Higher Education: Financial Sustainability

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 5th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South and South Bedfordshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) on securing this important debate today, and making such a comprehensive speech with some very important points, many of which have been made to me locally as the MP for Luton South and South Bedfordshire.

Great universities are one of our success stories here in the UK, with rankings showing that Britain boasts more top-ranking institutions than across the entirety of the EU, and the UK having long been an attractive destination for students and academics from around the globe. The University of Bedfordshire, in my constituency, is no exception. I declare an interest both as a former employee and a former masters student.

With an education heritage going back more than 100 years, first as a technical college, subsequently a college of higher education and now a university, it is an internationally recognised, award-winning institution that plays an important role in Luton and the surrounding area. It gives young people from less advantaged socio-economic backgrounds, who are often the first in their family to go to university, the opportunity to open doors through study.

The university also acts as a major employer and community stakeholder in Luton, engaging with our diverse community and supporting key regeneration projects in the town. The make-up of the student population is perhaps what sets it apart from others. Around 70% of students are mature returners to education, 50% are from ethnically diverse backgrounds and more than 4,000 annually are international students. That is testament to the thriving and welcoming culture for people of all ages and backgrounds to learn.

As we have heard, however, unfortunately the higher education sector is currently in crisis. Universities are facing severe financial challenges after years of neglect by the Conservatives, leaving students and taxpayers to bear the brunt. Many universities are trying to find ways to reduce their budgets to combat these challenges, but that comes at a cost—losing staff via redundancy schemes, cuts to specific departments or courses, or sadly going bust altogether.

While the recent tuition fee cap increase, announced by the Education Secretary, allows breathing room for some universities—a difficult decision though it was—the University of Bedfordshire is experiencing significant issues due to changes introduced by the previous Government. The impact of the policy restricting those on student visas bringing dependants has resulted in approximately a 16% decline in applications across the country this year, and for institutions such as the University of Bedfordshire, that policy has been detrimental. Every level of leadership—from the vice-chancellor through to the student union representatives from Beds SU, including representatives of the Unison trade union—has raised that matter with me, emphasising the worry it is causing. The university has previously been held afloat by international admissions, but with ever-declining numbers that is not sustainable. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm whether her Department has done any impact assessment to establish whether that policy change has been positive for higher education settings.

Fundamentally, none of us want to see our higher education settings close their doors, and I am proud that this Labour Government are committed to fixing the foundations and delivering change for students, as well as undertaking a major package of reform to deliver value for money for taxpayers and students, ending the cycle of students being asked to pay more while getting less. The University of Bedfordshire does so much to raise the status of our town and bring investment, enterprise and employment. So, as we fix the foundations of now, it is vital that we support it to deliver the high-class, transformative education that students expect and deserve, to break down those barriers to opportunity, as it produces the future leaders of tomorrow from all backgrounds and all socioeconomic circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to have listened to some excellent speeches this afternoon from the hon. Members for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins) and for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson). I took different things from all of them.

I am going to concentrate on the teaching side of universities. However, I will note at the start that the previous Government put a huge amount more money into research, growing Government spending on it from £9.8 billion in 2011 to £16.1 billion, and increasing research and development as a share of the economy. I was part of that, and I am proud of what we did on that front.

Turning to the teaching side, which is perhaps the most topical part of this discussion, it is absolutely the case that a number of institutions—of course, I will not be naming them today—are financially stressed and thinking hard about their future and how they operate. I know people working in some of those institutions, and it is not easy, but I want to take a step back and examine the context before we talk about those pressures.

Working together with the Liberal Democrats, we brought in fees that did not necessarily work out politically for the Liberal Democrats at the time. However, it is good that we once again find ourselves in agreement that it is not sensible to simply increase fees without reform. As has been noted, the financial benefit to universities of the fee increase is wiped out by the increase in the national insurance contribution. One broken promise not to increase taxes is paying for another broken promise not to increase fees—it is a real connoisseur’s policy decision. In real terms, universities are left with less as a result. The pressures alluded to by the hon. Members for Erewash and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire are now made worse by the Government’s decisions.

The successes of the system, which we should note, are that it has hugely increased participation rates, causing participation in England to grow dramatically faster than in the devolved authorities in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In particular, it has dramatically increased the participation of the poorest people in our society. We can measure that in three different ways. We can look at free school meals: the proportion of those on FSM going to university has doubled, while the proportion of non-FSM kids going to university has gone up by about a third. We can look at the participation of local areas metric, which is the sector’s own measure of localities from which not many people go to university. We can see that, in both absolute and relative terms, the disadvantage gap has shrunk.

We can also use, as Universities Wales does, the index of multiple deprivation. Looking at the bottom fifth of the index—the fifth-poorest areas in each of the nations—we can see that although Labour-run Wales and England had similar numbers of people going to university back in 2006, at about 13% or 14%, the participation of poorer students has grown much more rapidly in England; it is up to 33%, compared with just 20% in Wales. That is because we made some difficult decisions, from which there have been benefits.

Much of the growth of higher education is a good thing. My generation was the first in my family to go to university. It was wonderful; it was a great experience, and it is generally a very good experience for most people who go. Universities are a wonderful thing because of not just the research and wonderful teaching that goes on in them, but the wider benefits to the community and the impact on their local society. I remember going to the University of Huddersfield as a teenager; if somebody looked nonchalant and like a student, they could just wander in and read all these wonderful books. That is just one of benefits they bring to lots of our country.

However, not all is perfect in the garden, because a university education is not cheap. We have put in a lot of resources, and while the decision to hold down the resources in recent years in order to hold down the costs for students has reduced the funding per student in real terms, it is still above the level it was at when I went to university; it is still higher in real terms than it was in 1997. But university really is not cheap for the students. The Government have just raised tuition fees to £9,535 a year. A maintenance loan for people who are not at home is £10,227, or £13,348 for those in London. After a typical three-year degree, a student is paying back £59,000, or £68,000 in London. That is a lot of money.

