Indefinite Leave to Remain: Healthcare Workers

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), for securing this important and informative debate, and indeed for the work that he and colleagues across the House are now doing in the Petitions Committee. I am grateful to him and to colleagues for taking part today.

I want to start by saying that I totally agree with the sentiment underlying so many of the contributions—that everyone should be able to work free from fear and exploitation, and that there should be absolutely no place for hate crime or sentiments from anybody, anywhere in the country. I am sure that all hon. Members across this House take those issues extremely seriously.

I will address several of the issues raised—including tackling the exploitation that we see regarding this route, taking a preventive approach, ensuring trust, making sure that there are escape routes for people if they feel locked in with their employers, and many others—in my remarks this afternoon. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Ashford (Sojan Joseph), for Southampton Test (Satvir Kaur), for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Congleton (Mrs Russell), as well as the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), and the Conservative shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns), for their contributions today.

The Government do recognise the vital contribution that health and care professionals from overseas make to our NHS and in social care, and indeed to the wider health and wellbeing of the United Kingdom. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford speaks with great personal experience, having worked as a nurse. I know that he, like me, will want to congratulate our mutual friend, Bejoy Sebastian, a critical care nurse, who was recently elected as president of the Royal College of Nursing. Bejoy is a true example of the incredibly important contribution that is made to our wider health sector.

Hon. Members will be aware that in 2020 the previous Government introduced the health and care worker visa, which recognises the crucial contribution that international healthcare workers make, and this Government have kept that offer. The health and care worker visa provides significantly reduced visa fees, as well as a dedicated Home Office team to process applications. Most applicants can expect a decision within three weeks of enrolling biometrics. Applicants are also exempt from having to pay the immigration health surcharge. Those benefits apply to not only the main applicants but their dependants, which I hope is a sign of how much we value the role that those coming here play in our health and care services.

The United Kingdom’s offer to health and care professionals continues to be strong, competing with those of other countries in attracting health and care professionals who may want to work overseas. However, as several hon. Members have said, it is important in that context that we look at net migration overall. Under the previous Government, net migration trebled in five years, driven by a big increase in overseas recruitment.

Our Government are clear that net migration must come down, and we are committed to tackling skills shortages and labour market failures here in the UK to support that effort. That is why the Government’s approach is to link migration policy and visa controls to skills and labour market policies, so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems in the UK. That will be important in ensuring that people have opportunities to gain new skills and access these important jobs, as part of enabling the Government’s broader agenda.

Although I appreciate the arguments about granting health and care workers settlement after two years, the system must be fair to all users. That is why it would not be right to allow health and care workers to qualify after two years, when skilled workers, including those in other much-needed sectors with global demand, would need to wait until they had completed five years on a work route before they were eligible to apply for settlement.

Settlement in the UK is a privilege and not an automatic entitlement. In determining the qualifying period, the Government have to balance what is fair to all applicants with ensuring that individual applicants are able to continue the skilled work they have been issued a visa for, which often aligns so much with their passions and, in this case, with the deep compassion that so many will bring. We must ensure that the period is of a reasonable length, while also recognising the potential impact on public funds of granting settlement sooner.

On balance, the Government consider that five years is the right length of time for people to demonstrate a reasonable contribution to their sector, as well as their commitment to the UK. That is why we have no plans to reduce the length of time that health and care workers, or other skilled workers, need to complete in the UK in order to apply for settlement.

In terms of examples elsewhere, France offered frontline workers fast-track citizenship in 2020 during the covid-19 pandemic, and other countries have offered short-term visas for roles in high-demand sectors. The French offer appeared to go wider than those just in health and social care, but the scheme appears no longer to be operating. So there are examples where there can be short-term changes, but those changes may also come to an end.

However, it is right that we tackle the issues underlying the sentiment behind the petition, which my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe powerfully outlined. In my remaining remarks, I want to tackle some of those issues, and particularly those related to displaced workers and exploitation.

I was asked what the Government are doing to more effectively tackle some of the exploitation we have seen, and it is worth laying out some of the protections that are now in place. In March 2024, there was rightly a change to sponsor guidance so that sponsors would need to be carrying out regulated activity and be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The Home Office has continued to act against unscrupulous sponsors and has highlighted bad practices to the sector. It continues to share concerns and intelligence related to bad practice, and since July 2022 has revoked 452 sponsor licences in the care sector, for reasons including underpayment of salary and failing to provide workers with enough hours to maintain salary levels.

For those individuals whose employer’s licence has been revoked, the Home Office has established a joint venture with the Department of Health and Social Care and with directors of social care operating in regional hubs in England, whereby the Department has funded a process allowing the hubs to find alternative employment for those in that position. Further information can be found on the Government website. The scheme has been implemented on an exceptional basis because of the exploitative practices that have been identified in the sector, and to provide protections to victims of those practices. Concerns regarding potentially unethical and illegal employment practices should be reported to the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, which will investigate fully. Information on reporting those issues can also be found on the GLAA website.

Colleagues on both sides of the House raised the important issue of having a single enforcement body. In their plan to make work pay, the Government set out a significant and ambitious agenda to ensure that workplace rights are fit for a modern economy, that they empower working people and that they deliver economicgrowth. The Government also introduced the Employment Rights Bill on 10 October 2024. It is important that we talk about this issue in the context of improving rights and protections for all workers.

It is also important to recognise that workers may want to change employer because of exploitation, even though their sponsor may not have lost its sponsor licence. Any worker on the health and care worker visa is able to seek alternative employment, provided they have a job offer from a Home Office-approved sponsor, and to make a new application. They are free to do that at any time, and they do not need their employer’s permission to move jobs. We strongly encourage health and care worker visa holders who think they are being exploited—whether they have concerns about pay, working rights or working hours—to come forward and report those concerns to us using the pay and work rights complaints section on the Government website. First and foremost, any worker who believes that they may be in danger should also contact the police.

If a migrant working in care has left their job because of exploitation, they should contact their regional support officer, so that they can help them try to find alternative employment. That includes people who have yet to have their visa cancelled.

In the context of some of the protections we have in place and the ability to move employer, the Government have no plans to extend the period allowed to workers who have lost their jobs, as that could leave them unable to work and support themselves for longer, increasing the risk of destitution or of becoming trapped in illegal working situations.

It is also important to recognise the point raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Congleton and for Bournemouth East, among others, that staff retention in the care sector remains a long-standing issue that the sector needs to address. That is why we are committed to ending long-term reliance on overseas recruitment by linking our migration, skills and labour market policies, as I mentioned. That includes improving working conditions and bringing in workforce and training plans for sectors such as health and care. That is why it is important that we have introduced the Employment Rights Bill and are looking at the fair work agency becoming a single enforcement body. However, I recognise that there is still much more to do.

The Government will continue to monitor care worker access to the immigration system and act to stop exploitation in the care sector. We do not plan to make any changes to the immigration system at this time, but we will act if needed.

In closing, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for securing this valuable debate, and all those who have spoken. There is no doubt about the important role that health and care staff, and the sector in which they work, play in all our constituencies in supporting communities. This is a matter about which Members on both sides of the House care passionately, as has been demonstrated today. I assure Members that we will reflect carefully on this debate and on the points that have been raised. We will continue to do all we can to support those in our health and care sector and to ensure their safety.

