Education

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Ministerial Corrections

The following are extracts from Education questions on 11 March 2024.

[Mr Perkins]

…The Minister talks powerfully about apprenticeships, but why does he think that young people are now half as likely to be on an SME apprenticeship than they were when the levy was introduced?

[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 11,270 apprentices at levels 2 and 3, or the £19.5 million investment in Chesterfield College.

[Official Report, 11 March 2024, Vol. 747, c. 10.]

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 Chesterfield (Mr Perkins).

The correct response is:

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 11th March 2024 Commons Chamber

[Gillian Keegan]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that Basingstoke’s schools have been transformed over the past decade, up from just 52% rated good or outstanding under Labour. We have recently brought in two of our strongest specialist multi-academy trusts to drive improvement in special schools. Solent Academies Trust is now responsible for Dove House School, and Chiltern Way Academy Trust will shortly be taking over three local underperforming special and alternative provision schools, two of which will receive significant capital investment from the Department to support the education of vulnerable children.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

10. What assessment she has made of trends in the number of level 2 and 3 apprenticeship starts since the apprenticeship levy was introduced.

[The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)]

Sixty-five per cent of all apprenticeship starts so far this year have been at levels 2 and 3, with level 3 remaining the most popular level, accounting for 43% of all starts. Over 360 apprenticeship standards are at levels 2 and 3, covering more than half of all apprenticeships.

[Mr Perkins]

I can understand why the Minister does not refer to the trends, because he knows that level 2 apprenticeships are way down. The Government’s reforms have seen level 2 apprenticeship starts fall by two thirds since 2012-13, and the number of people employed on an apprenticeship with a small and medium-sized enterprise has fallen by 49% since the levy’s introduction. The Minister talks powerfully about apprenticeships, but why does he think that young people are now half as likely to be on an SME apprenticeship than they were when the levy was introduced?

[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 11,270 apprentices at levels 2 and 3, or the £19.5 million investment in Chesterfield College. If I were him, I would be urging his party to stop its plan to destroy the apprenticeship levy, which would halve the number of apprenticeship starts overall. It would be back to square one.

Education

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Thursday 20th July 2023 Ministerial Corrections

[Robert Halfon]

He talked about the budget, but he will know that 99.6% of the apprenticeship budget, which is set by the Treasury, was spent in the 2021-22 financial year.

Skills and Apprenticeships: Funding

The following are extracts from Education questions on 17 July 2023.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

New research from the House of Commons Library has shown that the amount of the apprenticeship levy paid by employers that has been allocated to the apprenticeship budget has fallen from 89% in 2017 to just 77% in the most recent year. The truthful answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) is that the Secretary of State is doing nothing to reform the apprenticeship levy, as she believes it is working perfectly. Can the Minister confirm that any employer that, like the hon. Member for Stroud, wants greater flexibility in the levy should vote Labour in the next general election?

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

New research from the House of Commons Library has shown that the amount of the apprenticeship levy paid by employers that has been allocated to the apprenticeship budget has fallen from 89% in 2017 to just 77% in the most recent year. The truthful answer to the question from the hon. Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) is that the Secretary of State is doing nothing to reform the apprenticeship levy, as she believes it is working perfectly. Can the Minister confirm that any employer that, like the hon. Member for Stroud, wants greater flexibility in the levy should vote Labour in the next general election?

[Gillian Keegan]

There is nothing that would make me give such drastic advice. The truth about the apprenticeship levy is that 99.6% of it will be spent this year. We can look in the rear view mirror, and there are some reports going back over time that show some underspend in the levy, but they are back over time. We are now spending 99.6% of the levy. Perhaps what the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated is that some of the funding goes to the devolved Governments. If we examine the apprenticeship system in Wales and Scotland, it is not a patch on what we have introduced in England.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 12th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We come to the shadow Minister.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State says that she is listening to businesses, but if she were, she would hear that Labour’s plan to devolve adult education budgets to local communities and directly elected Mayors, and to change the apprenticeship levy into a more flexible growth and skills levy, has won widespread support from across the business community. Why is she so determined to stand against what employers say they want, and to hold learners, employers and our economy back?

[Gillian Keegan]

That is a good question. The hon. Gentleman is right that employers have often asked for that flexibility in the levy. I do not think that anybody in this House doubts my support for apprenticeships—they were my golden ticket and, I am convinced, are a very good way into the workplace. Labour Members have said that they want to build flexibilities into the levy. The problem with their calculations is that, at this moment, we are spending 99.6% of the levy on apprentices. Their policy is based on levy payer spend, not levy payer budget. That means that the biggest losers from the policy would be small and medium-sized businesses and about half of current apprentices.

School and College Funding: The Midlands

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Tuesday 9th May 2023 Westminster Hall

[Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered school and college funding in the Midlands.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am pleased to have secured this important debate and grateful to the House authorities for granting it. I welcome to Westminster schoolteachers from across the midlands who have come down to listen to the debate and to hear what the Government have to say about how they will fix the crisis in our schools and colleges. I hope their journey will not have been wasted.

Before I go on, I put on record my huge admiration for our teachers, teaching assistants, lecturers and everyone who dedicates themselves to education in our schools and colleges in the midlands and beyond. They deserve so much better than their treatment by successive Conservative Governments. I also put on record my absolute support for and solidarity with the teachers and education staff in the National Education Union as they fight for fair pay and for the future of our schools and colleges. Teachers do not take action lightly; they take it as a last resort, and only because they have been pushed to breaking point while watching their pupils be failed by Ministers. They are taking action because of their commitment to education, not in spite of it. Polling shows that the public know this too—the majority back striking teachers.

I sought this debate because I want to address a simple fact: our schools and colleges are in crisis. The reason why they are in this state is no mystery. Between 2010 and 2020, school spending per pupil in England fell by 9% in real terms, funding per student aged 16 to 18 in further education and sixth-form colleges fell by 14%, and funding per school student in sixth forms fell by a whopping 28%. The consequences are all too clear: secondary school class sizes are the highest they have been in over 40 years, and primary class sizes are the highest in Europe. At the same time as pay was cut, year on year, teachers have worked more unpaid overtime than any other profession in the UK.

The impact on students and staff is hard to overstate. Teachers who went into the profession because they love education and teaching are finding it harder and harder to go on. One teacher from the west midlands told me

“the expectations are huge…the pressure unmanageable…and the rewards diminishing in every sense.

It is becoming harder and harder to find the positive every day.”

Another told me of the vicious cycle that develops: underfunding results in bigger classes and less support for students with special needs, which leads to more pressure on teachers and more staff absence.

The demands on teachers go way beyond what we should expect. While teachers’ pay has been cut, Government underfunding means that teachers increasingly have to dip into their own pockets to buy supplies. One in five are now estimated to buy everything from books and pens to rulers and glue sticks, and nearly half even buy food, clothes and soap for poorer pupils—stepping in where the state has catastrophically failed.