The Government have already increased fees once in this Parliament. Having promised to reduce the cost for graduates, they increased fees instead. There must be a decent chance that fees will continue to go up from now on—unless the Minister wants to contradict me on that. Yet, over the last decade, we have worried a lot about the financial plight of younger people. Ever since David Willetts’s amazing book “The Pinch”, we have been thinking about how we can make it easier for younger people to get on in life. Having these huge amounts to repay—and, in some cases, rather high marginal rates—makes it much more difficult for them.

We can see that, as has been alluded to, the point at which somebody starts repaying their loan to make the system financially sustainable for taxpayers has reduced over time. In 2005, a person had to be earning about 30% more than someone working full time on the minimum wage to start repaying. As of next April, a person can earn 2% less than someone working full time on the minimum wage and still be repaying. This has become more like a graduate tax. It is not quite like a tax—people do not repay it if they are not earning—but it is high.

If somebody is a postgraduate on top of that, or has a couple of kids and ends up being hit by the high-income child benefit charge, they face extraordinary marginal rates, even on middling incomes. In the £50,000 to £60,000 range, if a person has one postgraduate loan or two kids, they can end up paying a 70% marginal tax rate as a young person. That is insane. The Government have made the decision not to reform the high-income child benefit charge, so the problem will go on and get worse.

All of that context is by way of saying that, yes, there are pressures in higher education, but there are also pressures on young people; it is not easy. So before we increase charges further, increase tuition fees even more and tip in more money, we absolutely must think about reforms. Advocates of higher education, including me, say, “Look, there is a lot of higher education that is brilliant for people’s earnings and a good economic investment.” However, we know, because of the decision taken by the last Government to create the longitudinal educational outcomes database, that not everybody benefits from going into higher education, at least not economically. The seminal report on this issue by the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that

“seen over the whole lifetime, we estimate that total returns”—

combining the perspective of both the taxpayer and the student—

“will be negative for around 30% of both men and women.”

For about 30% of people, at least in economic terms, this is not working out.

Now, economics is not the only thing in life, and it will always be worth us funding some things simply for their own sake—if they are beautiful and good and we think they are nice—but let us not forget that a lot of things that are economically beneficial are also beautiful, true, interesting and worthy in their own right. For example, it is cool to know that the word “Lent” comes from the Old English word for “lengthen”, because plants grow in the spring, which is when Lent is. That is the origin of the word, and it is cool to know things like that. It is also cool to know how to build an ion drive, how monoclonal antibodies work or innumerable other things in the hard sciences and other subjects as well.

We will always want to spend on some things that are just worth it in their own right, but the question is how much. If we are spending £20 billion a year on student loans, and let us say, hypothetically, that the IFS is about right, and that about 30% of that is not worth it, that is £6 billion. That is about 10 times what we spend on the Arts Council. How much do we want to spend on higher education that is not economically beneficial? Should thinking about some of those courses not be the first port of call before just increasing taxes on young people?

We could potentially do things to reform the system, as the last Government were starting to do, which would be of benefit to both the young person and the wider economy. We are not doing a young person a favour if we put them on, for example, some creative arts course and say, “This will be great for you. You are going to be the next Jony Ive. You are going to design the next iPad. You are going to have great outcomes. This degree is going to take you where you want to go”, when that is not true. Some people have fantastically low earnings. They feel like they have been lied to; they feel like they have been mis-sold something. Thankfully, that is not the median experience of students, but it is the experience of quite a lot of students. We have to worry about that.

I am totally sympathetic to those who say, “Let’s find more resources for the best of HE,” but we also need to have the conversation about HE that is of lower economic value—if I can call it that—before we just start increasing taxes even further on young people who are so hard pressed already. There are many questions about how exactly we would do that, and lots of technicalities, but in principle that should be our first port of call. Finding those resources would either let us do more in high-value higher education or let us help the perpetual Cinderella sector that is further education, or we could take the burden off of young people a bit more.

It is not for me in this debate to set out our entire vision of how we would reform HE, so I have a couple of questions for the Minister. In particular, I want to encourage her to talk about a decision taken this week by the Office for Students to stop accrediting new institutions. That has numerous consequences that are bad. First, it is a block to brilliant new entrants such as the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering in Hereford, Dyson and other places that have come in and been brilliant additions to the higher education sector. It also potentially locks very large numbers of young people out of student support. What estimate has the Minister made of the number of young people who will now not be able to access student support as a result of that decision by the OfS this week? Secondly, how long will this “pause” go on for? I saw Ministers defending this decision, and it was initially presented as a pause. I hope it is not a permanent end to any new entrants coming into the sector. Will the Minister tell us a little about when she plans to end this pause?

We have been playing a game of cat and mouse across Parliament about the national insurance increase. Bizarrely, one Department—Defence—has answered the question of how much the national insurance increase will cost it. Defence can answer it, but seemingly no other Department can. The questions I asked the Department for Education a month ago about how much this is costing schools, universities and so on have somehow not been answered. The same is true across about 50 domains in Government. We cannot have a meaningful Parliament and we cannot have meaningful discussions in this building if the Government are not prepared to answer basic questions about the consequences of their own policies.

The Government want to say, “We are giving you this wonderful increase in spending” in whatever field it might—maybe it is childcare or schools or something outside education—but that actually turns out not to be true. The university sector has worked that out for itself. We know exactly how much the Government are putting in, because of the fees increase, and we can see that that seeming gift is completely wiped out by the national insurance increase. The Government are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. In other sectors, they are just refusing to answer the question. That is really poor.

When the Minister stands up today, can she promise me that she will finally answer the question I asked a month ago, not just for higher education, but for childcare and schools, and tell us the most basic information that taxpayers and voters deserve to know? How much is the national insurance increase going to cost our public services? Why do the Government think they cannot answer this question? It is genuinely disgraceful.

I have every sympathy with those who are under financial pressure in higher education institutions. In some cases there has been misadventure, where people have taken out ridiculous loans that are now rolling over, or they have become very exposed to one type of overseas student. I was intrigued to hear the contributions from the hon. Members for Erewash and for Luton South and South Bedfordshire, encouraging the Government to allow more students’ dependants as a way of selling higher education. I remember a speech in this House—I think it was yesterday—where one hon. Member stood up and condemned the open borders experiment of the last Government. I thought, “This is a wonderful, road-to-Damascus moment from the Labour party. They finally agree with people like me and do not want to endlessly increase immigration in an attempt to prop up high education.”

