency framework to add essential parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

The Minister assured us in Committee that Skills England will have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability. If the Government truly believe in those principles, they should welcome rather than resist proper parliamentary oversight. If Skills England is to be the cornerstone of our skills system for years to come, even as an Executive agency with the Department for Education, we must ensure that it has the transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight to withstand changes in political priorities and economic circumstances.

I urge Members across the House to support new clause 1, which would strengthen the Bill and help ensure that the transfer of functions leads to better outcomes for apprentices, students, employers and the economy as a whole.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

I will aim to keep my remarks brief, having spoken on Second Reading and served on the Bill Committee. Before I speak about why we should not amend the Bill to include new clauses 1 and 4 and amendment 6, I will set the scene. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will be unsurprised to hear that I warmly welcome the role that the Bill will play in paving the way for Skills England. It is right that we crack on and allow the Secretary of State to transfer to Skills England the tools to find and fill the skills gaps across the country, so that the workforce is equipped with the skills to power economic growth.

My constituency sits just next to Stansted airport, and we have many young people undergoing courses at the Stansted airport college, which I was privileged to visit last Friday. I did not take a whirl on the simulator to learn how to fly a plane; I saved that for a future visit. I was delighted to find out how the college uses our local talent in Hertford and Stortford to fill the critical, growing skills gaps in the aviation and aerospace sector, and to see the careers-focused courses that are giving young people skills for work and life.

Just this morning, I was proud to welcome the Minister for School Standards to Manor Fields primary school in Bishop’s Stortford, where we heard about the impact of the teaching assistant apprenticeship for local support staff, and met the fantastic providers of those courses. It was really moving to hear the apprentices talk about how their confidence had been built by taking those courses.

For a young person, the opportunity to find and develop a skill or something they are passionate about does not just get them into the workforce; it builds their confidence and helps them to find the path that is right for them. That is why it is so important that we get Skills England set up and do not delay getting the Bill through. I know about this from personal experience, having left school at 16. I did not follow the path of an apprenticeship. I did not know what the direction was for me. Apprenticeships are so important for young people who need to find a path and need the certainty of a career at the end of it, but perhaps do not want to stay in traditional education. It builds their confidence, and helps them find their place in the world. This is work that we simply cannot delay.

Young people are being let down by a skills system that is not working for them. One in eight young people is not in education, employment or training, which is holding them back, and the economy back, too. In 2022, more than a third of UK vacancies were due to skills shortages. We need urgent reform—we cannot afford to delay. I urge hon. Members to pass the Bill unamended this evening so that the Government can get on with reforming the skills system and delivering Skills England, to create the opportunities for young people in Hertford and Stortford and across the country that will build their confidence, help them find a path that is right for them, and make a difference to their lives.

[Peter Swallow]

I was proud to serve on the Bill Committee for this vital legislation. It is a small Bill, but, by goodness, it is mighty. I rise to speak against amendment 6. In doing so, I will highlight a local success story in recognition of the third National Supported Internship Day. It took place on 27 March, which also happens to be my birthday.

For 15 years, Bracknell and Wokingham college—my local college—and Activate Learning have been working together with over 100 employers to offer supported internship placements for learners with special educational needs. The scheme offers invaluable opportunities, and provides the skills, confidence and qualifications necessary to thrive in the workplace. Their partners include the National Grid, the Royal Berkshire hospital, Johnson & Johnson, and Sodexo. It is an excellent example of a local college working with big players in the energy, medical and food industries to provide high-quality schemes for stable, well-paid employment. It is proof that young people with special educational needs can thrive with the right support. We face one in eight young people being not in education, employment or training—the number is at an 11-year high, after 14 years of the Tories—and we need more supported internships to address the challenge.

Skills England will deliver opportunities across the country in key industries including green energy, construction and healthcare. That is vital for the Government’s five missions, and for communities like Bracknell. It is a step towards ending fragmentation. A less complex, more flexible skills system will deliver for young people, especially those with special educational needs. By bringing together the constituent parts of the skills architecture, Skills England will create a system that is fit for purpose, responsive to the needs of employers and businesses, and capable of driving economic growth in the years to come. It will lay the ground for a better system.