All of that has a predictable result. Staff recruitment and retention is in crisis and set to get worse: a quarter of all teachers and school leaders say they are considering leaving the profession for reasons other than retirement. That is backed up by the Government’s own statistics, which show that retention rates have declined since 2011 and that fewer than 60% of teachers are still in the profession after 10 years. Recruitment is in dire straits, too. The Government are now reaching less than 60% of their own target for secondary recruitment, and for some subjects the figures are even worse—just 36% for modern foreign languages, 30% for computing and an astonishing 17% for physics. That impacts learning, with a rising proportion of lessons being taught by teachers who do not have a relevant qualification. The problem has got so bad that one Coventry teacher told me of a student who by Wednesday had 10 out of their 15 lessons taught by cover staff. Perhaps nowhere in Coventry is the crisis in staff recruitment and retention felt more severely than at Coventry College.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. She is making an incredibly important point about recruitment. We recently saw the Prime Minister out with his strategy for getting more maths taught, but the Government are already failing to hit their own targets for maths teachers. Does it not say everything about this Government that we have, on the one hand, a big announcement about what is going to happen in schools and, on the other, abject failure to recruit maths teachers?

[Zarah Sultana]

I completely agree. It is a slogan without substance, and the Government have had to accept that those targets will not be met.

Coventry College recently announced that it would cease offering apprenticeship provision from August, citing the extreme difficulty in recruiting and retaining teaching staff. This will have a severe impact on young people in the city, depriving them of opportunities, and it runs contrary to the Government’s own skills mission as set out in the levelling-up policy agenda.

Again, there is no mystery about what is happening with recruitment and retention: educators are voting with their feet after working harder and harder for less and less. Alongside rising workloads, teachers have seen their pay cut year after year—by around 13% in real terms since 2010. The Government’s pay offer would only make things worse. In September, they offered a “pay rise” of 5%, when inflation was, of course, running at 12.6%—that so-called pay rise was really a 7% pay cut. The Government’s latest offer of an additional one-off cash payment of £1,000 would not even be consolidated into pay next year, and is dwarfed by the average energy bill alone. What makes it even worse is that, according to NEU calculations, these proposals are not even fully funded; instead, they would require most schools to make further cuts to pay for them.

It is therefore little wonder that the latest pay offer was rejected by a staggering 98% of voting NEU members. This decisive rejection must surely make the Government come back to the negotiating table with an above-inflation pay rise. That would only start to undo the damage of a decade of falling pay, as the Government must also restore pay for further education teachers and help to address the severe challenges faced by colleges across the country, including Coventry College.

It is not just staff recruitment and retention that have been impacted by Government underfunding. Just last month, a Conservative Member secured a debate in this very Chamber to highlight that inadequate school funding had resulted in a severe decline in the quality and quantity of free school meals, impacting children’s health and education. The Member cited a school in his constituency that pays £2.80 a meal, but receives just £2.41 a meal in funding. I am an active campaigner for free school meals to be extended to all children, guaranteeing every child a hot, healthy meal each day. However, those meals must be just that—healthy and nutritious—and that requires funding. Just like funding our schools and colleges more broadly, this is an investment from which we all benefit, with studies showing that healthy free school meals improve children’s learning and health, helping with concentration and behaviour.

Just as the meals that children eat at school are affected by underfunding, so too are the buildings in which they are supposed to learn. The latest annual report published by the Department for Education says:

“There is a risk of collapse of one or more blocks in some schools”,

with the Department escalating the risk of incident from “critical—likely” to “critical—very likely”. Again, there is no mystery as to why this is happening. The House of Commons Library calculates that, between 2010 and 2022, overall capital spending in schools declined by half in real terms. There have been reports of minor collapses in recent years, but it surely should not take a more serious incident, injuring staff and children—or worse—before action is finally taken.

Staff, students, parents and the public deserve so much better than crumbling school buildings and paltry school lunches. They deserve so much better than their dedicated teachers working overtime but barely making ends meet. They deserve better than record class sizes and dwindling opportunities. That means having a Government who show they care about education by putting their money where their mouth is and investing in the future of our young people and the professionals who dedicate themselves to their education. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans on how to address those fundamental challenges.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) on securing this important debate. I, too, echo her words and thank all the fantastic teachers, support staff, lecturers and many others who work in the education profession, from nursery through primary and secondary school to college and university, across the great city of Stoke-on-Trent and wider north Staffordshire, including Kidsgrove, Talke and Newchapel. It is an absolutely fantastic profession, and one that I was proud to spend nearly nine years in on the frontline, working day in, day out with our fantastic young people, who we were looking to make sure excelled into the future.

I am therefore proud to declare my interest as a paid-up member of the NASUWT and as someone whose partner works as an employee of Teach First, a fantastic teacher training organisation. She was also a secondary school teacher at a number of schools in Birmingham and London. I hope all those declarations are now on the books.

The reality is that school funding has increased by 44% per pupil since 2010-11, to £7,460 per pupil. The educational budget in 2023-24 is £57.3 billion, up 64% on 2010-11. In the 2021 spending review, it was a remarkable achievement of the Department for Education to secure £7 billion in additional spending. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor then came in to add another £4 billion on top of that over the next two years—2023-24 and 2024-25—which even the Institute for Fiscal Studies says is an 8% increase in real terms for England and Wales. The IFS also noted that spending in England kept pace with the 13% rise in pupil numbers between 2010 and 2023.

[Mr Perkins]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for quoting the IFS, because that same IFS report said that the loss of funding in the further education sector was the biggest of any education sector, and that even the extra funding in 2020 and 2021 had been eroded by the rapid growth in student numbers. He needs to provide a much fuller description of that IFS report if he wants to refer to it, as I shall be doing when I make my contribution.

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me the opportunity to repeat the fact from the IFS that, in England, spending kept pace with the 13% rise in pupil numbers between 2010 and 2023. That is in answer to his specific question. It is positive that we are in a place where the IFS has recognised the investment that has gone into the education sector.

Ultimately, for levelling up to be achieved fully and to be delivered in places such as Mansfield or Stoke-on-Trent, we must create young people with the knowledge and skills they need to access the higher-skilled and high-wage jobs that we are so proudly bringing to our local area, such as the 9,000 jobs created since 2015 under Conservative rule of both the city council and the Government, including 2,000 linked to the Ceramic Valley enterprise zone and 500 thanks to brand-new Home Office jobs. We are tapping into the talent pool through colleges, local jobcentres and our university to ensure that we have local people in local jobs, which will be fantastic for our local area. That is exactly what we want to see.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Gullis]

I must tell the hon. Lady that in all my time in the teaching profession—and I was a head of year, so I dealt with behaviour and attendance—I never once had an incident where a pupil came to me to say that they had been singled out because they were on free school meals. Ultimately, that was never publicised. Unless the pupil shared that information, other pupils in the classroom were unaware of it. The pupil went up to the till, put their fingerprint on, and no one else knew what was going on; there was money in the account as far as the other students were aware. There was no stigma attached, and there should be no stigma attached.

Everyone needs help and support in their lives at some stage. During the covid pandemic, my own father had to rely for the very first time on the welfare state to prop him up; he had been working as a music teacher contracted out to teach individuals and could not do face-to-face teaching. As he is caring for my stepmother as we speak—she has had quite serious surgery—the welfare state is propping him up after the years he has paid into it. Those are appropriate moments to use the welfare state, and the welfare state should support those most in need, but of course I accept the importance of ensuring that a child has food in their belly in the morning. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind about that.