[Rachel Hopkins]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Neil O'Brien]

I will give way. The hon. Lady mentioned that she thought it was good that the Government are increasing fees to allow more resources for universities. Will she confirm that she shares my understanding that overall resources are going down in real terms because of the national insurance increase?

--- Later in debate ---

[Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)]

Order. The shadow Minister has gone over his time.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Would the hon. Member mind clarifying his memory of what I actually asked? I asked whether an impact assessment had been done on that decision, rather than giving an opinion on it one way or another.

[Neil O'Brien]

Sorry. I misunderstood the hon. Lady; I thought she was pressing the Minister to reverse that decision and allow more overseas dependants as a way of encouraging overseas students to prop up higher education. I totally misunderstood—I thought she was pressing for something that she clearly was not.

I will conclude, because I am over time. I hope the Minister will answer some of those questions. I actually sympathise with her: there is a difficult challenge here and it is a knotty policy question. I will be behind her when she makes sensible decisions, and I wish her all the best in her endeavours to tackle some of those problems, not just for our universities, but for our young people.

Education

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Ministerial Corrections

Support for Children with SEND

[Rachel Hopkins]

Every child with special educational needs or disabilities should receive the high-quality support they deserve, but schools and councils do not have the necessary resources to meet increasing demand and rising costs. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the funding and powers available to councils to improve SEND provision?

[Gillian Keegan]

That is one reason the high-needs budget is up by over 60% in the past four years, and will reach £10.5 billion in 2024-25. We are also supporting local authorities with financial deficits through the safety valve and delivering better value programmes. In most constituencies, including in the hon. Lady’s area, the funding has gone up by 25% to 35%.

[Official Report, 29 January 2024, Vol. 744, c. 588.]

Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Chichester (Gillian Keegan):

Errors have been identified in my response to the hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). The correct response should have been:

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 29th January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

6. What steps she is taking to improve support for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to improve support for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

12. What steps she is taking to improve support for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Gillian Keegan]

We have been trying to increase the number of places within both mainstream and special educational needs and alternative provision settings. As I say, we have 108 more special educational needs schools already built and 76 more approved. We have worked with many local authorities, including in rural areas, to make sure they get the provision they need.

[Rachel Hopkins]

Every child with special educational needs or disabilities should receive the high-quality support they deserve, but schools and councils do not have the necessary resources to meet increasing demand and rising costs. What discussions is the Secretary of State having with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the funding and powers available to councils to improve SEND provision?

[Gillian Keegan]

That is one reason the high-needs budget is up by over 60% in the past four years, and will reach £10.5 billion in 2024-25. We are also supporting local authorities with financial deficits through the safety valve and delivering better- value programmes. In most constituencies, including in the hon. Lady’s area, the funding has gone up by 25% to 35%.

Safety of School Buildings

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd May 2023 Commons Chamber

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

Every child deserves to be able to learn in a safe, secure environment that is conducive to learning. Not every child has the luxury of an expensive private education with state-of-the-art facilities and equipment, but every child has the right to receive a first-rate education delivered by the state. Sadly, that is not always the case. Crumbling school buildings neglected by the Conservatives cause disruption to children’s learning, yet the Government will still not tell parents or the public where dangerous school buildings are. That is despite the Department for Education having escalated the risk of building collapse to “very likely”. The Government’s own officials stated that it may even pose a “risk to life”, according to a leaked document from a year ago.

The record is shameful. Capital spending by the Department for Education was around £4.9 billion in the last financial year—the lowest amount recorded since 2009-10 in real-terms prices. Overall, between 2009-10 and 2021-22, the Department’s capital spending declined by 50% in real terms. The Government announced a new 10-year school rebuilding programme in 2020, with a focus on replacing poor condition and ageing school buildings with modern, energy-efficient designs. But by December last year, a total of 400 schools had been identified for rebuilding work under the programme, out of a total of 500 due to receive funding. To put that in context, there are over 24,000 schools in England. We are seeing more sticking-plaster politics from this Government.

In Luton, 68 schools have been identified as having at least one instance of a grade C—or poor—construction condition issue. Some 28 schools have one instance of a grade D—bad—construction condition issue. It is shocking that this has been allowed to carry on. Parents and guardians deserve action. The Government need to recognise that many schools are not fit for the future, and teachers cannot focus on education if they are having to manage inadequate facilities. Let me take this opportunity to thank heads, school teachers and support staff in Luton South and others up and down the country who go above and beyond, overcoming the barriers and difficulties created by this Conservative Government to ensure that students receive the best possible education.

I support Labour’s motion today. The Secretary of State must publish detailed school-level data from the latest condition of school buildings survey, which must include conditions of individual building elements for all schools, and must ensure that they are urgently being made safe. The public has a right to know the scale of the problem, and our children deserve better.

BTEC Qualifications

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 18th July 2022 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Pow]

That is another well-made point. All those things must go into the mix in making sure that we get this right for our young people.

Another example is a student who studied the BTEC extended diploma in public services and went on to do paramedic science at the University of Plymouth. Another did the business BTEC and went on to do a higher-level apprenticeship with the accountants Ernst and Young. Another did the extended diploma in public services and went on to join Avon and Somerset police. Another did health and social care, and went on to an adult nursing degree at Cardiff University. A further student did a health and social care diploma and went on to a teaching course at the University of Plymouth—and so on and so forth. That demonstrates the breadth of the qualification.

There is also a strong link, particularly in my constituency, between students doing a health-related BTEC and then going into nursing, which is critical. We have another very good FE college, University Centre Somerset. In fairness, it does T-levels and BTECs, and that is all going well, but it takes a lot of students on to its nursing courses. We need those people in Somerset, and probably all over the country. We particularly need them in Somerset because we have a wonderful new hospital. As the MP, I was responsible for helping to get the upgrade and the new theatres, and we are working on that. There is a massive call for more nurses, and we want those nurses to stay in my lovely constituency. If we can train them there, and they can get a great, well-paid job, we will not haemorrhage them to elsewhere in the country. We need them to stay in Somerset, particularly because we have an ageing population. I would like my young people to stay in my wonderful constituency.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an important point about the link-up and the circular needs in our local communities. For example, students can do a biomedical science BTEC at Luton Sixth Form College, they can go to the University of Bedfordshire in Luton and then they can work at Luton and Dunstable University Hospital. Would she agree that it is important that that practical link-up is maintained?