There is a need to move fast. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) pointed out, the UK’s productivity is almost 40% below that of the US, and 20% below that of other major economies, such as France and Germany. A major reason for that is a lack of appropriate skills, so the Conservatives’ amendment 6, which would delay the creation of Skills England by a year, is nothing short of irresponsible. We need to work faster, not more slowly. The amendment is indicative of their approach to government: where there was a challenge, they ducked it; where a decision was needed, they put it off; and when a broken system needed fixing, they left it for the next lot. Well, the next lot are now in government and will not put off for tomorrow what needs to be done today.

We know that skills are a crucial driver of economic growth and the key to tackling productivity gaps, but our economy is changing rapidly in ways we cannot fully anticipate, so it is crucial that our education system equips young people with a broad range of the skills necessary for success in the jobs market of tomorrow. That is exactly what the Bill and Skills England will deliver.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

On the face of it, this is a technical Bill, but the benefits and opportunities that the transition to Skills England can create across the country, including in communities such as Birmingham Northfield, are real and tangible. The amendments would have similar effects. In terms of timing, while new clause 1 would delay the establishment of Skills England by six months, new clause 4 and amendment 6 would delay it by a year. There is a risk that by accepting such amendments we would recreate IfATE under the name of Skills England. As my hon. Friends have said, we cannot wait that long. A new approach is needed.

As the first Skills England report, which was published last September, identified, there has been a steady decline in employers’ investment in training during the past decade. Investment in real terms has fallen by about 20%, even though 90% of the roles in critical demand across the economy require training or education.

In my constituency, apprenticeship starts fell by 35% during the last Parliament, more than double the national rate. This is a social issue as well, because more than half the young people not in education, employment or training in Northfield are classed as vulnerable, and adult skills funded education is accessed particularly in the areas of my constituency with some of the highest levels of social need, including Longbridge and West Heath, Weoley and the three estates in Kings Norton. I am sure the situation is similar for other hon. Members.

According to a response to a freedom of information request in 2022, some £1 billion a year nationally in apprenticeship levy funding was unspent. At the same time, major local employers have expressed their frustration to me about skills shortages in areas from construction and home upgrades to computer science.

I have seen some of the good work already done locally to provide apprenticeships and other forms of technical education. Next month, we will witness the 20th anniversary of the closure of MG Rover in my constituency. Today, South and City College Birmingham, which is partly built on the old Austin site, is one of the largest training providers in the west midlands. A number of hon. Members have paid tribute to their local colleges, and I would like to do the same. That college offers impressive programmes, developing the technical and soft skills of students in a multitude of industries including catering, automotive and advanced manufacturing.

As manufacturing jobs start to return to Longbridge, these facilities and the experienced staff who work there will be vital to delivering economic growth and opportunities for young people, but they are attempting to fit into a system that is not fit for purpose and is not working. In other words, skills policy is essential for the Government’s plans for economic recovery and industrial strategy, and it is appropriate to place accountability for the new development directly with Ministers for this period.

We heard a lot on the Bill Committee as well as elsewhere about whether Skills England should be created as a stand-alone agency at arm’s length from the core Department. As we heard on Second Reading, the Government may review Skills England’s status after 18 months to two years, which seems like a sensible way forward. That is a legitimate debate, but we should not agree tonight to delay Skills England’s creation.

It is important to say that IfATE has not lived up to expectations and that the status quo is a barrier to the Government’s objectives. Nine years ago, the then Minister for skills, Nick Boles, told the House’s Education, Skills and the Economy sub-Committee that IfATE would

“be much more akin to the Bank of England”

in terms of its independence compared with a traditional arm’s length organisation. I think most hon. Members would agree that that has not been borne out.

During the last Parliament, I attended meetings of the UK shipbuilding skills taskforce, where there was common agreement between employers and employee representative organisations that the GCSE entry-level requirement was a barrier for employers taking on the young people who were best equipped for those apprenticeships. However, that recommendation was blocked—by DFE Ministers, we were given to understand—from the final report. Similarly, employers and people with direct knowledge of the skills system I have talked to over the last few weeks have stressed some of the frustrations that existed in the trailblazer employer organisations: within the bureaucracy of IfATE, some recommendations and expertise would be either delayed or disregarded by the route panels, some of which were made up of employers who did not necessarily have expertise in a particular industry.