The Education Endowment Foundation fully backs up what the hon. Member for Coventry South, the hon. Member for North Shropshire and I want to achieve. If students have food in their stomachs, their concentration levels, attendance, behaviour and ability to achieve are better. As I say, free school meals should not be given to those who can afford to put food on their children’s tables. That money should be used to provide breakfast and lunch for those most in need, because those children deserve it.

[Mr Perkins]

Does the hon. Gentleman not see a contradiction between his saying, “I would be embarrassed as a parent if my children needed free school meals,” and on the other hand saying, “There is no stigma attached to having free school meals”? The reality is that there are many parents who do not apply for free school meals and might not consider that they are in poverty but who may well be eligible for them. Do the hon. Gentleman’s comments not rather miss the point?

[Jonathan Gullis]

I am sure that the hon. Member would never want to mislead this Chamber, and I accept that there was probably a mistake there. I think that I was perfectly clear when I said that, with the money that I earn, I would be embarrassed if I was unable to put food on my children’s table, day in, day out. I think that that was perfectly clear and the transcript will show it. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on his words. If I were to see my words misconstrued in any way, I would have to contact Mr Speaker’s office to get remediation, because it would be wrong to politically twist what was said abundantly clearly. Hansard will pick up my words. I would be embarrassed, personally, if I was unable to put food on the table, based on the salary that I earn. That would be taking a meal out of the mouth of a child in my constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, who rightfully would deserve that meal. That is why I would be embarrassed: it would mean that those who need it most would not get the level of help that they truly deserve.

My mother was on a council estate in London, and she got off it thanks to grammar school—something that the hon. Member for Coventry South herself will know well about, having been such a beneficiary of that world-class education, which I hope to bring to Stoke-on-Trent. My father, who failed his O-levels, went back to being a cleaner at his school during the day and did night school in the evening. He went all the way through to becoming a council worker while doing night school for his A-levels, and then he went to the Open University and became the first ever in my family to get a degree.

My grandfather spent 93 hours a week driving lorries, my grandmother worked in hotels, my other grandmother was a teaching assistant, and my other grandfather, sadly, passed away when my mother was 17 years old. That is exactly why I am proud of my legacy—of what my family have done to give me every advantage that I have had in life. I am aware of the privilege that I have had, and I want to ensure that the pupils I am proud to represent in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke get everything that they deserve.

I want Stoke-on-Trent to be great. It is a small but mighty city, and levelling up will be achieved only by getting the education in our sector right. That is why I am so damning of the “Not Education Union” spending its time convincing teachers to walk on picket lines rather than being in classrooms and helping pupils to recover from the pandemic. We have accepted that the gravest mistake was that pupils were not in the classroom during the pandemic. Face-to-face learning is so critical, and the quality of provision was a postcode lottery for some pupils—whether they were given virtual lessons immediately or months down the line. That was no fault of the hard-working teachers. Sadly, it was the fault of Ministers who decided not to let pupils and teachers into the classroom together. I hope that we will never again see a day when face-to-face teaching is brought into disrepute.

I hope that Kevin Courtney and Mary Bousted can put their bias and political game-playing to one side. They are living out their socialist utopian fantasy that they are so desperate for—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) for securing this really important debate. She has neatly separated out the views from across the House on the issues facing our schools and the funding they receive. I respond to the debate in not only as the shadow Minister for further education and skills, but as the Member of Parliament for Chesterfield in the east midlands. Funding for schools and colleges in the midlands is an issue I feel passionately about and am very much aware of.

I will reflect first on some of the contributions made by hon. Members. My hon. Friend spoke about a number of issues that together show the scale of the challenge facing our schools. She spoke about the 9% reduction in school spending per pupil, the 14% fall in college spending per pupil and the even bigger spending cut of 28% in our sixth-form colleges. She reflected on the reality facing many of our teachers: one in five routinely buy equipment for their pupils. We all see that when we go into our schools and speak to teachers or they come to our surgeries. We see the extent to which people who were originally trained as educationalists are increasingly taking on that social work function and are expected to be the last line of resort for pupils in poverty. Pupils turn up unable to study because they are hungry or because of the social issues they face. Her speech was powerful in that regard.

My hon. Friend spoke about teachers being on strike, and there were differing views. There is a strange contradiction I hear from Conservative Members between their lauding of teachers when they are teaching pupils and their sense that these same hugely impressive people are somehow being persuaded by trade union leaders to rush out and strike with no idea of what they are doing, despite their education and their knowledge of the schools. The Government think school teachers are so weak as to rush out to strike because a trade union tells them, but what we are actually seeing is a powerful balance.

My hon. Friend hit the nail on the head on this and it was something I read recently in a letter from one of my constituents. If the pay offer was fully funded and teachers were not being told, “Your pay offer will be based on us taking money being used to educate children out of the school,” that would be an entirely different thing, but they can see every day that their school is struggling to get by, being told that it will have even less money because the pay offer will come out of the money that would previously have been spent on equipment, teaching assistants, special needs or other aspects. The offer is unacceptable in the extreme and teachers are turning it down because they recognise the impact it will have on schools. That reflects their commitment to their students.

[Jonathan Gullis]

The hon. Gentleman referred to the teaching unions and to teachers. Does he agree it was wrong of the leadership of the National Education Union to instruct teachers not to assess or mark work during the pandemic?

[Mr Perkins]

rose—

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. I apologise to the shadow Minister. I know he was replying to the intervention by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), but I called him to order because the intervention was outside the scope of the debate. It is incumbent on all Members to reflect on their contributions. They should be in the context of the motion drawn up by the mover who applied to the Speaker for the debate. The debate is about funding for schools and colleges in the midlands. I encourage everybody to focus on that out of respect to the shadow Minister.

[Mr Perkins]

I understand your point entirely, Mr Pritchard, and I will of course stick to your strictures.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South also spoke about Coventry College being in a position where it can no longer offer apprenticeships. That is so powerful and so damaging. We recognise the incredible importance of apprenticeships. We also recognise that in many areas there are huge difficulties in accessing apprenticeships, particularly for small businesses. Oftenm it is the colleges that are best at getting those small businesses—the non-levy payers—in to do apprenticeships. [Interruption.] I am sure I am not the only Member with a post-election cold, so please excuse me. My hon. Friend’s point on Coventry College ceasing to provide apprenticeships was incredibly powerful.

Moving on to the contribution of the hon. Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), I was delighted to hear about the new facilities at Stafford College. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that new facilities make a huge difference, so it is good to hear about the progress being made on new capital spending at that college. I thought the comment she attributed to the Secretary of State for Education—that nothing demonstrates the Government’s commitment to young people like the amount they spend on capital equipment for colleges—was incredibly powerful. For precisely that reason, it is appalling that we have had a massive reduction in capital equipment spend on both our schools and our colleges under this Government. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) referred to the IFS report in November 2021, according to which funding for students aged 16-18 saw the biggest fall of any sector, and the increases only reversed a fraction of the cuts we have had. The hon. Member for Stafford is absolutely right; I will join her in holding this Government to account on their capital spending and use that to demonstrate the extent to which they have let a generation of young people down.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North gave a memorable speech. It was, frankly, most misleading of him to suggest that schools are being generously funded. Schoolteachers in his area will have listened to his contribution aghast at his argument that there has been generous funding under this Government. It is one thing for the Government to say it was an economic decision to introduce austerity and that they had to do it; it is quite another to actually suggest that all these schoolteachers are going on strike and leaving the profession at a time that the sector is being generously funded.