Family and Work Visas

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Pritchard. I thank the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down (Claire Hanna) for securing this debate. There has been thoughtful consideration of the issues by Members from across the House. I also acknowledge what the hon. Lady did and how she helped her community in August, in those very difficult circumstances. I am grateful to her and to all who have contributed. I will seek to address all the points raised, but I hope that Members will understand that that may be difficult in the time that I have. I will certainly come back in writing if there are outstanding points.

I will deal briefly with a few of the points raised before I go into more detail in my remarks on the contribution of the hon. Member for Belfast South and Mid Down. Some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) were reflected by others in terms of the quality of caseworking and the service received. As Members of Parliament, we have all experienced those cases and circumstances, so I am glad that the issue he raised has been resolved. Where there are any issues or concerns about whether the system is being fair and how cases are being dealt with, please write to me on those matters. We will certainly look at them in a way that also enables us to learn from what could be happening better and implement those systems.

The point about public confidence raised by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) about immigration is important, but it comes back to the point raised more broadly about having an immigration system that is fair, humane, transparent and compliant with the law, including international law. I am keen to make the broader point that it is important that we continue to have dialogue across the House on matters such as immigration, which need and want a lot of cross-party support to deal with the challenges. That is in the interest of our economy and of fairness, but is also important for our security, so we need to have open and transparent debate on such matters and take the input from colleagues across the House.

I will come back to other points that have been raised during the debate, but on net migration and some of the changes being made, I want to make it clear that the Government recognise and value the contribution of workers from overseas to our economy and our public services, including our NHS, and they would not function without them. The point has been made, and we are very clear, that the immigration system needs to be properly managed and controlled—and that is important for public confidence too.

We are clear that net migration and reliance on overseas recruitment need to come down, and in addition to bringing down levels of overall net migration, our approach will also help ensure that there are better and higher-paid jobs for those who are already resident in the UK. In April 2024, the previous Government introduced a package of changes aimed at reducing overall levels of net migration and tackling abuse in the social care sector. Those changes included requiring any employer in England wishing to recruit international care workers or senior care workers to be registered with the Care Quality Commission and to carry out regulated activity. They also included removing the ability for care workers and senior workers to apply with dependents. The package also replaced the previous shortage occupation list with the immigration salary list.

The Home Secretary confirmed in July that the Government are retaining those changes. We acknowledge the concerns raised and welcome debates such as this one. I also think it is important, in response to some of the issues, that we lay out where we are going further and taking a different approach. We have established a new framework that will link the Migration Advisory Committee’s work with the newly formed Skills England and skills bodies across the UK, as well as the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Department for Work and Pensions, to support a more coherent approach to migration, skills and labour market issues.

I will make a broad point on the issue raised about particular routes and the appendix for domestic abuse. It is extremely important for Members across the House to ensure that we are tackling abuse on any routes. On what is an important safeguard in the system, we are clear that there has to be a high threshold of evidence and that we take steps to tackle abuse wherever we detect that and wherever that occurs. That is extremely important and a clear approach across the Home Office.

On salary requirements, for too long, immigration has been used as an alternative to tackling skills shortages and labour market issues in the UK. The salary requirements that were raised in the spring related to the median salary for occupations, ensuring people continue to be paid at a higher rate than many in the occupation. That, along with the immigration skills charge, are designed to ensure that employers look first at the resident labour market before looking at employing an international worker.

Points about the threshold were raised, and I will come back on a couple of points. For those new to the route since 4 April 2024, who must be paid £38,700 per year or the going rate for their occupation—whichever is higher—the salary floor can be reduced to just over £30,000, depending on tradeable points such as discounts for new entrants. There is some flexibility. Indeed, for those extending visas in this route or working in healthcare or education, who must be paid £29,000 per year or the going rate for their occupation, again, the salary floor can be lowered for roles on the immigration salary list. Those roles in healthcare and education are based on nationally set pay scales or by using tradeable points.

It is important to say that immigration remains a reserved matter, and we will consider the needs of the UK as a whole. Applying different immigration rules to different parts of the UK can complicate the immigration system, harm its integrity and cause difficulty for employers, who need the flexibility to deploy their staff to other parts of the UK. The independent and expert Migration Advisory Committee has repeatedly recommended that we should not operate different salary thresholds for different regions or nations across the UK.

I am aware of the concerns from the fishing industry about labour shortages. In the interests of time, I will just say that I am looking forward to meeting my counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I am certainly happy to meet hon. Members to discuss this too. On the Afghan schemes, I will be happy to write to the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), but I am very pleased that we were able to open that scheme and see the positive response to it.

Finally, I will speak to family immigration rules. As colleagues will be aware, on 10 September the Home Secretary paused any further increases to the minimum incomes requirement and commissioned the MAC to review the financial requirements in the family immigration rules. This review will ensure that we reach the right balance and have a solid evidence base for any future changes to the minimum income requirement. We expect that conducting a full review of the financial requirements will take approximately nine months. I urge hon. Members to provide views and evidence in response to the MAC’s call for evidence, because I am sure we can all agree that a rich evidence base is essential to ensure that it can make effective recommendations and that policy is informed by evidence.

Draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Wednesday 30th October 2024 General Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2024.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Betts.

The draft order will introduce a power to charge a fee for UK visa qualification equivalency and English language proficiency assessment services and sets the maximum fee that can be charged. Before I explain the services, I will provide the Committee with some background on the Home Office’s fee structure.

In order for the Home Office to charge for immigration and nationality functions, the Immigration Act 2014 requires that fees must be set in secondary legislation. The Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, an amendment to which we are discussing, sets out the functions for which a fee can be charged and sets a maximum fee that can be charged. Fee levels are then set in separate secondary legislation, the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018, which is subject to parliamentary agreement through the negative procedure.

Fees for the services we seek to regulate are for assessments used on certain visa and nationality routes, which include family, skilled worker, settlement and student, where the requirements of that route require an applicant to demonstrate proficiency in the English language at a specified level, or that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK. An applicant can demonstrate in a number of ways their proficiency in the English language, oneof which is to use an academic qualification obtained in English awarded by an educational establishment outside the UK.

Where an applicant is seeking to demonstrate that they have gained a qualification that is equivalent to one obtained in the UK, or their proficiency in English language by using an academic qualification obtained outside the UK, those must be provided by Ecctis Ltd. Ecctis Ltd is our third-party supplier, which provides those services through a concession contract with the Home Office. It has been providing the services for more than a decade. This is not a new requirement being introduced for applicants on the work, study and nationality routes. The requirement for applicants to use those services has been specified in the immigration rules since 2008.

Where a visa or nationality applicant uses the services provided by Ecctis, they apply through its website and pay the appropriate fee. The outcome of the assessment can take in the region of 10 working days for the English language assessment, unless the applicant opts for an optional fast-track service, and about 30 working days for the qualification equivalency assessment. The use of the assessment is not limited to the Home Office and the visa application.

The maximum fee we are setting in the draft order for the qualification equivalency and the English language proficiency assessment is being set at £400. That will allow the Home Office to set fee levels later this year at their current levels, which are £140 for the English language assessment and £210 for the qualification equivalency assessment. By setting the maximums above that level, we have a reasonable degree of headroom to adjust fees if, for example, there is an increase in the cost of providing the services.