It is important to reduce some of that bureaucracy so the Bill’s effect of removing a requirement for a regular review of an apprenticeship’s standard—in practice, every few years—is a sensible change. There are, at the last count, 658 live apprenticeships listed on the IfATE website. That implies 219 reviews every year or four a week; I think we are entitled to question how effective those reviews can be given IfATE’s current resources.

If I may, I will list one more example of where the current system is going wrong. The special educational needs and disabilities teaching assistant apprenticeship standard, which was discussed during the last Parliament and then formally created during this one, lists a very large number of organisations that contributed to its design. The overwhelming majority are employers, who, of course, need to be represented. Only one trade union was represented and I question why that was the case. However, not a single SEND parents’ organisation or other group that represents the needs of those young people was drawn into the creation of that standard. I think we are entitled to ask whether that is the right approach. The discussions that led up to the creation of the standard, in practice, were heavily DfE-guided, so I think we are entitled to question the independence of the current system as it exists.

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

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O’Brien]

That is a perfectly good question. Of course, this Government are a big fan of quangos and have, I think, created—net—28 more quangos since it came to office. Some can be the right thing to do, so I am not necessarily criticising the Government for that. In this case—I cannot remember if the hon. Lady was around when we were creating the apprenticeship levy—the reason why it was made independent of Government and an employer-owned body was that we were, for the first time, creating something that is quite common in the rest of Europe, the apprenticeship levy.

The levy is intended to stop—to be blunt—good employers who invest in their workforce and the skills of their workforce being taken advantage of by those who do not. That meant doing something controversial, which in effect was requiring them to pay into the levy—in many ways, it is like a tax—but they could get their money back through the apprenticeship levy. However, in return for that big change, requiring larger employers to put their own money into skills, we wanted to ensure that the whole thing would be truly employer-led, rather than politician-led.

Of course, current Ministers are brilliant—this is not any criticism of them—but we legislate for the ages, not for whoever is currently the Minister. Ministers change, and sometimes there have been instances—I am horrified to tell the Committee—where politicians have foibles or funny ideas of their own, which are not necessarily reflected in the wishes of employers and what they want from the skills system. That was why we put the system more into the hands of employers.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

It is interesting to hear the shadow Minister speak about business’s view of the apprenticeship levy. When I speak to businesses in my constituency, they tell me that the apprenticeship levy was not flexible enough and was not working, and it was preventing them giving opportunities to young people. That is exactly why so many businesses have welcomed the changes that this Government are bringing in. Has he not heard the exact same from businesses in his constituency?

[Neil O’Brien]

Even before we set up the levy, I always heard employers expressing concerns about the idea of a levy of any kind. In many instances, they would prefer just to keep their money and not spend it on skills at all. The fact that they were not spending on skills is the reason why we brought in a levy—it was quite a contentious thing, and quite a centrist thing in lots of ways.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in its recent paper on the Government’s proposals to change the levy, the danger, if we start to make these things too open-ended, is that we completely collapse the concept. It notes what happened with things before, such as Train to Gain, where what we end up with is pure dead-weight—we get zero additionality.

To reduce the idea to absurdity, if we were to say that employers can spend the apprenticeship levy on whatever they like, there is no point in having a levy, is there? That is because we would have just gone around in a circle. There is no point taking money off people and saying, “You can do whatever you want.” The whole point of containing that expenditure to apprenticeships was, as well as wanting to prioritise apprenticeships, to avoid the very real problems that the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out with previous schemes such as Train to Gain, where we ended up with huge amounts of dead-weight. It did not work, and the amount of money spent by employers on such things went down.

I am absolutely ready to hear criticisms of, and improvements to, the idea of the levy. In a moment, I will talk about some of the challenges that will be thrown up by the Government’s proposals to move large amounts of money out of apprenticeships through the reforms to the levy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I am very grateful; who knows where this conversation might take us? Last time I looked, 1563 was not in the past five decades. The hon. Lady says that every generation should try to reform, and that may well be true. I do not know how many generations she calculates there are in a 50-year period, but as sure as anything, there are not 12, let alone 13.