The hon. Gentleman asked about additional funding for schoolteachers. Removing the tax perk on private schools would actually fund an extra 6,500 schoolteachers. Look at the record of the last Labour Government: the reality is that we did not see losses in the sector on the scale we have seen under this Government. There has been a massive reduction in the number of teaching assistants and pressure is increasing on schoolteachers. All that has an impact. Look at the massive expansion in social problems in our schools—again, that creates pressure on schools. The idea that this is simply about providing a little bit more money and then schoolteachers’ lives will be better is just missing the point entirely.

[Jonathan Gullis]

The hon. Gentleman has outlined, fairly so, that if Labour was in government, it would recruit an extra 6,500 teachers, having put VAT on private school fees. I mentioned non-doms earlier; I apologise for the mistake in the policy idea. Can the hon. Gentleman say what specifically Labour would do with the money it raised that is not already being done?

[Mr Perkins]

I was in the process of answering precisely that question. As I was saying, it is not that if there were simply a little bit more money and we had these extra teachers, everything would be resolved. The entire approach that this Government have taken to schools has led to a massive decrease in morale that has meant lots of teachers leaving the profession and has led to a reduction in the number of teaching assistants, while the Government’s social policies have led to far more children turning up hungry than there were 13 years ago. All those additional pressures end up diminishing the morale and experience of schoolteachers—they all add to the problem. Frankly, if the hon. Member does not mind my saying so, the very transactional approach that he suggests misses the point about this Government’s failure on schools.

It is a great pleasure, however, to say that there was something I agreed with in the hon. Member’s contribution, which was about the use of buildings in school time—a really important point. In the all-academy world that we largely inhabit in terms of secondary schools, there are pressures that make that different when they are run by local government. None the less, he made that point well.

I will return to the point on which we had a debate. The hon. Member rather missed the point with the tone of his rhetoric on free school meals. I checked again what he said: he said that he would be “embarrassed” if he could not put food on the table with his salary, then created the straw man that his family receiving a free school meal would take it out of the mouth of another child. That is not what universal free school meals do at all. The hon. Member needs to reflect on his language if he genuinely does not want parents and children to feel that free school meals are something to be embarrassed about.

The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley) spoke about teachers he had met who recognised that they had short days and long holidays. It almost beggars belief to suggest that the reason that lots of teachers leave the profession is that they think they do not work hard enough and their holidays are too long. That does not bear any relationship to the schoolteachers I have met, who suggest that the huge workload outside their teaching time is one of the reasons that they are leaving the profession.

[Ben Bradley]

rose—

[Mr Perkins]

I am very happy for the hon. Gentleman to correct my understanding of what he said.

[Ben Bradley]

I will seek to correct the hon. Gentleman on what I said. I do not wish to chastise the hon. Gentleman, who I like very much, but in a similar way to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, I am afraid that he has inadvertently misrepresented what I said. I said that it was a travesty that schools in our country have the shortest days while teachers work the longest hours in Europe, that that is not right, and that we should seek to reduce that bureaucratic burden on teachers to allow them to spend more time in the classroom with our children. I do not know many teachers who would disagree with that point, but it is not what the hon. Gentleman said my comments were.

[Mr Perkins]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman was able to set the record straight on that.

There can be no doubt that 13 years of Tory Government have left England’s school and college buildings crumbling, left many teachers and their support staff demoralised and left our schools robbed of the funding needed to support the opportunities that all our children deserve. I see that in the facilities every time I attend a school in my constituency. One of the very first things I recall from when I came to this place as a new MP in 2010 is the chaotic announcement from the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) about the cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future projects.

Every single month at Education questions, it seems that there is another Conservative MP coming to their feet to reflect on how appalling the school building is in one of their schools, and saying, “If only the Minister could take the time to address that,” without recognising that it is the entire system of capital funding, not the individual case, that is a failure under this Government. There is a stark difference between the facilities that children have at Outwood Academy Newbold and Springwell Community College in my constituency, with brand-new buildings secured under the last Labour Government, and the 13 years without a single new secondary school building in my constituency, which have meant schools such as Brookfield Community School and Parkside Community School soldiering on in inadequate facilities despite the best efforts of their staff.

It is not just school buildings that have been left to rot. The Conservatives also cut off the fledgling Building Colleges for the Future programme on their arrival in government. Both statistically and anecdotally, the failure under this Government is there for all to see. The attainment gap between disadvantaged secondary school pupils and their better-off peers has widened to its largest level in years. Under the Conservatives, teacher vacancies have risen by 246%, with the Government missing their teacher recruitment target again this year, recruiting just 59% of their target for secondary schools.

In late 2021, research published by the headteachers’ union, the National Association of Head Teachers, found that schools across the west midlands have been forced to cut staff or activities because of a lack of funding. One in three schools said that they had made cuts to balance their budget, while 38% expected to make cuts in the following year. Last November, similarly, a Unison report revealed that councils across the east midlands faced a collective funding gap of £181 million in the next financial year, forcing them to cut essential services including early education. The extent to which schools have felt totally unsupported with the increase in energy prices is just one example.

Inasmuch as there has been any recovery in funding in recent years, it does not begin to address the shortfall over which the Government presided in the previous 11 years, and it comes in the context of huge cost of living crisis pressures, which mean that it has been swallowed up. Only last week, the Sutton Trust found that essential school staff and activities are being cut as a result of funding pressures inflicted by central Government. Such measures can only have a detrimental effect on our children’s futures. The IFS analysis to which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North referred showed that schools in England still face a significant budget squeeze.

[Mark Pritchard (in the Chair)]

Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to sit to finish the remainder of his speech, he may do so, because his cold is severe. It is entirely up to him.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

You are very generous, Mr Pritchard. I am not sure that sitting down will make it much better, but we are approaching the end, you will be glad to know.

What would a future Labour Government do? An incoming Labour Government will end tax breaks for private schools and invest that money in more teachers and excellent state education for all. We are committed to recruiting more than 6,500 new teachers to fill vacancies and skills gaps across the profession; to ongoing training for school staff, including in support for children with special educational needs; and, as I say, to an entirely different approach to schools, which we hope will support teacher morale and mean fewer teachers leaving the profession, as that has been one of the major issues over the past 13 years. In addition, we will recruit more than 1,000 careers advisers to give every young person in our schools and colleges professional careers advice, as well as two weeks of work experience. We will give every child access to a qualified mental health counsellor at school. Labour wants every parent to feel confident that they can send their child to a great local state school where they are supported to achieve and to thrive.

As last week’s election results demonstrated, 13 years of Conservative mismanagement have taken our schools to the brink. Only a change of Government will bring about the improvement in education that the midlands and many schools across our country so desperately need.