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make. We are demonstrating that that is what is happening in Somerset. I certainly want that to continue, and in fact to grow, and for us to nurture all those people to live and work in this wonderful environment. It is a beautiful environment in which to work anyway, so if we can give them a good job and good training, I am sure that they will be tempted to stay. That is particularly important. A significant number of people go into teaching from these courses, which is also important. There are a lot of concerns that moving from this binary system of T-levels and A-levels, and that it will mean our BTECs become defunded, so can the Minister assure me that that will not be the case? As I said, it will be much more appropriate for many young people to start with the BTEC.

On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), we want our students to have a viable pathway, and that point about the uncertainty was such a good one because they will already be thinking, “BTECs are the way for me”—having that confidence because it is not three A-levels rolled into one—but suddenly they are getting a bit uncertain about what we are doing for them.

The point that the hon. Member for Battersea and others made so ably about disadvantaged backgrounds is significant, because the data shows that a high proportion of people from disadvantaged backgrounds start with a BTEC and loads of them go on to university. The universities know that, and we are trying to level up and include everybody. That is something that needs to be taken into account.

I will make one further point, which is particularly relevant to Somerset. We have a high proportion of small and medium-sized enterprises in our county, and they simply cannot provide the 45 days of work experience required for a T-level. I understand why that is important and why T-levels are designed to include it, but these are not huge companies; they are small SMEs, and a lot of them find it difficult to give somebody even a week’s work experience. That needs a lot of attention, because otherwise even the T-levels will struggle in Somerset. What we do not want is to be left with a whole load of brilliant young students for whom A-levels are not appropriate and a T-level is not appropriate, and who are just not getting the opportunities that they need.

To conclude, my plea is to look at this really carefully and listen to what everybody is saying, because we are all saying it with the best intentions. We want to support the Government and their skills and opportunities agenda, because that is absolutely the right way to go. It is really good to be looking at all of this, but could we potentially have an evidence-based assessment of the whole situation so that we are doing the right thing for our young people?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova) on leading the debate with an excellent speech, and the #ProtectStudentChoice coalition on their excellent campaigning on the issue. I am a proud former student, and now governor, of Luton Sixth Form College—the UK’s first sixth-form college—which now educates over 3,000 students. I am also pleased to be co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education, so I would like to extend my thanks to the Sixth Form Colleges Association in particular for all their hard work in the area.

Every student deserves a first-class education, and I know that giving students choice to shape their learning, assessment and career path is critical to their successfully achieving their future aspirations. However, the Government’s proposals seem to fly in the face of that. #ProtectStudentChoice estimates that at least 34% of the 16 to 18-year-olds studying a level 3 qualification in England are pursuing at least one applied general qualification—that is more than 300,000 students. Many young people would be better served studying an applied general qualification, such as a BTEC, rather than an A-level or T-level-only study programme. It should not be one route over another. The three-route model would work well. That is why the over 108,000 people who signed the petition and I are steadfast in our opposition to the Government’s plan to defund BTECs.

Working class people in my town should not be held back by that short-sighted narrowing of opportunities. BTECs have transformed the life chances of thousands of young people in Luton and made a significant contribution to our local economy—there are numerous examples of young people in Luton pursuing their aspirations through BTECs, whether that be work, further qualifications or university—and that is backed up by research. I have made the point many times before that disadvantaged young people are among those with the most to lose from the Government’s plans. That is evidenced by the Department for Education’s own equality impact assessment, which states

“those from SEND backgrounds, Asian ethnic groups, disadvantaged backgrounds, and males”

are

“disproportionately likely to be affected.”

BTECs are a route to university for many of those young people. The Social Market Foundation found that 44% of white working-class students that enter university studied at least one BTEC, and that 37% of black students enter with only BTEC qualifications. The Nuffield Foundation found that a quarter of students now enter university with BTEC qualifications, and are more likely to be from disadvantaged backgrounds. The vast majority of BTEC students complete their studies successfully, with 60% graduating with at least a 2:1.

I was contacted by a constituent ahead of the debate to share their experiences studying BTECs. They said that:

“Dyslexia greatly affects my short-term memory, making exam-based qualifications which rely on memory recall, such as A-levels, almost completely out of reach for myself and others with dyslexia.”

Instead, they

“pursued a BTEC in mechanical engineering, which allowed for me to be assessed on coursework and practical applications across the span of two years. If it was not for my BTEC qualification and the support I received throughout that process, I would not be able to pursue a BEng at university today.”

They summed the point up better than I could, saying that:

“BTECs are a vital lifeline to all neurodivergent and underprivileged children in the UK, for whom A-levels may not be a viable option. Students with dyslexia, ADHD and ASD face larger barriers to mainstream forms of education than most, and by cutting funding for BTECs, it will ultimately deter these students from achieving their potential and integrating them into industry workforces.”

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. This Government have had an obsession with exams over the course of the last 12 years, as though they are the only way of demonstrating what a student knows. Does the fact that so many students get a second chance through BTECs, and go on to be successful at university and get degrees, not prove that the focus on exams, and on dismissing the achievements of those students who have qualifications largely based on coursework, is entirely wrongheaded?

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I will go on to talk about choices and how people can progress and make different choices about their careers and future, and what they want to do, but that is exactly it. Narrowing those options will make things much more difficult.

I would be interested to hear from the Minister what assessment has been made of how to support neurodivergent students who will be impacted by the proposals to defund BTECs. Altaf Hussain, principal of Luton Sixth Form College, based in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), has made this point to me:

“By allowing that flexibility for A Levels and forcing the T Level route for students with lower prior attainment the government is creating a divided society that is penalising the most vulnerable in our society. The point is that many young people do not want to, or even should not have to, decide their future path at 16. Interests, aspirations and capabilities all change”.

To re-emphasise the point, it is not about favouring one route over others, but empowering young people to shape their own learning. T-levels could be a welcome development, but they should sit alongside BTECs, rather than replace them.

[Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the need to keep options open for young people. Deciding our whole future at the age of 16 would have been unrealistic for most of us, and it flies in the face of what most educational systems around western Europe are doing. Does my hon. Friend also agree that employers want young people with a rounded range of skills and qualifications—vocational, academic and practical—and that the obsession with people going down an academic or a vocational route is completely at odds with what happens in most workplaces?

[Rachel Hopkins]

I thank my hon. Friend for her—as ever—very thoughtful contribution, and I thoroughly agree with her. As Ministers know, T-levels will not fill the gap, because this is not just about the qualification and the specific workplace at the end of the process, but about tailoring learning and types of assessment to suit people’s development.

I understand that the Government’s justification for defunding some BTEC qualifications is that they overlap with one of the new T-level qualifications, or that they have not been reapproved as they do not meet new quality and necessity criteria. The #ProtectStudentChoice campaign has raised concerns about the overlap process: it is not transparent, and some unusual decisions have been made regarding qualifications. For example, one awarding organisation’s diploma in health and social care featured on the list, but diplomas from other awarding organisations did not. Engineering BTECs were included, despite most engineering T-levels featuring in waves 3 and 4. Some clarity on that point would be very welcome.

Fundamentally, there is no student, provider or employer input into the overlap process. The reapproval process is expected to make its first announcement in September, so I urge the Minister to ensure the same failures are not replicated. As all BTEC qualifications must go through that process, it must be transparent, and decision making must not be the sole preserve of Whitehall and external consultants. As a bare minimum, the public—especially hard-working students—expect the Government to be open and clear about their plans. Not doing so severely damages trust in the Government to do the right thing and the credibility of the policy, so the Government must go further than simply delaying the defunding of BTECs by 12 months and making vague commitments to remove only a small proportion of them. They should rethink their plan and guarantee that funding will not be removed unless an impartial, evidence-based assessment has concluded that a qualification is not valued by students, universities or employers. Reckless policymaking that could be disastrous for social mobility and the economy must not take place without hard supporting evidence.

Foster Carers

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Thursday 21st April 2022 Westminster Hall

[Kate Osborne]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we cannot keep taking money out of local authorities and expect them to still deliver the same level of services. The impact, unfortunately, is felt by the children and young people who are in the fostering system or child services.

The financial pressures and stresses felt by carers, highlighted by the Fostering Network’s research, are only set to get worse. The Nationwide Association of Fostering Providers believes that the Government should urgently make a pay award to foster carers, both within local authorities and independent fostering agencies, to preserve and protect this precious resource for children and young people in need. This would be an important signal to foster carers that the Government really do value their contribution.

Another critical issue that we have to be aware of is the responsibility local authorities and IFAs have in providing vital—often emergency—wraparound support for foster carers and their families. I put on record my thanks to South Tyneside Council, one of my local authorities, for its progressive outlook in prioritising this area. First and foremost, we have to recognise that each child currently being supported through fostering services has different and complex needs, which must be met from the first moment that child comes under the care of their carer. That is why South Tyneside’s model of training carers to degrees, whereby they can be matched with the child best suited to their level of training—a model that is in the best interests of all parties and, most importantly, those of the child or young person—is highly commendable. In this, it is vital that children are kept as close to the local authority as possible. This approach means that at crisis point there is no delay in support, and any crisis has a better chance of being mitigated, as tailored, traumatic and therapeutic support can be accessed quickly.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech on this important issue. Regarding the role of local authorities and the point about funding, does she agree that the crisis with children’s social workers and the shortage that we have is exacerbating the problems, and will impact on the very commendable operating model she is talking about?

[Kate Osborne]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As has been said, the funding that is being taken out of the system means that, unfortunately, we are not continuing to provide the support that is needed, in terms of both social workers and the many other people who are involved in children’s care.

The system South Tyneside Council has in place means that if a breakdown occurs between the child and foster family, the local authority is accountable, thus upholding the fostering standards to improve outcomes. With such support mechanisms in place, more people will be encouraged to become foster carers.

However, we must recognise that South Tyneside’s model relies on factors for which the responsibility lies truly at the feet of Government Ministers. The cuts to local authorities over the past 12 years, along with the present day record levels of children needing emergency foster care mean that my local authority, like most others, must turn to independent fostering agencies to plug the gap. The money local authorities have to spend from Government grants, council tax and business rates has fallen by 16% since 2010. That means that local authorities have an increasingly limited capacity to respond to significant inflationary pressures.

While I respect the work that members of IFAs do to alleviate the pressure felt by local authorities, those agencies have the ability to add another complex, unnecessary layer between the child and the local authority, meaning that when crisis hits, unnecessary delays, which are detrimental to all involved, are often hard to avoid. In South Tyneside Council, 50% of children are placed into IFAs.

We also need to break down the popular perceptions of fostering, which undermine the diverse and varying shapes that it can take. Fostering should not be compared with adoption, although it often is. We need to break through the perception that fostering is a means, whereas adoption is the end, because one size does not fit all. We also need to recognise that circumstances in the lives of carers can change. The value of a carer fostering one child needs to be recognised as the same as a carer who may foster many children.

Finally, we need to appreciate that, more often than not, foster carers can be thrust into a situation at extreme short notice. Their presence in the safeguarding process can often be to provide emergency care.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [Lords]

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 21st February 2022 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Champion]

I largely welcome the aims of this Bill to improve the quality and funding of post-16 education, but it will do little to tackle the major skills shortages in key sectors including health and social care, manufacturing and engineering. It introduces local skills improvement plans, which would be created by employer representative bodies to assess local skills needs and help shape the courses that further education providers should offer to fill those needs.

In principle, these measures are good, but the Bill is significantly weaker in its current form than it was on Second Reading, after it had been thoroughly improved by amendments voted for by the Lords. I was deeply disappointed that during Committee stage in the Commons, Conservative Members voted to reverse these changes, which would have hugely benefited students from all backgrounds. I urge the House to take this opportunity to support Labour’s amendments, especially amendments 15 and 16.