I will now turn to the question of why the Home Office is bringing forward legislation to regulate the fees now, when they are already being charged and where neither the nature of the service itself nor the requirements in the immigration rules have changed. In the course of preparing for a reprocurement of the existing service earlier this year, however, the Department identified that the fees should have already been regulated due to the requirement to use the service in respect of applications on certain routes. Having identified that fact, the Department sought to legislate at the earliest opportunity; legislation had originally been considered for the summer, but was postponed due to the general election. That is why we are working to ensure that the fees have an appropriate statutory footing in future.

Hon. Members will be aware that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee drew special attention to the explanatory memorandum that was published alongside this order. In its report published on 10 October, the Committee raised concerns that the explanatory memorandum did not provide a clear and open statement of why this instrument was brought forward. I fully appreciate the importance of transparency in the Department’s interactions with Parliament, including in the explanatory memorandums that it lays alongside legislation. I also recognise the Committee’s view that a fuller explanation of the context of the legislation and the associated issue was required in this case, including the status of and approach to fees charged prior to the appropriate regulations’ being brought into force.

As I set out in my response to the correspondence from the Committee on 15 October, in which I responded in some detail, some of which we are covering in my speech today, the treatment of those previously charged fees is also subject to a range of complex and ongoing considerations, which makes the position fundamentally uncertain at this stage. It includes exploration of the possibility of pursuing retrospective legislation that would put fees paid to date on a statutory footing.

Although I am not yet in a position to confirm the specific approach to be taken on this issue, the options under consideration have the potential to impact fundamentally the bearing of the previously charged fees. Given that uncertainty, I did not consider that it would be appropriate or helpful to go into further detail on this point in the explanatory memorandum, which is otherwise clear on the necessity of laying legislation to put the fees on a statutory footing and the rationale for the specific provisions being made.

I will, however, emphasise again that I take the Department’s responsibilities in respect of parliamentary transparency seriously, and assure hon. Members that we are taking forward those considerations in respect of previously charged fees as a priority. It is important to note that all fees paid were on receipt of services that were also received.

Finally, I would like to be clear that although the purpose of the order is to put the fees on a statutory footing, it is the first of two statutory instruments that need to be laid to ensure that future fees are charged for these services with the appropriate legislation in place. Our intention is, subject to the approval of this order by the House, to lay an amendment to the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in December that will set fee levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

It may be more helpful for me to write to the shadow Minister on a number of his questions. However, I thank him for his constructive response in that this issue pre-dated the general election, and, for clarity, it is important that we move forward in the way that has been proposed.

It is important to say that, as I have outlined, we are still considering the best approach to take in relation to legislation or other responses to the issue retrospectively. As a result, it is a bit more challenging to announce a timetable for legislation when there is still an important process to go through, but I am happy to keep the shadow Minister informed—in writing, if need be.

It is worth saying a couple of points in response to the shadow Minister. Over the lifespan of this order, immigration fees will be kept under review and will be updated within the parameters that we have set. In the event that fee levels are changed, they will need to be approved by the House, and will be accompanied by an economic assessment. It is helpful to remind Members that this order will not put fees for the services on a statutory footing; it is the first of two pieces of required secondary legislation, the second being the amendment to the 2018 regulations that we expect to lay in December, subject to Parliament’s approving this order. The regulations will set the fees for immigration and nationality-related services provided by Ecctis at the level that customers are currently charged.

Question put and agreed to.

Hongkongers in the UK: Visas, Security and Services

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Seema Malhotra)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Vickers. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand) on securing the debate, which has given rise to powerful speeches by hon. Members from all parties.

Members have spoken up for their constituents and about their experiences and I will try to address as many of the points made as possible. Many issues were covered, whether that was the BNO visa route, security issues at home and in Hong Kong, pensions, home university fees, democratic freedoms, police stations and more.

I also thank the Front-Bench speakers, the hon. Members for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor) and for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for their contributions. The issue has had cross-party support in the past, and I am sure we will continue to work in that spirit in support of Hongkongers in the UK and those who may come here in the future.

I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will recognise that I may not be able to address all the issues raised today. Some of these complex matters need cross-departmental work, whether that is with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government or the DFE. I hope that I will cover most of the issues in my comments today, but I assure all hon. and right hon. Members that we will look at all the issues raised. I also pay tribute to the work of Hong Kong Watch and others in sharing their experience and research.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West will be aware, the Government are deeply committed to supporting members of the Hong Kong community who have relocated to the UK. I think I speak for all of us when I say that Hongkongers have become an integral part of our economy and local communities, and make fantastic contributions to our national life.

I will speak first about the Hong Kong BNO visa route. The route was established in 2021 in response to the imposition of the national security law in Hong Kong, which significantly impacts the rights and freedoms of people in Hong Kong. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic and moral responsibility for and commitment to the people of Hong Kong. Since its launch, more than 209,000 people have been granted a BNO visa, of whom more than 150,000 have arrived in the UK. Those Hongkongers are free to live, work and study in virtually any capacity on a pathway to British citizenship. I am sure we will welcome many more Hongkongers to the UK in future so that they can also build a new life for themselves here.

[Jim Shannon]

In my contribution, I asked about students across Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and here in England, as well—the Minister may be coming to it, but if she is not, I hope she will. I underlined that there is a clear issue relating to students from Hong Kong having the same opportunities as those who are born here. I urge the Minister to give us an answer on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Gentleman, and will come on to that point.

I will deal first with questions around the expansion of the BNO route, in particular to people born between 1979 and 1997. A number of Members have suggested that the BNO route should be expanded to include those who were children at the point of Hong Kong’s handover to China in 1997 but whose parents did not register them for BNO status. The BNO route reflects the UK’s historic commitment to those who chose to retain their ties to the UK by taking up BNO status, and we continue to uphold those commitments. Those not eligible for the BNO route need to consider other available UK immigration routes, for example as a student, graduate or skilled worker. I am sure that Members will understand that I am unable to make any policy commitments in this forum, but I want to give assurances that I will take their comments away and consider the points that have been raised today.

I will also address the point about criminality. The standard immigration rules on criminality and other adverse behaviours apply to applications through the BNO route. However, all applications are carefully assessed against the latest country information, and guidance for caseworkers provides flexibility to ensure that overseas convictions for offences—particularly those not recognised in the UK—do not result in the automatic refusal of an application. I am aware of the concerns of those applying through the BNO route, and of the risk of their being refused on suitability grounds because of a conviction for what I think we can describe as politically motivated or trumped-up criminal charges in Hong Kong. I assure hon. Members that I am keeping the issue under review.

On the question of access to services, I thank hon. Members for their comments about the Government’s welcome programme, which we have remained committed to and which is now entering its fourth year of funding. That very important programme enables Hongkongers to access support on a range of issues, including employment, education, housing and the English language. It helps them seek employment, build skills and learn more about life in the UK so they can play a bigger part in their local communities.

As the shadow Minister said, there is currently £1 million of funding for voluntary and community-sector organisations to deliver projects focused on employability and mental health and wellbeing. The Growth Company has been funded to deliver the Jobs for Hongkongers initiative, which will help BNOs in England find employment. I am aware of other good examples. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) talked about a scheme, and I would be interested to hear more about how those local initiatives are working.