Oral Answers to Questions

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Monday 17th April 2023 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I never thought I would hear myself say this, but I totally agree with the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who rightly urges the Minister to support Labour’s policy on greater flexibility for apprenticeships. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development described the Government’s approach to apprenticeships as having “failed by every measure”. Alongside starts having fallen by a third, the Government’s own data shows that 47% of apprentices do not complete their apprenticeships. Will the Secretary of State join me, the Labour party and the right hon. Member for Witham in supporting the wide range of businesses and employers that support Labour’s plans for reform of the apprenticeship levy?

[Gillian Keegan]

I understand that many employers have asked for that, but it is as ill-thought-through and ill-designed as Labour policies such as the tax on private schools and non-dom status. We are already spending 99.6% of the levy, so Labour’s policy would mean that we would have to take some apprentices away from SMEs to be able to create that levy.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Fourth sitting)

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Cummins, and to welcome everyone back for this second sitting of the day. We had a constructive discussion on our various amendments under clause 1 this morning. We continue now with amendments 7 and 8, which have rightly been grouped together as they address a pretty thorny issue: financial sustainability. The amendments set out that in exercising their powers under clause 1, the Secretary of State should first have due regard to the additional costs associated with delivery and secondly look at financial sustainability in the round.

On the additional costs associated with the delivery of modular learning, we heard collectively a plethora of evidence from our witnesses during Tuesday’s sitting about how the impact of lifelong learning might affect providers. Indeed, when it comes to higher education providers, Professor Press from Manchester Metropolitan University made it clear that there were difficulties for institutions in the “mechanics” of the delivery of lifelong learning, partly due to the additional cost of delivery when moving from a full year or full three years of a course to a module. Quite understandably, that will introduce an additional cost burden, whether that be costs of onboarding or administrative processing. Worryingly, given the take-up for lifelong learning is so uncertain—the pilot programme did not attract high numbers at all—Professor Press found it difficult to predict what precisely the costs would be. That is concerning.

It is important that we have seen that uncertainty, seen what it might mean and seen the additional costs. There has been very low take-up of the apprenticeship levy, T-levels and accelerated learning. Accelerated learning and the apprenticeship levy certainly have real merits, but they can bring an additional cost burden, and a restructuring or reshaping of courses for institutions. That means more financial pressure on institutions when things are already difficult—as I am sure, Mrs Cummins, you will be aware, given that you have a university on your doorstep.

The effect may be far worse for colleges, as acknowledged by Liz Bromley of Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group and David Hughes of the Association of Colleges. Colleges clearly have already been facing a dire financial settlement over the past 13 years—a point that I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield will want to build on and explore thoroughly in his comments, given his expertise in and knowledge of the sector. Certainly, almost all the witnesses representing the further education sector whom we heard from on Tuesday called for an injection of cash—presumably, to combat a gradual decline in the real-terms funding settlement for further education colleges. Lecturer pay, workload, staff retention, the administrative burden and regulatory costs were all cited as reasons why modular provision in the form of lifelong learning may hit roadblocks in the years ahead. The recent decision to take the further education sector into the public sector, denying colleges the ability to borrow and limiting their access to risk capital, will also dampen the supply of new course provision.

In the impact assessment as published, there is an estimated cost of £211,000 for all providers to familiarise themselves with lifelong learning, although it is worth pointing out that the Russell Group thinks that that is a large underestimation. Perhaps the Minister can explain how the figure of £211,000 was arrived at. When we look at how many institutions we have, whether they be further education colleges or higher education institutions, that figure probably works out at about 300 quid each. I am sure the Minister can explain how the figure was arrived at and, indeed, what the approximate cost will be for those institutions, but even that rough calculation suggests that the cost is massively understated by the Government in their impact assessment. That is concerning, because we all want to start this scheme on solid ground and ensure that it is being approached correctly and has the best chance of delivery and success. That example suggests that it has not been accurately thought out, but I will wait to hear what the Minister has to say.

Not only does the financial capacity of the sector affect the provision of courses; it also risks the financial sustainability of the whole sector. On Tuesday we heard from Dr Norton of Coventry University, who helpfully demonstrated that higher education providers work on a five-year forecasting model, which is made harder if students are opting for modular study over a several-years-long course. At a time when over one in three higher education providers are reporting a deficit, the real-terms value of tuition fees has crumbled to below £6,750—my understanding is that it is probably more like £6,400—and the Government’s own policy impact assessment for the Bill admits that the lifelong learning entitlement

“could result in providers having less financial certainty”,

the concern is that this mammoth reform may well be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. There is a real concern that it could bring down institutions in the sector. As of today, I am not entirely sure of the level of Government concern at that prospect. I hope the Minister will reassure us with his perspective of financial sustain-ability versus precarity of institutions in the sector—higher education and further education colleges alike.

This skeletal Bill introduces sweeping reforms to the way in which the student finance model works, and I would hope that the Minister would be totally assured that the reforms will pose as little risk as possible to institutional financial sustainability. That is why I was so concerned to read what I did in the impact assessment. What stress tests have the Department conducted ahead of implementation to ensure the sector can cope with the changes introduced in the Bill? What additional financial support, if any, does the Minister intend to provide to higher education providers and colleges seeking to implement modular study, given the limited financial capacity of the sector?

The amendments are important in establishing what risk there is to the wider tertiary education sector, and in ensuring sustainability. It cannot be logical that the costs per student unit will remain the same for modular learning provision. There will be a significant increase in the cost burden to institutions through the delivery of courses, but also in the administration and onboarding of students, and in managing departing students, and all the data needs around those changes. As we heard in our witness sessions, we have not even got to the wraparound support that students may require.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Has my hon. Friend reflected particularly on the evidence from Professor Rigby in the evidence session? She went into quite some detail about the administrative costs and the regulatory burdens of the modular approach, and the costs that that approach is likely to add to providers. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the result of those administrative burdens might be that, without the additional funds he is asking for, colleges will find these courses unsustainable to run, and we will not get the amount of provision that we all want to see?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is totally right that one of the huge issues in the sector is the paucity of remuneration to further education college lecturers and staff. While going around the country, I have heard lots of anecdotal evidence about how difficult it is to recruit good staff. We clearly want the best, most inspiring people to deliver and impart information through their teaching. Whether it be in pure vocational education or in academic subjects, we want the best people, with expertise and talent, who can really inspire others to get into that subject and to succeed.

I hear, from talking to establishments around the country, that there is a huge remuneration or salary disadvantage—a difference between what people can earn vocationally in roles versus what they earn as lecturers in colleges. What I am hearing indicates that there is a 40% difference in pay between delivering a vocational role and teaching. That is really to the detriment of the next generation, and it is why we do not have the number of people coming into teaching as we should have across the board. I totally agree with my hon. Friend’s points, which highlight another immense challenge for the sector in the financial burden; the remuneration would ideally be greater.

Amendments 7 and 8 identify a real pressure point for the sector, in terms of the burden from this Bill. As I evidenced through the degree apprenticeships, institutions have to bear additional costs to deliver good-quality courses, but the yield—the cost cover—is not there. It is actually to the cost of the institution to provide them; it is the right thing to do, but it is coming at great cost to them to do that. With that, I will end my remarks.

[Mr Perkins]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Cummins. I rise to speak to my hon. Friend’s amendments. I think that he has already made the case well, but there are a few points that I would like to add, particularly regarding the financial sustainability of further education colleges and independent learning providers.

