Department for Education

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As a former teacher, school governor and university lecturer, and as chair of the all-party parliamentary groups on schools, learning and assessment, on classics and on social mobility, may I say how proud I am to stand here as a Labour MP elected on a manifesto commitment to break down barriers to opportunity for all young people?

Bracknell Forest is an incredible place in which to grow up. We have only good and outstanding schools and a fantastic local FE college—Bracknell and Wokingham college—and leafy Berkshire is of course a very lovely corner of the world. However, it would be wrong to suggest that young people in my constituency do not face real challenges. The Sutton Trust has identified that Bracknell has below average social mobility. We have a below average number of 18-year-olds going on to higher education, and the figure is half the rate of Wokingham next door. We are one of the councils in the safety valve programme, and we are facing sustained issues in offering the vital SEND education that is so badly needed.

That is why I am so proud that this Government are working to address these educational inequalities, including giving hard-working teachers in my constituency above inflation pay rises for a second year in a row; addressing school support staff funding through re-establishing the school support staff negotiating body; extending free school meals, with over 3,000 students set to be eligible in Bracknell Forest; and the funding to support Uplands school to open a new school-based nursery. What a difference from the Tory party, which would prefer to fund a tax cut for private schools, and the Reform leader, the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage), who believes SEND students are being massively over-diagnosed.

The SEND crisis demands real action to address it, which is why I particularly welcome the £1 billion extra for SEND in last year’s Budget, including £2.2 million more for Bracknell Forest council to expand provision. I have seen the effect of expanding provision, and I was very proud to open the new special resource provision at Sandhurst school just the other week. However, we need a full range of provision, with mainstream support as well as new special schools, and the Minister will know that I have been lobbying her hard to deliver the proposed special school for autism in Buckler’s Park in my patch. Shamefully, the previous Government promised that school, but without a penny to pay for it. I would like to take this opportunity to once again lobby my hon. Friend to deliver that much-needed service.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Before the election, Labour said that increasing VAT would pay for more teachers. Even in December, the Chancellor said that

“every single penny of that money will go into our state schools”.

More recently, however, the Prime Minister has claimed that this will instead pay for investment in social housing. He said

“my government made the tough but fair decision to apply VAT to private schools… because of that choice, we have announced the largest investment in affordable housing in a generation.”

These statements from the Chancellor and the Prime Minister cannot both be true. They cannot spend every penny on state schools and also spend money on housing, so my first question to Ministers is this: who is not telling the truth? Is it the Prime Minister or the Chancellor? Logically, both statements cannot be true.

Either way, we are not getting the extra teachers. In fact, statistics just came out showing that there are not more teachers, but fewer. There are 400 fewer overall, including 2,900 fewer in primary. Teacher numbers went up 27,000 under the last Government. Now they are down 400 under this Government. It was at that point, when those statistics came out showing that things were going in the wrong direction, that Ministers suddenly and for the first time started saying that the loss of staff in primary schools would no longer count. Primary school teachers no longer count for this Government. They had never said this before until the statistics showed that teacher numbers were falling.

This pathetic attempt to move the goalposts is so corrosive of trust in politics. It is a bit like when the Chancellor said that she was making her unfunded pledge to reverse the disastrous cut to the winter fuel payment because things were going so well with the economy. Everyone knows that is not true. It was so brazen. Let me quote what the Office for Budget Responsibility has said:

“Since the October forecast, developments in outturn data and indicators of business, consumer and market sentiment have, on balance, been negative for the economic outlook”,

and

“borrowing is projected to be £13.1 billion higher in 2029”.

But this Government seem to think that they can say black is white and people will believe them.

In that same brazen spirit, the Secretary of State responded to the statistics showing that there were fewer teachers in our schools by saying in a chirpy tweet:

“We’re getting more teachers into our classrooms.”

Ministers now say that primary schools do not count because pupil numbers are falling, but pupil numbers in primary are now predicted to be higher than when they made that promise. On the same basis, we could equally exclude all the many areas where numbers of pupils are falling in secondary and, indeed, places where numbers in primary are still going up, as in Leicestershire. It is brilliant: if we just ignore all the teachers that are getting the sack, of course teacher numbers are going up.