International fees are a concern for those on the BNO route, who can study and work in virtually any capacity. Generally, to be eligible for student support, home fee status and fee caps, a student must have settled status in the UK, and ordinarily they must have been resident in the UK for three years prior to the start of their course. The majority of BNO status holders will be able to qualify for home fee status and student finance once they have obtained settlement in the UK, subject to meeting the normal eligibility requirements. The eligibility criteria apply to all students, except persons granted international protection by the Home Office, but I have heard what hon. Members have said today.

On the Mandatory Provident Fund, hon. Members raised the very serious matter of the estimated £3 billion of funds alleged to have been frozen. We know that individuals who have chosen to take up the BNO visa route have difficulty drawing down early their pensions held in the Hong Kong Mandatory Provident Fund. Although documentary requirements for withdrawing funds early are a matter for the Hong Kong authorities, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office has raised the issue directly with the Hong Kong Government and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority. We have urged them to facilitate the early drawdown of funds, as is the case for other Hong Kong residents who move overseas permanently, and we have made it clear that such discrimination against BNOs is unacceptable. I will certainly keep that under review.

On security, we take the protection of Hongkongers’ rights, freedoms and safety in the UK very seriously, and we continue to assess potential threats in the UK. We work closely across Government, as well as with the relevant agencies and law enforcement bodies, to protect persons identified as being at risk and ensure the UK is a safe and welcoming place for those who choose to settle here. I want to be clear that attempts by foreign Governments to coerce, intimidate or harm critics overseas are unacceptable. Freedom of speech and the other fundamental rights of all people in the UK are protected under domestic law, regardless of nationality. We will challenge where we must to protect our national security and values. We are also working to improve the UK’s capability to understand and respond to the challenges and opportunities that China poses through an audit of the UK’s relationship with China as a bilateral and global actor.

It is also worth saying in response to the cyber-security issues that have been raised that the National Security Act 2023 gives the police new powers to protect the public from these malign threats, including those actions that amount to transnational repression—I take the point about the need for a clear definition. The Act brings together vital new measures to protect the UK’s national security, creating a whole suite of measures to enable our law enforcement, security and intelligence agencies to deter, detect and disrupt the full range of modern state threats.

[Jim Shannon]

Will the Minister give way?

[Seema Malhotra]

I am conscious of time and I want to make a couple of final points before wrapping up.

A concern was raised about whether there were plans to shut down the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office, but its status is enshrined in primary legislation and there are no plans to change that framework.

On Jimmy Lai, we continue to call on Hong Kong authorities to immediately release British national Jimmy Lai. Mr Lai’s case, as has been mentioned by the Prime Minister this week, is a priority for the Government. The Foreign Secretary raised Jimmy Lai’s case in his first meeting with China’s Foreign Minister at the Association of Southeast Asian Nations summit in July. We continue to raise his case. UK diplomats from our consulate general in Hong Kong continue to attend his court proceedings on a regular basis and will continue to do so when the trial resumes in November. We are deeply concerned about the allegations about his treatment in prison and have sought reassurances on appropriate medical treatment.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West for securing the debate, and all hon. Members for their contributions. It has been an incredibly important, thoughtful and well-informed debate. It is important that we take this opportunity to reaffirm this Government’s commitment to the people of Hong Kong and to the BNO route, which provides long-term safety and stability for Hongkongers in the UK.

School Attendance (Duties of Local Authorities and Proprietors of Schools) Bill

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 17th May 2024 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on her Bill and her speech. I think we all agree that the current poor attendance constitutes a crisis that must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

Earlier this year, Labour tabled an Opposition day motion containing a range of possible ways to address the problem, but it is unfortunate that the long-term plan to deal with the school attendance crisis was voted down by Conservatives. Labour supports the Bill but, as the right hon. Lady acknowledged, it is a first step and not a magic wand. She is right to lay out the impact of absence on attainment, why we need to be concerned about that and the long-term impact of absence on children’s opportunity. It is important that our systems all work together to support children to stay in school, which is why we welcome clause 1, which introduces a duty on local authorities and clarifies their role in promoting regular attendance and reducing absence. Clause 2 is also important, as it includes particulars that schools must include in their attendance policies, with guidance on how they should be issued and communicated to parents. The measures are welcome and I hope that they will have a positive impact on the situation in our schools. I pay tribute to the think-tanks and mothers who have been involved in many discussions on how we tackle this issue across the House.

The right hon. Lady also mentioned some ways in which there could be variations in the school holidays, which could support greater attendance where holidays may be part of the challenge. In my constituency, I have talked to schools about the variation they have had, with two weeks for an extended half-term in autumn and one week less in summer, which they say has had a positive impact on engagement and support for learning.

Proper interventions are vital to get children back into the classroom. As the right hon. Lady mentioned, the figures are stark. Last year, under this Government, 21.2% of children were persistently absent from school. That is more than one in five, and double the figure just six years earlier. The number of children missing half their lessons has rocketed, too. In my local authority of Hounslow, it has more than doubled in just six years. Other areas have even higher numbers. How can we properly set up a child for the future if they are missing every other lesson in school?

The Labour party firmly believes that every child matters and that every day at school matters. Fixed-penalty notices for school absence must be a part of the system, but they are not the answer alone. There is a view, which the right hon. Lady may have, on guidance in relation to penalties where children may be undergoing assessments for education, health and care plans, but it is important that we look at the wider support. That is why we in the Labour party have set out a long-term plan that looks in the round at the issues causing absence and persistent absence, including supporting schools with the recruitment, which we have announced and committed to, of 6,500 new teachers. We will roll out free breakfast clubs in every primary school. Evidence shows that they improve children’s learning and development, and they have a positive impact on attendance and behaviour.

It is also vital to address the mental health crisis that our children are facing. Mental ill health is a key barrier to learning and attendance, yet children are remaining on long child and adolescent mental health services waiting lists, unable to access the support they need. The waiting list for assessment is over two years in many instances. We would recruit thousands of new staff to bring down those waiting lists and put specialist mental health professionals in schools and community hubs, so that children can get the help they need, solving problems before they get worse.

[Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for her support for further interventions to support children and young people facing mental health difficulties. It is an issue raised frequently in many MPs’ surgeries, including in mine, so I am very grateful for her support in this important area.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The broader point he is also making is that schools must have that support, because it is a part of how they can tackle absence in schools. That is why we need to tackle this issue head-on and not let it spiral further out of control.

Children are not engaging with the curriculum and assessment system, which has been described to us —I also speak on behalf of the shadow schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell)—as “joyless” and “narrow”. The UK now has the second lowest average life satisfaction of 15-year-olds in the OECD. Opportunities for music, art, sport and drama, as well as for discussion and debate, are often squeezed. Our curriculum and assessment review would look at delivering a broad curriculum that prepares children for the future, reflecting children’s desire for learning, as well as reflecting issues and diversity in our society.

Children’s early speech and language development has also suffered over the past few years, and covid contributed other stresses and anxieties. Getting it right at an early stage will lead to better engagement throughout school life. We would equip primary schools with funds to deliver evidence-based early language interventions. Finally, we would introduce a “children not in school” register to ensure that children who are not being taught in a school environment do not fall through the gaps.