The amendments absolutely speak to the heart of our reservations about the approach being taken. They are quite modest in their scope, but given the evidence that we heard in the evidence sessions, which was touched on in earlier discussions on other amendments, they do, as I say, cut to the heart of our concerns. Amendment 7 asks the Secretary of State to have regard for additional costs associated with the delivery of the course, and amendment 8 asks the Secretary of State to have regard to the financial sustainability of providers.

I will speak to amendment 7 first. In the evidence session, David Hughes explained that colleges,

“do not have any of what the private sector might call risk capital”.––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 50, Q105.]

Given that FE college funding has fallen by 27% in real terms between 2010 and 2019, according to the House of Commons Library, and given the increasing financial pressures—with the booming energy prices and wage inflation all affecting colleges too—the financial picture for many of our colleges, crucial as they are, is very difficult indeed.

For that reason, David Hughes told us that the risk appetite of colleges for putting on courses that they do not know that anyone will study is likely to be pretty limited and restrained. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, with colleges now being inside the public sector and therefore unable to seek private-sector borrowing, and being forced to run balanced budgets, colleges will just not be able to run courses that they cannot be pretty certain will have learners taking them.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point about the difficult landscape that FE colleges find themselves in, but is he as surprised as I was to hear that Eton College was proposing to enter into the fray across the country—my own constituency included, notwithstanding that there was an oversupply in the sector already—thereby adding to the difficulties and undermining existing colleges? Is that not exactly the wrong way to go when the landscape is already so difficult?

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. I am not specifically aware of the intended provision that he raised but, absolutely, the strength of his oratory on the issues facing further education colleges is absolutely right, and I would be very interested to learn more about what it is that Eton College believes it can offer that is not currently being provided.

Returning to the point I was making, there is a real need for somebody to step in and provide the certainty of funding that might allow more courses to be put on. Realistically, this legislation will not even come into force until 2025, so it will fall on the next Government to make this work, not the current Government, with all their best intentions. It will fall on the next Government to ensure that our constituents and learners across the country can actually take advantage of what is being offered.

Over the course of the 13 years I have been a Member of Parliament, I have become used to quizzing Ministers on pieces of legislation: “How is it going to work? What are you going to do?” This is one of those situations where the Minister is laying out what he anticipates might happen with the legislation, but all these questions will probably be for his successor. He may still be the Minister—no one knows the outcome of a future election.

However, as His Majesty’s Opposition, as a responsible Opposition, we have to think carefully about the fact that we might inherit this legislation and inherit responsibility for ensuring that these courses are available, that colleges and independent learning providers are sustainable, and that this provision is available to our constituents. It is therefore important for the Minister to confirm at this stage, given the recent Budget, whether any provision has put in place to recognise the additional costs for FE colleges or independent learning providers in delivering a more modular form of learning.

As we heard in evidence—I will expand on that in a moment—additional administrative and cost burdens will be placed on colleges. Will money be put aside to ensure that they are able to run these courses sustainably? If it is not the Department for Education or the Minister that will be ensuring additional funds, will it fall on local mayors to provide financial reassurance? Might the need for this kind of provision appear in local skills improvement plan? There would then be an expectation that a Metro Mayor would provide additional financial reassurance.

If not, I fear that this scheme will end up being something that largely happens in the private sector, where there is maybe a bit more risk appetite, and only with employers who can provide certainty about the economies of scale by placing several learners on courses. If a particular employer says, “Well, I want seven of my staff to do a specific course,” then someone might run one on that basis. But we are looking for colleges or independent providers to pre-emptively offer a course and see who signs up for it, so all these financial implications will only add to the potential nervousness around that. We heard several witnesses say that this measure has the potential to be a game changer for colleges, but only if they can afford to take the risk. This amendment, proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington, offers some potential for the Government to illustrate that that risk has been seriously considered.

It will be useful for the Committee if I specify some of the additional costs that learning providers will face. We know that one of the Bill’s objectives is that someone who studies in this kind of modular way should not pay any more than they would have done had they studied in what you might call the usual way on a short-term, full-time course. Providers are saying that delivering in this new way will be more expensive, so there is a gap. Someone has to fill that gap, and it will either be some form of Government or the provider themselves. If it is going to be the providers, they will have to think carefully about whether that will be affordable.

If we think, for example, about the recruitment costs for any college that takes on lecturers—advertising a position, going through the interviews, all the administrative costs with collating CVs and going through and meeting to discuss those CVs—and all those things that might normally happen in advance of a three-year university degree, with all the revenues that will come in from that, all those costs still apply. However, it might be that those costs apply to someone who will actually be working for a short length of time and with far less revenue coming into the learning provider, and the barriers to recruitment will arguably grow.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)]

It is an honour to serve under you, Mrs Cummins. I am supportive of the sentiment behind these amendments and recognise the importance of considering the impacts on providers. The Government have been fully mindful of the financial sustainability of providers during the development of the LLE, particularly of FE colleges. The Government are also mindful of the additional costs that providers may incur when offering shorter modular provision at large scale.

We engaged with a wide range of stakeholders to gather input, to inform policy development and to build awareness of the LLE. We are grateful to the stakeholders that have engaged with the Department on the LLE and, of course, we will continue to work closely with the sector on its design and delivery. It is important to note that the LLE and its ambitions have been strongly welcomed by the sector for the most part. Stakeholders responded positively to the flexibility and the keenness of a simpler finance system.

The Committee will be aware that the Government published an impact assessment for the Bill, which included a consideration of impact on the providers. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington and the hon. Member for Chesterfield both asked how the cost was constructed. The basis of the calculation is set out on pages 36 and 37 of the impact assessment. That sets out the estimates of the potential implementation costs to providers, which is separate to the wider assessment of the benefits of the LLE.

The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington also mentioned FE reclassification. He will know that the decision was taken by the Office for National Statistics, but we are supporting colleges with a package that includes an additional allocation of £150 million over the 2023-24 period, and we have invested £300 million in the reprofiling of payments before the end of the financial year, to eliminate the current deficit.

[Mr Perkins]

How does that capital allocation compare with the number of colleges that had, were in the process of negotiating, or have received offers for, private sector loans in advance of becoming public sector institutions? Will the amount of money allocated enable all those arrangements to go forward? Or is it likely that some will no longer go forward?

[Robert Halfon]

As well as the figures I mentioned, the DFE is working closely with colleges to try to deal with the difficulties that have come about because of the reclassification of FE colleges. I hope to be able to set out more on that in the weeks ahead.

[Mr Perkins]

Will the Minister give way again?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

Is the Minister saying that he is cognisant of the concerns, but that no additional money has been allocated in the recent Budget for the additional costs that providers have told us will be attached to this style of learning?

[Robert Halfon]

These things will be decided in future spending statements, and I have highlighted the extra money going into further education over the Parliament and over the coming Budget period.

The pilot scheme was mentioned briefly. I strongly recommend an article about the pilot scheme—the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington has probably read it—by a witness to our Committee, the vice-chancellor of Nottingham Trent University, who says that the whole purpose of the scheme was to show the system working. It was not about quantity, even though there are 100 available courses. He writes that

“the effective administration of those received shows that SLC systems and processes are ready to support modular study.”