[Peter Swallow]

In the spirit of saying things that are not true and making brazen statements, I wonder whether the hon. Member can get on to the bit of his speech where he pretends that the Conservative Government invested more in our schools.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am glad that the hon. Member has prompted me—he must have a copy of my speech. In the last Parliament, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, real-terms spending per pupil went up by 11%. I thank him for allowing me to make that point.

So why are so many teachers getting the sack? It is partly because that is not the only broken promise. Labour also promised that it would fully compensate schools for the cost of the national insurance increase. The Minister sighs as I say this, and schools around the country will sigh too, because Labour broke that promise. According to the Confederation of Schools Trusts and the Association of School and College Leaders, schools have been left up to 35% short in some cases. With all the broken promises that we have already mentioned, let me check in on another promise. Perhaps the Minister will tell us the answer. The Prime Minister promised two weeks of work experience for all pupils and the Labour manifesto promised £85 million to pay for it. In May the Government told schools to get on and deliver extra work experience. When exactly will schools receive that £85 million?

Schools are not the only bit of the Department for Education where the Government have broken promises. The Secretary of State’s website still says, in a chirpy way:

“Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour government.”

But Labour has increased fees, not reduced them. The spending review was strangely silent on the subject of tuition fees. I assume that silence can only imply that tuition fees are set to rise in every year of this Parliament. Let me say what that will mean. It will mean that, in 2027, fees will go above £10,000 a year for the first time. It will mean that the total amount borrowed per student taking out the full amount will increase from £59,000 now to £66,000 outside London, and from £69,000 to £77,000 in London. So much for paying less! Ironically, the gain to universities from that broken promise and from that fee hike has been entirely wiped out by yet another broken promise: the decision to increase national insurance, another thing that Labour promised not to do.

That broken promise has also hit nurseries. The Early Years Alliance has said that it is “disappointed” and “frustrated” by the spending review, and the Early Education and Childcare Coalition says that the spending review

“reiterates many promises already made”

and that

“many nurseries and other providers are…running at losses and at brink of closure”.

Meanwhile, the Institute for Fiscal Studies notes that the funding in the spending review for early years

“may not be enough to meet additional unexpected demand”.

So what does this all look like when we come down from the billions to look at it from the frontline? Sir Jon Coles is the leader of the largest school trust in the country and also a distinguished former senior official in DFE. What does he make of these estimates and this SR? He says that

“education will—for the first time in a spending review—get less growth than the average across all spending departments… The last time we had such a poor three-year cash settlement was the period 2014-2018, when average cash increases were about 1.8 per cent. But then, inflation averaged 1.5 per cent… it slightly sticks in the throat that HMT are trying to present it as good news… The claim that this is a ‘£2 billion increase in real terms’ is a version of spin I can’t remember seeing before. It relies on treating the financial year before last (pre-election) as the first year of the current spending review period.”

In fact, he says that when all that is stripped away,

“to all intents and purposes, this is a flat real-terms settlement for three years. If, as Schools Week are reporting, the £760 million ‘SEND transformation fund’ is coming out of the core schools budget, then that represents a significant real terms funding cut in school funding.”

Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that is correct and it is coming out of core schools spending.

That brings me on to the great suppressed premises in these estimates, which is that DFE assumes that it will save substantial amounts on special needs compared with the trend implied by previous years. The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) talked about the cuts to special needs spending. In fact, since 2016, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, spending has increased by £4 billion in real terms—a 60% increase. If that has felt like a cut to the hon. Member, he will not like what is being brewed up by the Treasury now.

The SEND plan will be out this autumn—coincidentally around the time of what looks like an increasingly difficult Budget. So far, DFE Ministers have floated two ideas for the SEND review. The first is to restrict EHCPs only to special schools. That would be a huge change. There are 271,000 children with EHCPs in non-special state schools and a further 37,800 in non-special independent schools, so 60% of the total are not in special schools. Anna Bird, chair of the Disabled Children’s Partnership—a coalition of 120 charities—has said:

“The idea of scrapping Education, Health and Care Plans will terrify families.”