Previously, the Bill would have retained funding for BTECs for at least four more years, ensured that no student would be deprived of the right to take two BTECs, and allowed students to keep their universal credit entitlement while studying. It would also have required LSIPs to be developed in partnership with local authorities and further education providers, rather than just by the employer representative bodies. Now all those sensible and valuable improvements to the Bill have been scrapped, and I urge the Minister to reconsider.

I am particularly outraged by the Government’s plan to scrap funding for BTECs. BTECs make up the majority of level 3 qualifications in this country, with nearly a quarter of a million young people taking at least one last year. For many young people, they are the most effective pathway to higher education or skilled employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) has made the important point that last year 230,000 students took a level 3 BTEC. It is the Government’s goal that in four years’ time only 100,000 students will be taking T-levels, which are the proposed replacement. Even if they achieve this, that could leave a gap of 130,000 students who will not be working towards an equivalent qualification if BTECs are no longer funded.

Who will be most affected by these changes? The Government’s impact assessment acknowledges that students with special educational needs and students from disadvantaged backgrounds are disproportionately represented on courses that risk losing funding. Some might be unable to achieve a level 3 qualification if these plans go ahead, so again I urge the Minister to reconsider. Research published by the Social Market Foundation in 2018 showed that students accepted to university from working-class and minority ethnic backgrounds are more likely to hold a BTEC qualification than their peers. Is this retrograde step really what the Government would consider to be levelling up?

I was proud to work with Natspec in tabling a series of amendments that would have strengthened the provision of LSIPs for students with special educational needs and disabilities. Some 21% of all students in general further education colleges have a learning difficulty or disability, and the figure rises to 26% among 16 to 18-year-olds. There is no mechanism in the Bill to encourage or require employers to use local skills improvement plans to help address the disability employment gap, which stands at nearly 30%.

My amendments would have required the LSIPs to include positive actions to improve the employment prospects of disabled people, and required members of employment representative bodies to demonstrate a commitment to equality and diversity, so that they can create an inclusive plan for all, especially disabled people. These amendments were debated in Committee, and though I regret that the Government did not agree to put these conditions in the Bill, I am pleased that the Minister gave assurances that these key requirements would be in statutory guidance. I thank the Minister for that, and I ask him to confirm his commitment to working with organisations such as Natspec and the Association of Colleges on the guidance to make it as effective as possible.

Disability employment and the needs of young people with SEND should not be thought of separately, or as an issue that will relate only to forthcoming SEND Green Paper. They must be integral to the Government’s plan for further education, and to addressing the nation’s skills needs.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. It was a pleasure to serve as a member of the Bill Committee on this important piece of legislation. I support all the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), but I want to focus my comments on amendments 14 and 15. However, I think it is also right to mention new clause 13, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), relating to sharia-compliant lifelong learning loans—something that is very important for many of my constituents.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point about the vocational nature of BTECs. I recently went to Derby College, and I saw five times more students doing BTECs than the equivalent T-level courses. It would be great if, ultimately, T-levels proved themselves and students moved towards choosing them, but does she agree that, while such small numbers are doing T-levels, it would be a huge mistake to shut the path to BTECs in favour of something that is largely unproven?

[Rachel Hopkins]

My hon. Friend makes an important point with which I thoroughly agree.

Our creative sector is a key export to the world and is part of our global influence. Why should young people in Luton not have the ability to train in these areas? They will not necessarily be able to follow a T-level in this subject area, so I totally agree with my hon. Friend.

I hope the Minister will accept Opposition amendment 15 to prevent the defunding of many successful and much-needed level 3 BTECs.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

Further education should be about creating a workforce that meets the needs of our national and local economies. It should be about lifelong learning that gives everyone the power to follow the path that best suits them. It should especially be at the front and centre of our covid recovery and, last but not least, it should help us with the transition to net zero.

There was plenty of room to improve this Bill when it was introduced, and there still is. I regret that, so far, the Government seem to be missing this opportunity, but it is never too late. I favour new clause 4, which would require the Secretary of State to introduce a green skills strategy for higher, further and technical education. There is a key opportunity for further education in our effort to reach net zero, but less than 1% of college students are on a course with broad coverage of climate education. I commend the work of the excellent Bath College, which is already making strides to embed climate education in its curriculum, but the Government should step up, too.

We all know how important it is to manage the transition to net zero, which brings me to new clauses 14 and 15 and amendment 11 tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). The offshore training regime is a barrier to offshore oil and gas workers transitioning their skills into the renewables sector. A new offshore training scheme is needed to facilitate cross-sector recognition of core skills and training in the offshore energy sector and to provide a retraining guarantee for oil and gas workers who wish to transition to careers in the green energy sector. What a missed opportunity it would be if we did not help people working in such industries, which will soon no longer be in place, to transition to a career in industries such as the renewables sector.

The Government say this Bill will transform opportunities for all, so why have they reversed changes that could significantly improve the accessibility and flexibility of qualifications—we have heard some powerful contributions on this—especially those aimed at learners with special educational needs and disabilities? Over a quarter of all 16 to 18-year-olds in further education have a learning difficulty or a disability, and I pay tribute to Project SEARCH, a partnership run by Bath and North East Somerset Council, Bath College and Virgin Care.

Nationally, too, many disabled people face huge difficulties in accessing employment after leaving school. Our disability employment gap stands at 30%.I therefore add my support to amendment 16, which would require local skills improvement plans to list specific strategies to help into employment those learners who have or have had an education, health and care plan. Again, this seems to be another missed opportunity to help those in society who face the biggest disadvantages to access employment, which is what they want. Whenever we talk to disability groups, what they want is employment; helping these groups into employment should be at the core of this Bill.

Although I will support the Bill on Third Reading, I am disappointed that the opportunity to transform further education has been so entirely missed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Monday 31st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[Will Quince]

Like other maintained nursery schools, Camrose supports some of our most disadvantaged children. We have confirmed the continuation of its supplementary funding throughout the spending review period and will increase the supplementary hourly funding rate by 3.5%. I would of course be happy to meet my hon. Friend.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Minister for Higher and Further Education (Michelle Donelan)]

As was explained to the House earlier, the Secretary of State is currently isolating, but on behalf of him, myself and the Department, I thank the staff and young people and their families across education and childcare for their perseverance and dedication. Face coverings are no longer recommended in schools, colleges or universities. Regular testing, vaccinations and enhanced ventilation continue to help to reduce transmission and thereby protect face-to-face education, which is our No. 1 priority.