In the rest of the article, which I will not detain the Committee by quoting at length, he mentions all the other courses and pilots on modular learning that there have been, stating:

“The In-Work Skills pilot was also a pathway policy for the LLE. Delivered by Institutes of Technology (IoTs)…10 IoTs delivered the In-Work Skills pilot, which was a 1-year pilot that delivered high quality, higher technical short courses…The IoTs delivered a total of 59 short courses to 3,060 learners”.

He also cites other figures to show the extent of the move towards flexible and modular learning.

Importantly, as the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington will know, the strategic priorities grant provides Government funding on an annual basis to support higher education providers’ ongoing teaching, and of course funding levels will be considered in the round at the next spending review, with the LLE in mind. Therefore, as the Government have been mindful of these concerns throughout the development of the LLE, and are confident that providers will be able to consider their own financial sustainability and costs when deciding which courses and modules to offer, we will not support the amendment.

[Matt Western]

We have had a pretty healthy debate on the amendments. I particularly appreciated the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield, who has expertise specifically across the further education sector, but also in the delivery of apprenticeships.

I hear what the Minister says about the Government being mindful of the costs and so on, but when I look at the provision of further education and the costs at FE colleges, I wonder whether the Government are really being mindful of the cost pressures for them, and I wonder whether they are being mindful of the cost pressures that face the higher education sector, in which 32% of providers are currently in deficit, or of the cost of delivering degree apprenticeships.

[Mr Perkins]

This is a crucial point. We have already heard about the 27% cuts to the further education sector between 2010 and 2019. The Minister was at pains to say, “Well, there are some pots of money that we are looking at,” but he has also made it absolutely clear that, as things stand, this is being handed over to the next Government with an additional price tag on it and no money allocated. That is what we have heard in today’s debate.

[Matt Western]

Indeed, which is why the amendments are important. We want to start this policy on solid foundations, because we buy into and support it, but currently it just does not have the financial structure to make it deliverable, because these institutions are already facing massive costs. As my hon. Friend said, there are pots of money, but they are small pots of money when the sectors—particularly the further education sector—are already at a significant disadvantage.

I admire the Minister’s ambition in wanting to increase the retention of staff across the further education sector, but we are also seeing in schools a massive haemorrhaging of the staff—expert teachers and lecturers and so on—and the technicians who support so many of these courses, because they just are not getting the remuneration that they deserve so are leaving. To retain people, we must give them the right reward, and they currently feel massively undervalued by the way the Government are doing things.

As the Minister said—he mentioned his two favourite words—he believes in the sector and its value. I urge him, in future Budget negotiations, to get the support that education needs, particularly in respect of the sectors we are discussing. Too often, they are described as the Cinderella sector, and it is just not good enough. We absolutely must believe in delivering proper education, whether it be technical or otherwise, across society, and presently that is just not happening.

My hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield reminded us of the issue of risk capital, as described by David Hughes, and the situation we have with the reclassification of debt. I am sure the sector feels completely financially handcuffed by where it is, because it just does not have the funds to do what it needs to do.

On top of that, my hon. Friend reminded us of the statement from Professor Rigby. When we think of an institution delivering a course once or twice a year—with a September, October or January start date for the delivery of courses—and suddenly increasing that from two to 12, it has six times as many. How does an institution staff that? How does it make that happen, as opposed to having modules and courses delivered by a certain number of staff at those start dates? It must lead to a multiplication of the resource, which comes with a significant financial burden. I just do not believe that the impact assessment underlines the reality of what the sector will face. As my hon. Friend reminded us, the context is the 27% reduction in real-terms funding in the FE sector between 2010 and 2019, which has made it all the more difficult.

Let me go back to the Minister’s point, because I love the words “degree apprenticeships” as well. They are fantastic programmes, but as I understand it the problem is that we are seeing a tailing off, and institutions are already saying they will not expand the programmes because of the associated costs. That gives the lie to the ambition, because if that is already beginning to reduce, what chance does this policy have? We will face the same sorts of challenges with lifelong learning, as it is currently set out, that institutions face with the delivery of degree apprenticeships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough for tabling this amendment and arguing for it so well. He is quite right that, given what we have been through over the past decade or so, the effective freeze in tuition fees has led to a significant decline in the value of the unit of resource, and he is right about the need for some form of futureproof guarantee that, should there be a rise in tuition fees, that should be matched by a consequent rise in the value of the lifelong loan entitlement.

Over the last decade, we have seen tuition fees reach £9,250 but they have essentially been frozen for the last five years, having had, as my hon. Friend explained, a marginal reduction back in 2017. We have seen a real-terms decline in their value. Indeed, Universities UK calculated that by the end of the 2024 academic year inflation would reduce the value of the annual tuition fee to £6,600 based on prices in 2012, when the fees cap was trebled to £9,000. That is a reduction of almost £2,500 in the unit of resource to an institution, which is putting huge pressures on those institutions. That was the point we were making in the debate on amendments 7 and 8. Institutions are under real financial pressure as there has been such a massive decline in the value of that unit of resource. London Economics has estimated that over the past decade, the overall income for students per unit of resource would be back at 2006 levels, when fees were £3,000. That gives some context as to just how much the sums involved have been devalued over time.

As I mentioned earlier, that devaluation is having a tangible effect on institutional financial sustainability, with many institutions reporting deficits and having to cross-subsidise their courses, take on more international students or borrow from the private sector. The amendment would seek to tie the lifelong learning loan to any rise in the value of tuition fees, as I have said. The point is that if this really is to be a lifelong loan entitlement, it is important that learners who benefit from a module in, say, two years’ time and who wish to return to studying 20 years later, in 2045, have access to the same quantity of learning as they would have done 20 years before. Otherwise, we will see the risk of individuals using their entitlement very early on in their lives paying the price of that and not being able to access further training or tuition later in life because they have used up their entitlements.

Given that there is a real need to make this work and to make the system as attractive as possible, we urge the Government to consider some form of indexation. Sir Philip Augar described this system as having

“the potential to be a game changer”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 45, Q89.]

We have heard that description before. But that potential can be realised only if the system is protected against the real risk of inflation. We saw inflation peak yet again yesterday—to, I think, 10.6%.

[Mr Perkins]

I want to come in at this moment, because we would all hope that learners who are looking for work and on universal credit might, as part of their efforts to get another job, take on courses and develop their skills. During the progression of the Bill that became the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, we highlighted issues about the entitlement to study for those in receipt of universal credit, and amendments to the skills Bill in both the Commons and the Lords would have enabled some people in receipt of universal credit to study. Those were removed by the Government, but at the time, they offered the reassurance that they were consulting with the Department for Work and Pensions about the issue. I have heard nothing more since, so I hope the Minister might be able to tell us what happened with that consultation. Does my hon. Friend agree that in order for this measure to be as transformational and game changing as we hope, people who are in receipt of universal credit must be able to access a loan to develop their skills in order to get into another job, rather than being told, “No, you can’t do that because you’re not spending enough time looking for another job”?

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend brings up a valid and pertinent point about the reality for so many people. The intent behind this legislation and policy is a good one, and it should be there to assist people in that particular predicament, but, as he says, it does not seem that that will necessarily be the case. However, I am sure that the Minister listened to his points and will address them in his response.