Those many bodies over the years have been mirrored by a true panoply of qualifications and awards: traditional apprenticeships; modern apprenticeships; the YOP or youth opportunities programme; the YTS, or youth training scheme; City and Guilds; the TVEI, or training and vocational education initiative; the NCVQ or National Council for Vocational Qualifications; NVQs or national vocational qualifications, which are still in use; GNVQs, or general national vocational qualifications, which became BTECs and diplomas; the 14-to-19 diplomas, which are not quite the same thing as the Tomlinson diplomas; Skills for Life; traineeships; and all together between 100 and 200 recognised awards and organisations, excluding those that do only end-point assessments.

[Peter Swallow]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I have not forgotten another one, have I?

[Peter Swallow]

I simply wish to say to the right hon. Member that it was not too long ago when he was on the Government Benches and presiding over the very system in question. As he has helpfully elucidated for everyone, we are dealing with an incredibly fractured landscape, which is precisely the challenge that the Bill proposes to address. In all frankness, given the fractured nature of the landscape, which he eloquently identified, should he not support any attempt to bring it together?

[Damian Hinds]

Yes, but the Bill does not do that, and if the hon. Member thinks it does, I am afraid he is mistaken.

Some years ago, I used to sit on the Government Benches and was a Minister at the Department for Education, as the hon. Member said, and on many occasions I have had a close interest in these areas. There was a cross-party coming together in the early to mid-2010s, which resulted in the Sainsbury report. The noble Lord Sainsbury, as the hon. Member may know, is a Labour peer who devoted a great deal of his life and the work of his foundation, the Gatsby Foundation, to trying to improve something that in this country, historically and by international comparison, we have not been tremendously good at: technical and vocational education and training. The Independent Panel on Technical Education, which convened in 2015 to 2016, took a broad overview of exactly the fractured landscape that the hon. Member talked about. By the way, I have missed out the page of my notes where I was going to go through all the qualifications that someone could do at level 3 to age 18, which is a similarly sized list.

School Accountability and Intervention

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. We absolutely need to be laser-focused on schools that have consistently underperformed but have not received the support, help or intervention they need to succeed. We will be laser-focused on supporting those schools to achieve the outcomes that we know they want to achieve for their children but just need the support to do so.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to overhauling Ofsted, and particularly the commitment to ensuring that SEND is at the heart of every school, because a truly outstanding school is one that has inclusivity at the heart of everything it does. Will the Minister commit to listening, through the consultation, to the parents and carers of SEND kids, to ensure that they are at the heart of the reforms the Government are delivering?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend advocates very powerfully for the families in his area who have been struggling with a SEND system that is clearly in need of reform. The changes that Ofsted and the Department are proposing are designed to create a more inclusive and effective schools system for all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. Indeed, we will continue to listen to their voices as we plan our reforms.

Qualifications Reform Review

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for the many points she made and for acknowledging the Government’s pragmatic response. It was recognised that the previous Government were not focused on social care and childcare, so we needed to relook at those areas and ensure that level 3 and level 2 placements were available. She will be aware that we are conducting the curriculum and assessment review, and the qualifications reform will be connected to the wider review, which will be published next year. There are various other ways that qualifications reform is being monitored in terms of the national audit. We are reviewing the process on an ongoing basis. As well as seeing where the uptake is from students—this is where Skills England will come into play—we are looking at ensuring that organisations and employers are involved in the types of training and courses available for young people, so the connection is very much there. We will follow through with more detail in due course.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The certainty that the statement provides will be an early Christmas present for the further education sector. Last month, I visited Bracknell and Wokingham college, a fantastic FE provider in my constituency where students learn everything from green construction to nursing, electric car maintenance to career guidance, which shows the breadth of opportunities available through the FE sector. Incidentally, those are all skills that will underpin the Government’s missions. The FE sector is vital not only in breaking down barriers to opportunity but as a vehicle for growth, providing the green skills that are necessary to our economy and to support those missions. What more support can the Government put in place for the FE sector, in particular around the difficult issue of pay settlements for FE teachers?