Secondly, on top of that, we learned from a Minister of State in the Department of Health and Social Care that the Government also plan to push a lot more children from special schools into the mainstream.

There are two big questions about this plan. To say the least, there is a clear tension between these two money-saving ideas. If the Government take away EHCPs in mainstream schools, parents will be a lot less confident when the council presses them to put their child into a mainstream school rather than a special one. Given that the Government have U-turned on the winter fuel payment and now say that the coming welfare vote will, in fact, be a confidence vote in the Prime Minister, it will be interesting to see what eventually issues forth from the DFE. We know from these estimates and the SR that, as Sir Jon Cole says, unless the Government deliver these large, planned savings in special needs, the settlement for schools will become increasingly difficult.

This Government have broken a staggering number of promises incredibly quickly. Ministers seem to believe that they can just say that black is white and that they never meant any of the things they so clearly promised. This debate is about the money side of things, of course, but in terms of reform, things are also going backwards with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will lower standards and smash up 30 years of cross-party reform to appease the trade unions. Tony Blair once talked about “education, education, education.” What we are now getting is broken promises, broken promises, broken promises.

Oral Answers to Questions

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Monday 16th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

It is only through delivering a Labour Government in Scotland next year that we will get the change that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. I agree that Scottish education used to be the envy of the world—I spent many a long day speaking to my grandfather about his experience of the Scottish system—but it is only with a Labour Government in Scotland that we will once again see the focus on standards that our disadvantaged young people badly need.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

T10. Earlier this month, I opened the Launch Pad, a new SEND provision at Sandhurst school, and I was shown around by Ben, who told me how the Launch Pad had helped him to access education. As the Government work at pace to fix the broken SEND system, what is the Minister’s message for young people like Ben?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We know that there are lots of great examples of mainstream schools delivering specialist provision, such as the one my hon. Friend recently opened, enabling children to achieve and thrive in mainstream school and providing excellent support to children with speech and language needs. We have allocated £740 million to support mainstream schools to increase their SEND provision, and we want to reassure his constituent that we will continue to prioritise that in our work.

SEND Funding

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the distribution of SEND funding.

I am delighted to have secured this debate, as it gives us an opportunity to highlight the situation we are facing in England, where children with special educational needs and disabilities are being left behind due to the inherent regional inequality in the high-needs national funding formula. There is a bigger issue. The more typical thing we talk about is the overall quantum of spending based on overall need, but too little attention is given to the distribution of the funding that exists, whether in healthcare, education, policing or otherwise. I know I am not the only Member being turned to by constituents at their wits’ end, trying to navigate what feels to be a broken system; I thank colleagues across the House for their continued advocacy on behalf of some of the most vulnerable children in all our communities.

My argument is a simple yet deeply important one: the current model of SEND funding is not only inconsistent but in too many cases profoundly unfair. It fails to account for genuine levels of need, the realities faced by families, and the systemic pressures that schools and local authorities are under. Unless that changes, we will continue to fail children who rely on Members to make their case and to get this right.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a profoundly important point. There is a real and urgent need to reform the SEND system, and that of course includes how it is funded. Does he welcome the £750 million ringfenced in yesterday’s spring statement for exactly that: to transform our SEND system to make it fairer for parents, better for young people and more sustainable for the future?

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman takes me to a point further on in my speech, but he is absolutely right. He makes the case to the Minister, exactly as I intend to: given that we have a broken distribution system and given the severity of its impact on so many children and families, will she ensure that the money in the spending review is, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, used precisely for that purpose and that we target those who are most left behind?

At the heart of this debate, I am calling on the Government to identify and commit to a clear baseline cost for delivering effective SEND support per pupil. The figure must reflect what it genuinely takes, in both urban and rural settings, to support children with complex needs across the country. Only then can we ensure that no child’s opportunity is limited by where they live.