Today’s Bill is extremely important and I again congratulate the right hon. Member for Chelmsford. I wish it well as it moves through the other place, but it is important to acknowledge that it shines a spotlight on the Government’s lack of action to deal with the crisis in our schools. Significantly, that was highlighted by Sir Kevan Collins when he resigned as education recovery commissioner in 2021. In describing the Government’s catch-up plan as “feeble”, he highlighted how there was not the intervention that we need to secure our children’s future effectively. That is why we need much more urgent action from Ministers on how they intend to tackle this problem. Tinkering around the edges simply will not do. We need a proper long-term plan, and if the Government will not deliver it, despite the right hon. Lady’s best efforts, the next Labour Government will do so.

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 29th April 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

The truth is that not only have apprenticeship starts plummeted since 2017, but new data shows that the overall achievement rate has dropped since 2020, with level 2 apprenticeships hit hardest. Almost half of apprentices do not complete their courses, which is simply not good enough. Employers are calling out for reform, but this Government have their head in the sand. Is this not yet more evidence that, far from tackling barriers to opportunity and boosting Britain’s skills, the Government are failing our young people and our businesses, and that only Labour has a plan to turn this around?

[Luke Hall]

We have made apprenticeships more rigorous. They are now more credible. They are designed by employers and have proper robust assessments. The only plan Labour has, without more funding, is to cut the number of apprenticeship starts in our country by 60%. Obviously, the hon. Member missed the figures published last week, which showed a 2.5% increase in level 2 attainment rates. We are delivering high-quality standards with more off-the-job training and that should be welcomed across the House.

Digital Skills and Careers

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Tuesday 16th April 2024 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Caroline. I welcome the Minister to his new role, and I congratulate the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) on securing the debate. She has hit on one of the important and strategically significant issues of our day, and made the point that there is a whole set of issues and new disciplines that policymakers need to catch up with.

The subject of digital skills covers a range of disciplines. It could mean digital literacy for engagement with services; accessing information online; office-based skills, such as creating spreadsheets or presentations; or new digital social media tools. It also covers business software use and development; confidence with hardware, including mobile phones; social media for businesses; data analytics; and so much more, as has been highlighted. Indeed, the hon. Lady talked about how Britain becomes a science and technology superpower and leads the way in cyber-security, AI and so much more.

Digital skills are crucial for the future of our economy, businesses and workforce. That is why a core pillar of Labour’s industrial strategy is to harness data for the public good and to transform digital skills. Database technologies are already transforming our economy. For example, AI is being used to prevent fraud, enable search engines and develop vaccines and medicines.

Hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), have made powerful points. The key point about inclusion—whether by place, demographics, needs, disabilities or the gender divide—is how, not by accident but by design, we can create and work towards the future in terms of how Britain performs.

As a nation, we are way behind where we need to be. The Government have failed to equip young people and the existing workforce with the digital skills they need. That has been demonstrated in some of the research that has been quoted today. Fewer than half of British employers believe that young people have the right digital skills, and we do much worse in computer skills than most of our economic rivals.

As has been mentioned, the 2023 Lloyds bank report commissioned by the Department for Education found that about 13 million people in the UK had the lowest level of digital capability, which means they are likely to struggle to interact with online services. That is an enormous number. The digital skills gap is estimated to cost the UK economy £63 billion per year, and 46% of businesses struggle to recruit for roles that require hard data skills. That also absolutely has an impact on our productivity, such that we sit 16% below international competitors such as the US and Germany.

The Digital Skills Council has found that the barriers to the uptake of digital skills courses include opportunity barriers such as lack of encouragement, restricted options, low teaching quality or even the capacity to access courses in local areas. It also found that those barriers hinder early-career switches for those aged between 27 and 35 and prevent those people from upskilling digitally. That is critical, given the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West made about people being able to move from job to job or from career to career in a changing economy. We also know that the total number of information and communications technology-related apprenticeship starts has fallen by almost 30% since the start of this Parliament. There are core structural and strategic issues that have not been dealt with effectively by the Government.

There need to be solutions that are commensurate with the challenge. The last Labour Government introduced the statutory digital entitlement for adults with low digital skills. Similarly, boosting digital skills will be a national priority for the next Labour Government. That work will be led by a new national body, Skills England, which will drive the skills needs of our industrial strategy and the green prosperity plan, making sure that we deliver those things in line with what is needed on the ground through the local skills improvement plans, working with employers, unions and civil society. We will also reform the apprenticeship levy so that employers can use up to 50% of their total levy contributions on more flexible course, which, as the Minister will know, was called for by the Manufacturing 5, UKHospitality, techUK and so many others.

The system needs to work together. Young people need to understand developing technologies, to be able to use and shape them, and to understand the opportunities and risks. That is why our curriculum review will embed digital literacy and skills throughout children’s learning and ensure that the curriculum keeps up with technological change.

In conclusion, I have some questions for the Minister. Will he outline what steps the Government are taking to reduce the barriers to uptake of digital skills courses and to address digital literacy gaps? Why are the Government not sufficiently addressing the significant gender disparity in the uptake of computing GCSEs and A-levels, with 92% of those starting A-level courses being male students? That critical issue needs addressing. Finally, how is the Minister working with businesses to understand the digital skills needs of the future, how skills needs can best be met now and what we can do to future-proof our courses? Ensuring that the workforces of today and tomorrow have the digital skills they need is vital for our citizens, our economy, our industry and our public services.

Education

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Ministerial Corrections

[Robert Halfon]

I hugely respect the hon. Gentleman. I know he is a bruiser, but I had been looking forward to his question. I thought he would celebrate the 13,000 apprentices in Chesterfield since May 2010, the 11,720 apprentices at levels 2 and 3, or the £19.5 million investment in Chesterfield College.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is not just that level 2 and 3 apprenticeship starts have plummeted by over 50% since the levy was introduced, but that 16 to 18-year-old apprenticeship starts are down by 41%. Research by the Sutton Trust and the London School of Economics further shows that, by 2020, the proportion of apprenticeship starts by those from poorer backgrounds had dropped significantly. Opportunities for all our young people to earn and learn expanded every year under Labour. Is it not now painfully clear that the biggest barrier to opportunity is this Tory Government?

[Robert Halfon]

As always, Labour Front Benchers are obsessed with quantity over quality. We have transformed the quality of apprenticeships. Seventy per cent of occupations are covered by over 680 apprenticeship standards.

[Official Report, 11 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 11.]

Letter of correction from the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon):

An error has been identified in the response given to the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra).

The correct response is:

Oral Answers to Questions

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is not just that level 2 and 3 apprenticeship starts have plummeted by over 50% since the levy was introduced, but that 16 to 18-year-old apprenticeship starts are down by 41%. Research by the Sutton Trust and the London School of Economics further shows that, by 2020, the proportion of apprenticeship starts by those from poorer backgrounds had dropped significantly. Opportunities for all our young people to earn and learn expanded every year under Labour. Is it not now painfully clear that the biggest barrier to opportunity is this Tory Government?