The Government will spend another £8 million to support the crucial in-school vaccination programme. After the delivery of more than 353,000 carbon dioxide monitors, we are following the evidence and delivering up to 9,000 air-cleaning devices to fulfil all eligible applications where there is less natural ventilation. Because this Government have got the big calls right, 99% of children are back in school and learning face to face.

[Rachel Hopkins]

The most deprived schools have seen the largest cuts over the past decade, with a 14% real-terms fall in per-pupil spending between 2009-10 and 2019-20, compared with a drop of only 9% for the least deprived schools. That is not levelling up. Is the Minister content that her Government are funnelling money away from the schools and communities that need it the most?

[Michelle Donelan]

As the hon. Member knows, this Government are determined to level up, which is exactly why we have introduced a real-terms 5% increase in school funding and have the highest ever level of pupil premium.

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)

- - Excerpts

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield in his amendments 53 and 54 and new clause 7. We have had this debate already in Committee and I still think that the Committee made the wrong decision to prevent learners having a second chance at a level 3 qualification for the reasons that I set out.

Those reasons were as valid the other day as they are now for these amendments, because we live in a dynamic economy where industries come and go. The industry that my town was historically dependent on, and that the town of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South is equally famous for, is hatting. Those industries have pretty much died out, but the hatting industry made Denton famous. The Bowlers of bowler hat fame came from Denton, although they made their money at Lock & Co. Hatters in St James’s in London. However, that industry and those skills have gone.

In the past 50 or 60 years, my constituency has had to diversity and the workforce has had to retrain. That pace of chance will be prevalent in the decades ahead as technology advances, the global economy shrinks to make the world a smaller place, and international trade becomes the norm, meaning that we buy goods from other countries rather than make them here.

If we are going to have an industrial strategy that says that we want to be the lead nation in the new green industrial revolution, we need to ensure that we have the skills and the workforce to match that ambition. I am supportive of that and, if we are being honest, every Member of the House recognises the challenges and is supportive of it. That is not a top-level ambition, however; it has to be dealt with in the nitty-gritty of legislation.

We have a Bill going through Parliament that is rightly focused on skills and training and on ensuring that the next generation of the workforce has a built-in dynamism to be able to diversify, retrain and fill skills in the areas of the economy that have shortages. As the Opposition have said, that may mean someone has to have a second bite of the cherry at a level 3 qualification. If the subject in which someone has a level 3 is no longer fit for purpose, or relevant to the modern workplace, are we going to leave them languishing with inappropriate qualifications and skills that are no longer needed, or are we going to give them the opportunity to retrain, reskill and join the workforce, hopefully in highly paid, decent jobs? That is why I support amendments 53 and 54, which would put that idea on a legal footing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield rightly said.

The voice of local businesses and the economic partnership between local government, businesses, academia and training providers are setting out local skills improvement plans. They identify key skill shortages in their economic areas, and they should be given the flexibility to say, “You know what, in my area, we have an absolute shortage of skills in a particular sector. We want to make sure that our area is really dynamic in that sector and therefore it is a key priority for our partners to skill up to level 3 adequate numbers of the workforce.” That is sensible. It is devolution as it is meant to work, from the bottom up, and that is why I also support my hon. Friend’s new clause 7.

Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)

-

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, because I agree with everything he said.

The amendments and the new clause address the issue from the relevant two angles. They are designed to offer a genuine lifetime skills guarantee for individuals—one that is aspirational and does not fall back on the argument that because someone got a couple of A-levels 30 years, they cannot now retrain for a level 3 qualification to meet a skills need in the local area. I think about the changing world of work, and how much more is now digital or IT-based. There has been a shift in skills, which is driving our economy. Unless we agree to the amendments, so many people will be locked out from making a genuine shift in their skillset and acquiring a higher skilled job, which would put them on a sustainable footing. It is short-sighted to attempt to restrict that opportunity.

We have heard much about the responsibility of employers to lead the development of skills plans for their areas, given that they understand their local economies. New clause 7 is positive because it would genuinely enable employer representative bodies to shape what that level 3 qualification should be, based on the skills shortages in their areas. The new clause would meet the purpose of ERBs in developing the skills plans and ensure the lifetime skills guarantee for local people.

I support the terms of the amendments and the new clause. I should add that there are still a few hat factories in Luton producing artisan hats, and very good they are, too.

Andrew Gwynne

- - Excerpts

And in Denton.

--- Later in debate ---

Alex Burghart

- - Excerpts

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss sharia-compliant student finance. The Government have been considering an alternative student finance product, compatible with Islamic finance principles, alongside their other priorities as they conclude the post-18 review of educational funding.

New powers were taken in section 86 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to enable the Secretary of State to make alternative payments, in addition to grants and loans, to enable the implementation of ASF. Clause 15 already makes provision for such alternative payments to be made as part of the lifetime loan entitlement. As such, when coupled with the existing provisions in HERA, the new clause would not give the Secretary of State any additional powers. The clause 15 provisions for alternative payments would come into force should the Government decide to commence the provisions in HERA that enable alternative payments to be provided to students. The Government will reach a decision on the availability of a sharia-compliant student finance product as part of the full and final conclusion of the post-18 review, and will provide an update on ASF at that time.

In relation to the second part of the new clause, the Secretary of State may already lay student support regulations using the affirmative procedure contained in section 42 of the Teaching and Higher Education 1998, should he choose to do so. The new clause would not add any powers beyond those already under the Bill or existing legislation, and so should not be added to the Bill.

Rachel Hopkins

-

I rise to support new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. The Minister says we will see the outcome of the post-18 review with regards to HERA. However, the reason why it is so important that the new clause is added to the Bill relates to further education. Because no finance or loans fit with the principles of Islam, many people end up saving up until they have sufficient funds to be able to afford their degree. The whole point of the Bill is the emphasis on ensuring that people can up their skills at level 3. If they are not able to access a loan that is compliant with the principles of Islam, and if they are on a low income, they really have no chance of being able to save up to afford to fund up front from their savings. The proposal of a lifelong learning entitlement through a loan therefore becomes a vicious circle, and they will not be able to access the training and gain the skills that they need.