I want to bring to the attention of the House a stark example that illustrates the postcode lottery in SEND funding: the disparity between the East Riding of Yorkshire, which covers my own constituency of Beverley and Holderness, at the lowest end of the funding spectrum—we are the lowest funded in the country—and the London borough of Camden, which happens to be the highest. Camden, by any standard, is a well-resourced inner-city borough with strong proximity to specialist services. It currently receives £3,564.95 of SEND funding for each pupil in its area. Meanwhile, in East Riding—a rural area with fewer nearby services, longer travel distances and greater challenges in recruitment and retention—per-pupil high-needs funding comes in at around £968. That is a gap of over £2,500 for every single child requiring extra support. In real terms, if East Riding’s funding was matched not with Camden but with the second most poorly funded local authority, we would have an extra £18 million per year on top of the £43 million we receive in the higher needs block—£18 million extra. If we were brought into line with Camden, we would have an extra £100 million.

Some might argue that urban areas face different pressures, and of course they do, but let us be clear: the cost of delivering quality SEND provision in rural areas is not lower. In fact, it is often significantly higher. Transport costs—colleagues across the House will be aware of children who have to be moved great distances to access their support—for children with complex needs can be astronomical. Recruiting specialist staff, such as special educational needs co-ordinators, to work in isolated schools is a constant challenge. When services such as educational psychologists or speech and language therapists are not based locally, schools and families face unacceptable delays in accessing the assessments needed to unlock further support. Why, then, is rurality not factored into the high-needs funding formula?

What that means in practice is that two children with identical needs, living in different parts of the country, will receive vastly different levels of support. One might have their education, health and care plan reviewed on time, access in-school provision, and benefit from local therapy services. The other might be left waiting months for assessment, with a school already at breaking point trying to bridge the gap. This disparity will have a long-term detriment to children’s outcomes.

This is not a criticism of any local authority—Camden, like all areas, faces its own pressures and challenges—but the system we have allows such disparities to persist without sufficient recourse or flexibility. These widely varying funding allocations create a two-tiered system in what should be a national commitment. Colleagues from across the House will be familiar with constituents whose stories lay bare the human cost of this imbalance, whether it is parents desperately trying to navigate the EHCP system, the lack of suitable school places nearby to cope with the measures required by their EHCP, or schools struggling to cope.

This is also certainly not a party political point. Successive Governments have sat over funding disparities and struggled with the politics. They have been unprepared to reallocate, perhaps for understandable reasons. The people you take money from tend to be much angrier than the people you give it to are happy: one marches on Westminster, the other grunts and says, “About time.” It is a truly difficult thing. I have been in this place for 20 years and have struggled to get Ministers to accept reallocation and reapportionment. Rather than asking for that demand, which I have so far failed in 20 years of effort to get anybody to implement, I hope to come up with something more practical, if compromised as a result.

School Teachers’ Review Body: Recommendations

Peter Swallow Excerpts

Thursday 22nd May 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

It was a very long statement that managed almost entirely to look backwards, while fantasising about the future. The right hon. Member will receive the information, as will everybody else, when the statement is published at the announced time this afternoon.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I declare an interest, as I was a primary school governor right up until the election and I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for schools, learning and assessment. It is quite shocking to hear Opposition Members’ protestations about school funding, given the absolutely dire state in which they left school funding after 14 years of Conservative government. When I speak to school leaders in my constituency, they tell me about their real and lasting struggles to balance their budgets. I understand that the Minister cannot speak today about the outcome of the review until the statement, but can she give us information more broadly about conversations she has had as part of the spending review, so that we can get the funding we need to invest in schools and turn around the dire situation we inherited?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I would like to take this opportunity to put on record my thanks to school governors. My hon. Friend mentions that he was a governor up until the election. We really are grateful to school governors for everything they do on a voluntary basis to support schools to be as good as they can be. As a Government, we will always work with them and schools to support improving outcomes for children.

The Department will do everything it can within the incredibly tight fiscal constraints we inherited. As a Government, we are committed to our public services, which we know will transform the lives of children and everybody in this country. We will continue to do that.

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.