[Robert Halfon]

As always, Labour Front Benchers are obsessed with quantity over quality. We have transformed the quality of apprenticeships. Seventy per cent of occupations are covered by over 680 apprenticeship standards. There has been a 6% increase since this time last year in the number of under-19 starts, and overall starts are up by 3% over the same period. The crucial thing is achievement, which is up by 22%. Female STEM starts are up by 7.5%, starts by people with disabilities are up by 6.3%, and starts by people from ethnic minorities are up by 15.4%, compared with 10.6% in 2010. Not only are we focusing on quality over quantity; we are improving the number of starts and achievements too.

Colleges Week

Seema Malhotra Excerpts

Thursday 29th February 2024 Westminster Hall

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Robert, and to speak in this debate.

It is right that we pay tribute to the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) for securing this debate. I know that he is incredibly passionate about further education and the skills sector, and he has raised a number of very important issues, which I will address. I also acknowledge his work on the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning—I am a passionate supporter of that group—and work of the Association of Colleges, as the secretariat to the group.

I thank all our colleges up and down the country for the vital contribution they make to our national skills system, and to young people and adult learners across the country. In addition to noting the support and advice from the Association of Colleges, it is worth our reflecting on the support and advice that comes from the Sixth Form Colleges Association, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, and our qualification providers, including City & Guilds and others, which have also played an important role in the Future Skills Coalition. In addition, this week, FE Week and City & Guilds put on the annual apprenticeships conference, which played an important part in pulling everybody together during this important week.

I acknowledge the contribution made by the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), who made important points about engagement with employers and about how Harrogate College is helping to meet local skills and workforce needs. That is a story that all our colleges could share, so it was good to hear those examples.

The hon. Member for Waveney said that colleges play an important role around the UK in our skills system and are firmly embedded in our communities. They understand the needs of our local economies, and have played an important role in the development of our local skills improvement plans. Like many other college leaders, Tracy Aust, the principal of West Thames College in Hounslow, who also oversees the Feltham skills centre, has been pivotal in pulling together those voices so that we can better match the skills needs in our local economy with the provision coming through our colleges. That also helps local authorities and other players to develop a deeper understanding of the community learning requirements.

In that context, our FE institutions truly stand as pillars of knowledge and ambition, but they are also beacons of adaptability. They work together to foster an environment that encourages lifelong learning. One of the best parts of my role as shadow Minister is going to colleges across the country to meet and listen to learners and employers. That includes West Thames College and the Feltham skills centre, which do important wrap-around work on employability and mentoring. Logistics apprentices from the Institute of Couriers are in Parliament today to celebrate their achievements. I pay tribute to the chairman of the institute, Carl Lomas, for all he does, with great enthusiasm, including building links and investing in colleges. The apprentices I saw today feel they know him personally. Those relationships and that social capital around our systems are really important.

I have spoken to students studying T-levels, apprenticeships and higher technical qualifications, and adult learners upskilling, at City and Islington College. I have spoken to people working and learning at the National College for Nuclear, and health and aerospace apprentices in Milton Keynes, Newcastle and Liverpool. Last week, I visited South and City College in Birmingham to see the important new facilities for robotics, electric vehicles and so on. This is not just about connecting young people and adult learners with the content of learning, but about giving them hands-on experience with new technologies.

I am launching my colleges tour over the next few months, which will focus on how we are engaging with small and medium-sized enterprises in our communities and what the barriers are. SME apprenticeship levels have been dropping significantly—they have fallen by 49% since 2016—and we absolutely must turn that around.

As a nation, our No. 1 priority is to grow our economy so that we can invest in our public services and greater opportunities for all. To achieve that ambition for growth, we need to invest in human talent to grow our skills and our workforce across all sectors where there are skill shortages. Colleges play an important role in delivering skills for green infrastructure, our creative industries, our life sciences sector, our public services and our everyday economy, including hospitality. All those things require workforces with specialised skills. It is vital that people across our country have pathways into high- quality vocational training, secure, enjoyable work, and opportunities to upskill. I have talked to adult learners who have told me that the qualifications they did five or 10 years ago have left them out of date, compared with those coming through the system now. Given that nine out of 10 adults are likely to need some retraining in the next decade, that will be an important part of all our futures.

Colleges are uniquely placed to deliver on this combined mission of economic growth and improved life chances for all. They provide an exceptionally diverse range of education and training courses to meet the needs of local economies. They are centres of lifelong learning for people of all ages and at all levels, as the hon. Member for Waveney so effectively highlighted. But just as it is important to acknowledge the successes of colleges this week, we must also acknowledge the challenges they face, a number of which were eloquently outlined by the hon. Member.

As examples, apprenticeship numbers have fallen, real-terms funding for the further education sector has fallen to record lows, and vital decision-making powers have been taken away from local communities. The Conservatives have also overseen more than a decade of decline in skills and training opportunities. I say that because apprenticeship starts have fallen by 200,000 since 2017—it is important to recognise the figures. In every region, apprenticeship starts have fallen since 2010, and small and medium-sized enterprise engagement with apprenticeships has fallen by 49% since 2016.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way. I apologise to the Chair, as I will not be able to stay to the end of the debate as I have a meeting with the head of the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service to talk about progression and issues of this sort.

With apprenticeships, it is very important that we compare like with like. It is a great thing that all apprenticeships now involve a year of work and a qualification. That was not the case under the last Labour Government.

I want to put on the record my tribute to the Heart of Worcestershire College and the Worcester Sixth Form College, for the fantastic work they do. I commend to both Front Benches the report from the Education Committee on post-16 qualifications, which made a number of recommendations, including increasing the number of youth apprenticeships and setting a target for the proportion of apprenticeships that lead people into work.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution and for sharing the work of the colleges in his area, with which I know he is well connected. I acknowledge his work as Chair of the Education Committee, including on that report.

It is important that we are clear about the figures, but it is also important to recognise that things have got harder, particularly for small businesses, since the implementation of the levy. We need to address those challenges. For level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships, the numbers are falling in proportion to apprenticeships as a whole—these are challenges that the Education Committee has rightly highlighted. It is important to make sure that there are pathways post-16 for those who may not have the same qualifications at GCSE. That is a point I will refer to further in my remarks.

It is also true that the Government are on track to miss the 67% achievement rate, with almost half of apprenticeships not being completed. There are a range of reasons for that. Level 2 and level 3 apprenticeships have seen some of the worst falls; there has been a 69% fall in the number of starts at level 2 and a 21% fall in the number of starts at level 3. In addition, too many young people and adult learners say they are not aware of the opportunities available to them. Colleges have also seen real-terms funding cuts under successive Tory Governments. Since 2010, spending per pupil has fallen by 14% in colleges and 28% in school sixth forms.

Labour will put colleges at the heart of our plans for breaking down barriers to opportunity and boosting Britain’s skills. Central to that is our plan to develop technical excellence colleges, enabling colleges in local skills improvement plan areas to specialise in the particular needs of their local economies and businesses, driven by LSIP priorities. We know that Whitehall does not have all the answers for what is needed in our local communities. That is why we will continue to build on the already begun process of devolving and combining power and budgets for skills and adult education to combined authorities and local areas, so that the right decisions and right priorities are led by those with the most local information, who are in the right places.