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the many important contributions of the FE sector. Pay is not currently set by the pay review bodies, including for FE, and the Government do not set recommended pay in further education. With that said, my noble Friend the Minister has full knowledge of the needs and crucial role of the FE college sector.

Home-to-School Transport: Children with SEND

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jen Craft]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The long-term goal must be better inclusion for disabled children in mainstream education—I would have loved to send my child to the outstanding school up the road, but it did not really want us. This is not a choice that parents want to make, and inclusion is the ultimate, long-term solution. However, disabled children should not be penalised for the financial burdens under which councils find themselves.

The transport arrangements that are provided are often unsuitable, such as a bus pass for a vulnerable young person. Parents are asked to make financial contributions or are provided with travel allowances that barely cover the costs. It is hard to overstate the impact that the yearly lottery for school transport can have on disabled children. It disrupts their education, places stress and anxiety on them and their families, reduces their independence, and asks their parents to carry financial costs.

I heard from one mother whose 18-year-old daughter attends a school offering specialist provision. This year, just 24 hours before her daughter was due to start her college course, she was told she would be charged a contribution for her daughter’s transport to school. She spoke of the anxiety inflicted on her daughter through days of uncertainty. Despite that stressful experience, that mother considers herself among the lucky ones. Her vulnerable daughter can continue to get to school safely every day, when others who are asked to contribute to transport costs may not.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that in too many cases the SEND families most in need of support find they are not given it? For many families, it is therefore a question of whether they can afford to support their children. In this country, in 2024, we must end that barrier to opportunity.

[Jen Craft]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It is unacceptable that disabled families are faced with choices about their children’s education that parents of children who are not disabled are not.

During the election campaign, I spoke to another woman, Julia, and had the pleasure of meeting her 18-year-old son Oscar, who has cerebral palsy, which affects his right side, and epilepsy. For 10 years, he had received free home-to-school transport, but now his parents have to make the case every year for why he should continue to receive that support to reach his sixth form. Thanks to the new costs, his mum has had to withdraw Oscar from one of his sessions at his weekend care provision, because she cannot afford both. Despite the new charges, there is still no guarantee that their application will be approved. She said that life is hard enough without this discrimination and pressure.

Another mother, in Thurrock, told me about her ongoing fight to secure transport for her daughter. Twice her daughter was refused passenger transport to the education setting she attended and twice the family successfully appealed. That mother said:

“As parents to children with SEND we have to fight for every single step, for their existence. Fighting for what is right, what our children are entitled to.”

This is the reality for thousands of families across the country. This disruption at such a vital point in education can be devastating, with serious impacts on a young person’s mental health and development. Let us be clear: this places a financial barrier to education in the way of disabled children and their families that other families simply do not have to face.

Kinship Carers

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Strathern]

Absolutely. The new kinship care ambassador and the guidance for local authorities that was brought out earlier this year will be important in delivering that, as will making sure that local authorities are held to account for delivering the local offer for kinship carers. This is an incredibly important issue, and whether a kinship carer and a young person get the support they need cannot be left to the luck of a postcode.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Strathern]

I will give way to both my hon. Friends, then I will have to make some progress.

[Peter Swallow]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. He makes a really important point about ending the postcode lottery. Does he agree that that extends to businesses and employers being more flexible when it comes to granting leave to kinship carers? Kinship carers often take on the responsibility at a moment of great crisis. It can be a really difficult moment, and we need to do more to ensure that they are supported to take the time off from work that they need to look after those in their care.

[Alistair Strathern]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who, with typically great foresight, has alluded to one of the points I hope to touch on later in my speech.

Universities: Freedom of Speech

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. He is absolutely right. I will make that commitment, which I will pass on to the Minister for Skills and to the Secretary of State.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

Before I was elected to this place, I was a university lecturer and a teacher. I worked hard—as did my colleagues—to ensure that in my lecture hall all views could be expressed, interrogated and debated, even those that I profoundly disagreed with. Does the Minister agree that when Opposition Members make unsubstantiated claims that students who express Tory views are marked down, it undermines—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think that the hon. Members for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) and for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) are both trying to catch my eye. I assure you that that is not the way to do it.