For many people, this really is a matter of urgency if we are genuinely going to help people to reskill or upskill, particularly for many constituents of mine in Luton South. It is important to push the Government on this, particularly because HERA was published in 2017, and because of the commitment from the former Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, in 2013 when this first started to be talked about. This long-term delay and lack of action is not good enough. I support new clause 4.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

New Clause 5

Skills and Post-16 Education Bill [ Lords ] (Sixth sitting)

Rachel Hopkins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 7th December 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I rise briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield in his amendments 53 and 54 and new clause 7. We have had this debate already in Committee and I still think that the Committee made the wrong decision to prevent learners having a second chance at a level 3 qualification for the reasons that I set out.

Those reasons were as valid the other day as they are now for these amendments, because we live in a dynamic economy where industries come and go. The industry that my town was historically dependent on, and that the town of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South is equally famous for, is hatting. Those industries have pretty much died out, but the hatting industry made Denton famous. The Bowlers of bowler hat fame came from Denton, although they made their money at Lock & Co. Hatters in St James’s in London. However, that industry and those skills have gone.

In the past 50 or 60 years, my constituency has had to diversity and the workforce has had to retrain. That pace of chance will be prevalent in the decades ahead as technology advances, the global economy shrinks to make the world a smaller place, and international trade becomes the norm, meaning that we buy goods from other countries rather than make them here.

If we are going to have an industrial strategy that says that we want to be the lead nation in the new green industrial revolution, we need to ensure that we have the skills and the workforce to match that ambition. I am supportive of that and, if we are being honest, every Member of the House recognises the challenges and is supportive of it. That is not a top-level ambition, however; it has to be dealt with in the nitty-gritty of legislation.

We have a Bill going through Parliament that is rightly focused on skills and training and on ensuring that the next generation of the workforce has a built-in dynamism to be able to diversify, retrain and fill skills in the areas of the economy that have shortages. As the Opposition have said, that may mean someone has to have a second bite of the cherry at a level 3 qualification. If the subject in which someone has a level 3 is no longer fit for purpose, or relevant to the modern workplace, are we going to leave them languishing with inappropriate qualifications and skills that are no longer needed, or are we going to give them the opportunity to retrain, reskill and join the workforce, hopefully in highly paid, decent jobs? That is why I support amendments 53 and 54, which would put that idea on a legal footing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield rightly said.

The voice of local businesses and the economic partnership between local government, businesses, academia and training providers are setting out local skills improvement plans. They identify key skill shortages in their economic areas, and they should be given the flexibility to say, “You know what, in my area, we have an absolute shortage of skills in a particular sector. We want to make sure that our area is really dynamic in that sector and therefore it is a key priority for our partners to skill up to level 3 adequate numbers of the workforce.” That is sensible. It is devolution as it is meant to work, from the bottom up, and that is why I also support my hon. Friend’s new clause 7.

[Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, because I agree with everything he said.

The amendments and the new clause address the issue from the relevant two angles. They are designed to offer a genuine lifetime skills guarantee for individuals—one that is aspirational and does not fall back on the argument that because someone got a couple of A-levels 30 years, they cannot now retrain for a level 3 qualification to meet a skills need in the local area. I think about the changing world of work, and how much more is now digital or IT-based. There has been a shift in skills, which is driving our economy. Unless we agree to the amendments, so many people will be locked out from making a genuine shift in their skillset and acquiring a higher skilled job, which would put them on a sustainable footing. It is short-sighted to attempt to restrict that opportunity.

We have heard much about the responsibility of employers to lead the development of skills plans for their areas, given that they understand their local economies. New clause 7 is positive because it would genuinely enable employer representative bodies to shape what that level 3 qualification should be, based on the skills shortages in their areas. The new clause would meet the purpose of ERBs in developing the skills plans and ensure the lifetime skills guarantee for local people.

I support the terms of the amendments and the new clause. I should add that there are still a few hat factories in Luton producing artisan hats, and very good they are, too.

[Andrew Gwynne]

And in Denton.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Burghart]

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss sharia-compliant student finance. The Government have been considering an alternative student finance product, compatible with Islamic finance principles, alongside their other priorities as they conclude the post-18 review of educational funding.

New powers were taken in section 86 of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017 to enable the Secretary of State to make alternative payments, in addition to grants and loans, to enable the implementation of ASF. Clause 15 already makes provision for such alternative payments to be made as part of the lifetime loan entitlement. As such, when coupled with the existing provisions in HERA, the new clause would not give the Secretary of State any additional powers. The clause 15 provisions for alternative payments would come into force should the Government decide to commence the provisions in HERA that enable alternative payments to be provided to students. The Government will reach a decision on the availability of a sharia-compliant student finance product as part of the full and final conclusion of the post-18 review, and will provide an update on ASF at that time.

In relation to the second part of the new clause, the Secretary of State may already lay student support regulations using the affirmative procedure contained in section 42 of the Teaching and Higher Education 1998, should he choose to do so. The new clause would not add any powers beyond those already under the Bill or existing legislation, and so should not be added to the Bill.

[Rachel Hopkins]

I rise to support new clause 4, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham. The Minister says we will see the outcome of the post-18 review with regards to HERA. However, the reason why it is so important that the new clause is added to the Bill relates to further education. Because no finance or loans fit with the principles of Islam, many people end up saving up until they have sufficient funds to be able to afford their degree. The whole point of the Bill is the emphasis on ensuring that people can up their skills at level 3. If they are not able to access a loan that is compliant with the principles of Islam, and if they are on a low income, they really have no chance of being able to save up to afford to fund up front from their savings. The proposal of a lifelong learning entitlement through a loan therefore becomes a vicious circle, and they will not be able to access the training and gain the skills that they need.

For many people, this really is a matter of urgency if we are genuinely going to help people to reskill or upskill, particularly for many constituents of mine in Luton South. It is important to push the Government on this, particularly because HERA was published in 2017, and because of the commitment from the former Prime Minister, Mr Cameron, in 2013 when this first started to be talked about. This long-term delay and lack of action is not good enough. I support new clause 4.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.