These plans will empower FE colleges to take a lead in responding to local needs. We see it as important that we reform the apprenticeship levy to become, in part, the growth and skills levy, giving businesses and employers the flexibility they need to invest in skills and training and to continue to support SMEs to take up apprenticeships, too. An estimated £3 billion in unspent levy has gone to the Treasury since 2019 that could have been spent on more training opportunities for learners and, through that, on training providers too, supporting capacity to grow the sector. The system is not working as it needs to be. Bringing more flexibility is a policy backed by the Manufacturing 5, the British Retail Consortium, techUK, the Co-operative Group, City & Guilds—the list goes on.

It is vital that young people are aware of their post-16 options so that they know which routes are open to them and how to take them. That is why Labour wants to train more thsn 1,000 new professional careers advisers. I recognise the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney about fragmented advice and guidance, but we want to train those new advisers for students in our colleges and schools and introduce two weeks of compulsory work experience for every student to connect them earlier with the workplace.

There are real concerns about the chaotic roll-out of T-levels and the phasing out of many overlapping qualifications among college staff and young people—a serious issue that has been raised with me. The Protect Student Choice campaign estimates that 155,000 students could be left without an appropriate course of post-16 study if the Government go ahead with these plans in this way. That is why Labour will ensure that all students are able to complete their qualifications and will pause and review the proposed removal of courses until we can be sure that these reforms will not prevent young people from pursuing high-quality vocational qualifications.

In conclusion, boosting Britain’s skills will be a national ambition for Labour, led by our new body Skills England, which will help provide that overarching national skills framework, connecting that with regional and local need, and will bring together businesses, training providers and unions to meet the skills needs of the next decade across all our regions. I am proud to say that colleges will be at the heart of that ambition.

[The Minister for Schools (Damian Hinds)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Robert. I join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing this debate in Westminster Hall on this important subject. He rightly mentioned that he and I have talked about these topics many times over—I think it is fair to say—many years. I know he has a fervent passion for and deep knowledge of the subject, and I thank him for what he does with the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning. I join him in thanking and congratulating the Association of Colleges. Like many colleagues, I had the opportunity earlier this week to go over the road—the other side of Parliament Square—to the AOC awards event. It was great to meet an award winner from my local college in Alton and its other campus in Havant, but also to see the huge variety of people benefiting from all that colleges have to offer. Both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) spoke with passion about the importance of colleges and the great work they do in educating and training people of all ages and backgrounds, as well as the key role they play in communities. They rightly talked about the challenges they face, and I do not argue with any of that.

I am the Minister for Schools, but I still know there is no more important subject than colleges. I see every day that we have great schools educating our children, giving them a great education and grounding to take them on whatever path they choose at age 16. Of course, we also have strong higher education institutions, delivering world-class higher education to young people and equipping them with the high-level education and skills they need. We then have further education colleges, which are the filling—if you like—in the education sandwich. Like the best sandwich options, there is a variety to choose from because colleges do just about everything, including all the things I have just mentioned. They do basic skills, English and maths and so-called level 3 provision. More recently, there has been the introduction of T-levels. They do apprenticeships, as we have been talking about, and I will come back to adult learning. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney reminded us, FE colleges also do HE, as well as pre-16 provision for certain groups of young people. To cap it all, some colleges even have their own nursery—they are really providing the full range of education. We are not talking about jacks of all trades, because they do not just do lots of things; they do them very well. The latest figures show that approximately 92% of colleges were judged to be good or outstanding at their most recent inspection, which is quite an incredible figure.

The Secretary of State and the Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education visit colleges around the country frequently. I should say, by the way, that the latter would have loved to be here today. He phoned me this morning to say so, and to ask me to pass on his best wishes, in particular in celebration of Colleges Week. He is not able to physically be in two places at once; otherwise, he would have been here. The Secretary of State and the Minister meet staff and students and see at first hand some of the excellent work they are doing, as I have had the opportunity to do in previous roles in the DFE. They are astounded by the range and breadth of high-quality provision on offer in fantastic facilities.

My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney rightly alluded to another key role that FE colleges carry out, which is acting as agents of social mobility. Many learners in FE come from disadvantaged backgrounds, so our colleges are essential for ensuring that individuals from all backgrounds are supported to progress into employment or further learning. It is fair to say that for many years, colleges were unsung heroes, doing fantastic work without ever really getting commensurate recognition for that work. That has changed now, because everybody understands and recognises the importance of what they do. This debate is a great example of that recognition.

The skills agenda, in which colleges play a critical role, is one of my Department’s key priorities. Colleges are delivering our radical skills reforms, helping individuals with basic skills needs right up to challenging the highest performers to reach their potential, raising the stages of technical education through the delivery of apprenticeships and the introduction of rigorous T-levels.

It is easy for us to say that colleges are great, and that we recognise all they do, but we need to back that up with support and investment. That is why we are making major investment in post-16 education, in which colleges play a huge part, with an additional £3.8 billion over this Parliament for education and skills. In particular, throughout this Parliament, we have consistently increased overall funding for 16-to-19 education year on year, including an extra £1.6 billion in 2024-25 compared with 2021-22—the biggest increase in 16-to-19 funding in a decade. FE colleges, like all 16-to-19 providers, have benefited from that investment. We are investing £3 billion in capital between 2022 and 2025 to improve the condition of the post-16 estate, deliver new places in post-16 education, provide more specialist equipment and facilities for T-levels and deliver institutes of technology.

We recognise that the issues colleges are facing are not just about whether they have enough funding and how to make the funding stretch to deliver everything they need to do, but about systems, procedures and bureaucracy. Colleges have told Government that we need to address those things, and we have listened. That is why we have consulted on reforming the further education funding and accountability systems, and last year issued our response. We have committed to simplifying funding systems and creating a single adult skills fund and a single development fund. We have already started delivering on those commitments and will continue this work to reduce the bureaucracy associated with funding. We have set out a much clearer approach to support an intervention for colleges, and will also remove duplicative data collection and take steps to simplify and improve audit. All these things will help to minimise burdens on colleges and let them focus their efforts on delivering that excellent education and training.

Of course, FE would not be what it is without teachers and teaching. The quality of teaching and leaders is the biggest determinant of outcomes for learners, and that is why we are investing £470 million over the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25 to support colleges and other providers, and to address key priorities, including on recruitment and retention. That funding has already fed through to colleges and other providers via increased 16-19 rates and programme cost weight increases from last September.

It is part of a wider programme to support the sector to recruit excellent staff. That includes a national recruitment campaign to strengthen and incentivise the uptake of initial teacher education, teacher training bursaries and the Taking Teaching Further training programme. We also announced £200 million to improve teacher recruitment and retention by giving those who teach key shortage subjects a payment of up to £6,000, tax-free, per year in the first five years of their career. For the first time, that applies to those teaching eligible subjects in all FE colleges.

Let me turn to some of the comments made by the hon. Lady who speaks for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra). This debate has not been primarily party political, and nor should it be. We are celebrating Colleges Week, and that is something on which colleagues right across this House agree. I welcome a number of the things that the hon. Lady said, but there are a couple that I cannot quite let go, particularly on the subject of apprenticeships.

My hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker) was quite right in saying that, if we are going to talk about apprenticeships, we must talk like for like. I am afraid that, before 2010, there were some people who, when asked about the quality of their apprenticeship, did not know that they were on an apprenticeship. We have changed that and underpinned the apprenticeships programme with guarantees of quality: the minimum length of the course; the minimum amount of time in college; the creation of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education; and, critically, employer-designed standards. That has made a very solid set of very high- quality apprenticeships. I would urge the hon. Lady and her party not to pursue the plans and policy that they appear to be—not to undermine those apprenticeships or have fewer of them, and instead create a new quango.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister for his comments, and we do not need to get into a debate today—there are many other opportunities for that. He is right that it is important that we do not create dividing lines where we do not have them, in an area that needs both stability and long-term planning, but I want to challenge him on the point he has made. It is true that apprenticeships starts have fallen, and I am not saying that we have not also supported some changes through the passage of time. However, we all know that there are challenges, such as employer involvement in start-ups, employer fatigue due to the difficulties with the current apprenticeship system and the drop in SME engagement, and it is really important that the Government acknowledge those challenges.

It is also important not to misrepresent Labour’s call for a reform where employers, if they so chose, could spend up to 50% of their apprenticeship levy more flexibly. Too much of that levy is being returned to the Treasury because employers are unable to spend it on any learning. For most employers, the reform would not make much of a difference because they are only able to spend about 50% of their levy, and that would not change. Perhaps the Minister might also know that, if we see more growth in the economy, we will also see more of the levy coming in and greater apprenticeships there too.

[Damian Hinds]

Again, let us not have a party political debate—that is not the nature of this discussion today. I can absolutely assure the hon. Lady that I have not misrepresented the Labour party’s policy in the slightest. She then went on to repeat it, which is to say that there would be less money guaranteed to be available for apprenticeships. That would surely lead to a move away from those high-quality apprenticeships that I mentioned. I understand the attraction of voices saying that the levy is not a good way of doing things, but I have to tell the hon. Lady that it addresses a fundamental problem—

[Seema Malhotra]

Will the Minister give way?

[Damian Hinds]

Absolutely, and I will come back to the fundamental problem in a moment.

[Seema Malhotra]

I thank the Minister again, but I think he does not fully understand the Labour policy and that may be because he has not engaged with it in detail. The point on the growth and skills levy is that the opportunity to spend on more modular courses and more flexible learning, creating the opportunity to build qualifications through more modular approaches, could support more engagement with learning and contribute to a reduction in the early ending of apprenticeships, where the targets of apprenticeship completion are not even being met. That is a real issue.

[Damian Hinds]

I assure the hon. Lady that if there is any misunderstanding about the Labour party’s policy, it is not because people have failed to engage with it; it is because it is not clear—and one great benefit of our apprenticeship system is that it is clear. The approach of the apprenticeship levy resolves one of the fundamental questions of investing in human capital, training and people, which is the so-called free rider problem.

For many years, some employers invested strongly in their workforces and then some of the members of those workforces, after a couple of years of training, would get up and go to the competitor. The levy is precisely to make sure that the whole of our economy and the whole of industry has a like interest in developing those skills and developing investing in the potential of people. I advise the hon. Lady to be careful in deciding to get rid of that and replace it with a new and unneeded quango.

I turn to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, who also spoke about the centrality of apprenticeships and the quality of them. He spoke about the importance of colleges to the whole local economic area. I too represent an area with a particularly low level of unemployment, even though unemployment across the country is low compared with historical norms—it is at slightly less than half the level it was when I and my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and for Waveney came into Parliament in 2010.

Particularly in areas of even lower unemployment, however, skills matching becomes vital for the local economy. I also join my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough in congratulating both Harrogate College and the Luminate Education Group on their work on the renewable energy skills hub. That is a great example of colleges being future-looking, forward-looking and innovative, making sure we are equipped with the skills for the future and creating facilities that contribute to that.

I come now to my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney, who has brought us to this Chamber today—and we are all grateful to him for doing so. He listed some of the several ways in which colleges are vital to our economy and society. He too spoke of the importance of colleges in their local communities. He reminded us that that is about people of all ages—including those who might not have had that great an experience coming through education the first time, who can have another chance, and those who had a fantastic experience the first time around, who can further develop their skills. It is also about the jobs of tomorrow and making sure we can continue to adapt and that in so doing we offer social mobility to people throughout the country.

My hon. Friend also talked about productivity, which is so important here. We know that there has long been a big productivity gap—since the year I was born and beyond, and I am 54—between this country and the United States and Germany in particular. It has improved, but it is still a gap and we need to move further. Making sure we can match skills to where they are needed and hone those skills is incredibly important.

My hon. Friend also spoke about the importance of colleges themselves as big employers in local areas, and we should never forget that. He also discussed the importance of working with employers, a subject also covered by our hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough. In particular, I note the work of Suffolk New College in leading on the local skills improvement fund for my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney’s area. Indeed, I pay tribute to all three colleges serving his local area—East Coast College, Suffolk New College and West Suffolk College.

We are getting close to a fiscal event, and my hon. Friend quite rightly put in his Budget bids, which will have been heard. He also talked about some of the progress made. I agree that the value of the Baker clause is not just what it does directly, but the symbolism and the message it gives that all children should know about the full range of what is available to them at the age of 16. Some of those children will be better suited to going to a school sixth form, some will be better suited to going to a sixth form college and some will be better suited to going to an FE college. Some will be better suited to a largely academic route and some will be better suited to a technical and vocational route. Having those options made known at a suitable time in that journey is really important.

There are also T-levels. Of course, colleges are not the only places that deliver T-levels, but they are at the centre of that great reform. They offer more hours in college and bring English, maths and digital skills right into integration with the core vocational subjects and, crucially, the nine-week or 45-day industrial placement. When I meet employers or young people who have done T-levels, that is the thing they always talk about the most: the opportunity to apply what they learn in college directly in a workplace and develop the workplace skills that we know are so valued by employers. By the way, they bring an opportunity to see a young person in action in the workplace for an extended period.

There are the higher-level technical qualifications and the advanced British standard, which is in development now. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney was quite right that we are developing that landmark reform to remove fully the artificial divide between the academic and the vocational. In doing that, we need to start investing now—and we are investing now. That is such an important point to make, and it is understood across Government.

When people think about a college, probably the first thing that comes into their head is a picture of a building, but my hon. Friend and I, and everyone here, know that it is all about people. That is why those investments in people are so important, including the extension of the levelling-up premium to further education colleges for the first time. The Teach in FE recruitment campaign is running, and there is the Taking Teaching Further programme. We know that there is a particular importance to, and sometimes a challenge in, getting people with recent industrial experience—those “on the tools”—into college to impart those skills onwards. There are FE teacher training bursaries worth up to £30,000, depending on the subject, tax-free, in the academic year 2024-25.

I will close by thanking everybody who has taken part in this debate, particularly our hon. Friend the Member for Waveney for tabling it and convening this important discussion. It was informative to hear from him and others about local issues, successes and, of course, how much we value our colleges—“Love our Colleges”, to coin a phrase from Colleges Week. The one clear thing coming from this debate is that we all recognise the importance, value and role of our colleges, as the strapline that I just mentioned makes clear.

I have set out how we are backing our recognition of colleges through investment and support by increasing funding, investing in facilities and estate, reforming accountability and funding to reduce burdens and investing in programmes to support and boost the further education workforce. I hope and believe that those things will benefit colleges and support them to deliver. I know that we ask colleges to deliver a lot these days, but that is because we know that they can and do deliver incredibly well.