[Peter Swallow]

Does the Minister agree that when Opposition Members make unsubstantiated claims that Tory students are being marked down, it undermines the brilliant hard work that our lecturers do to support their students?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government will uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom on our university campuses. Robust debate and challenge to views helps students to grow in an education setting; creating culture wars does not. That is why we will work with academics, students, campaigners and all those with an interest in upholding freedom of speech in our higher education system to get this right.

SEND Provision

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 5th September 2024 Westminster Hall

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

On Saturday, I joined a group of SEND families in Bracknell to hear their experiences of operating within a broken system. The stories I heard from them, and those I have heard on the doorstep and from Members here today, are heartbreaking. Children are stuck on assessment waiting lists for months longer than they should be. Parents have to juggle work around caring for kids who are off school or find themselves repeatedly excluded because their needs are not being met, and are then left struggling to pay the bills.

There is inadequate provision in mainstream education, and there are far too few state-maintained special schools to meet the demand. As the previous Conservative Education Secretary admitted, the system is “lose, lose, lose”; it is desperately in need of reform.

[Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the very serious consequences of the issues he is outlining is the problem of non-elective home education, where parents feel forced to take their children out of school entirely and feel they have no option other than to educate them at home? Does he, like me, welcome the measures in the proposed children’s wellbeing Bill that will require local authorities to set up and maintain registers of children not in school so that we get a better sense of the problem?

[Peter Swallow]

Absolutely. I was proud to highlight in my maiden speech the issue of ghost children, who are missing out on education and too often fall off the radar. That is a really important part of the puzzle.

The Government have rightly placed education at the heart of their programme for change and have a national mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for all children. Nobody needs that more than our SEND kids, who face significant barriers to inclusion. This is a question of social mobility. How can we ensure that, no matter a child’s needs or background, they thrive in school and into their adult life?

I could focus on many areas where improvement is desperately needed, but one issue that is raised time and again by the families I have spoken to in Bracknell—it has been raised by Members here today, including the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage) and my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and I experienced it in my previous career in education—is the lack of adequate training about SEND in schools, both in initial teacher training and as part of a teacher’s continuing professional development. That is why I was proud to stand on a Labour manifesto that committed to introducing a new teacher training entitlement to give teachers the time they need to learn skills that will help them better support SEND kids. When I was a teacher, time was always the most precious resource. I would like to see the pledge include more targeted support for SENCOs and input from SEND families at all stages.

Let me be clear: there are many more areas where this broken system is in great need of reform, and we have heard many fantastic contributions to that effect today, but if we ensured that more SEND kids were supported within the mainstream system—if they were able to attend school and were not shut out of education—we would reduce the pressure on heavily oversubscribed special schools and would be one step closer to fixing the SEND system and breaking down the barriers for all children.

Ofsted

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman makes a characteristically thoughtful point, and I do not disagree with anything that he said. In fact, the report card system should give a much more holistic picture of school life. A parent knows their child, and they know the sort of school environment that will suit them. A report card system will enable the highlighting of areas where a school may be doing particularly well, and the areas where it may need to strive to improve. That will be useful for parents. It will also be useful for schools to know where they can improve, and it will be useful in driving high and rising standards for every child. We are absolutely determined to deliver that, and we see this as a key part of ensuring that that happens.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

If I were to pick a single word to describe Ofsted’s grading system, it would be “inadequate”, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to reviewing Ofsted’s review system, and particularly to reviewing its focus on special educational needs. Will the Minister engage with families with special educational needs when developing the new school report card system?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Ensuring that we meet the needs of children with special educational needs and their families is a key priority for the Government. We recognise that the system is broken and that there are too many families and too many children not getting the education that they deserve. We see this as part of the process of resetting that relationship and resetting the system so that we can have a school system that is inclusive, where that is appropriate, and so that we can have mainstream schools that serve the whole community. We will endeavour, as part of wider reforms that we are looking at, to ensure that we have a special educational needs system that meets the needs of every child in this country.