This amendment would ensure the long-term sustainability of the lifelong learning model and allow students who “bank” their credits to have the same chances later on in life to add to that bank. I will understand if the Minister is unable to accept the amendment as drafted, but given that he is planning on introducing long-lasting reforms to be used by people in the course of their lives, I would like to press him on how he envisages the value of the LLE being maintained over the years.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Third sitting)

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Thank you, Sir Robert, in advance of this morning’s sitting, and thanks to the Clerks for all their work hitherto.

I thought that the evidence sessions the other day were useful. The contributions of the Government witnesses, as well as those whom we had proposed, were extremely helpful. What we heard consistently was that the previous consultation was healthy, but we did not have the report back until relatively late. Perhaps there could be greater consultation.

The purpose behind the two grouped amendments 3 and 5 is to incorporate more consultation in the Bill and in particular the need for the Minister to consult stakeholders when deciding what method should be used to determine the fee limit. A second expectation to be included would be that the Minister consult the provider in question, higher education stakeholders and other stakeholders relevant to how many credits are attached to the credit-differentiated activity—that is the term used to describe non-traditional modes of teaching, or placement.

I start with amendment 3. The Bill gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to decide unilaterally what method to apply to courses in determining the fee method, whether the credit-based method or the fixed method. In the evidence sessions, we heard from Professor Press, the Vice-Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University, who has done a lot of work in this area. In what was not so much a confession as a revelation, he said that

“the bit I find most difficult to understand is the difference between the credit-based and the fixed-mechanism methods of calculating the fee cap.”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 5, Q4.]

In addition, we also helpfully heard from Julie Charge, the deputy chief executive officer at the University of Salford, about their experience of the Office for Students’ short-course trial, as it was the Office for Students that conducted the trail. We heard that that might have been better had it been undertaken by the Department for Education itself. Salford’s experience revealed two significant cohorts of people taking the loan: the 26 to 30-year-olds in one; and the 36 to 40-year-olds in the other. That is valuable data for the Government. I like to think that that will provide behavioural insight into how the opportunity for lifelong learning will apply, because there seems to be a market and a need for such provision among those cohorts. I hope that the Minister will be interested in learning from the trial and implementing it when deciding many of the things that he has the power to do in regulations.

The memorandum from the Department for Education to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee states that the fixed method will be used only

“for courses which do not easily lend themselves to the credit-based system”.

However, the Bill grants sweeping powers to the Secretary of State to decide what method should be used, irrespective of whether the fixed method should be used exceptionally. There is a concern here. If it is decided that the credit-based method should be used, it is important that that does not lead to unintended consequences for providers or learners. The Minister would therefore surely accept that there is a real benefit to sector consultation.

The importance and relevance was underlined by the fact that the Russell Group has expressed its support for the amendment, as it believes universities should have autonomy on all decisions relating to the types of courses and provision offered, and whether or not to modularise the courses and the associated credit. I expect the Minister might not want to include sector stakeholder consultation in the Bill, but, if he does not, what assurances can he give the sector that, first, there will be an avenue for sector stakeholders to contribute before the Secretary of State decides on the fee limit to be applied? Secondly, universities will have the ability to express an opinion as to what type of courses

“do not easily lend themselves to the credit-based system”,

and the Secretary of State will take that into account in deciding what method to apply.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The consultation that he refers to sets up an opportunity to debate clause 1. For me there were two key concerns that came out of the evidence sessions on Tuesday. The first was whether the policy would lead to a shift from employers having responsibility for their staff’s learning to employees now being expected to take responsibility. The second was whether that would be attractive enough for institutions to take them on, and whether the concerns about the financial stability of the sector had been considered in the Bill. The evidence sessions showed why it is so important that we have a full consultation on the issues.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is right that we heard quite widely from all the witnesses. Over the last 30 years, there has been a significant fall-off in the provision of adult education and of education or training through employers—we heard that from the CBI and others. There is a real concern about whether the proposal will lead to an individualisation of the responsibility for all training and skills, which would be to the detriment of what is needed for us economically as well as socially. I agree with his point about whether what is being proposed might be a burden in the context of the current education landscape and the financial precarity, which we particularly see in colleges and also in higher education institutions. We will come on to that when we discuss other amendments.

I will come back to the assurances I am seeking from the Minister on the need for consultation. I spoke of two. The final one I want to raise is that there was seemingly some confusion among the witnesses we heard from on Tuesday. These are heavyweight college leaders, who are widely respected across the sector. I am really seeking assurance from the Minister and his team that he himself will reassure the sector on the difference between the two fee limit methods.

I will turn to amendment 5. In the Bill, “credit-differentiated activity” is the term used to describe non-traditional learning activity, such as placements with employers. That is not a term that a lot of people will be familiar with; I am not sure if you, Sir Robert, or others would have been familiar with it ahead of getting involved with this legislation. An obvious example is in hospitals, where placements are a vital part of nursing degrees and other medicine-related courses.

Providers may wish to define future courses with a placement element to them or that include engagement with employers. That is to be welcomed, of course; it is a vital part of the learning experience—the direct, practical experience—that a person can have by being in that place of work and learning very much on the job alongside the theory they may have learned in the classroom. That is a vital part of their training—understanding not just the theory but how that relates in practice to the workspace.

The Bill currently allows the Secretary of State to set down in the regulations the description of the credit-differentiated activity to be undertaken and make provision about the number of credits attached to that type of activity. Given the vast range of areas that such activity could fall in and the number of sectors and bodies that could and, I believe, should be engaged—national health service trusts, other sector-representative bodies involved in course provision and qualification bodies—would it not make sense to ensure they are consulted before the Secretary of State puts a number of credits on the activity?

The amendment also includes consultation with the provider, which is important. Let us take the worst-case scenario. Say that a provider allows a student to undergo a placement during a course year: the Secretary of State provides for that activity to be 20 credits—i.e. 200 hours —but say, in reality, the placement is much more onerous, and the university envisaged that the student would spend 300 hours on placement, or 37.5 hours for eight weeks. That example illustrates that there would be a clear discrepancy. What mechanisms are in place in the legislation to prevent that happening? Would consultation with the provider not be sensible?

We also heard from Simon Ashworth of the Association of Employment and Learning Providers that

“awareness of the LLE is still underdeveloped.”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 39, Q78.]

That is backed up by the CBI’s education and skills survey 2022. We heard from Matthew Percival about that, and he explained that the survey revealed that four in five respondents were totally unaware of the plans to introduce the lifelong loan entitlement. We also heard examples on Tuesday of how previous Government initiatives in the skills space have massively underperformed the expectations of Government. I do not mean to criticise that, because some of the initiatives have been very positive, but it demonstrates how difficult it is to get some of those new initiatives up, running and accepted by institutions, and understood by employers and learners. We have seen that with T-levels and accelerated degrees.

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend is more generous than I am; he touches on one of the crucial parts of this entire debate. For the measures to have the force that we all hope for, providers have to be able to afford to run the courses, and, in the context of independent providers, to do so profitably. The Government have been very good at allotting budgets for projects that never get taken on and never deliver the numbers originally hoped for. There is every prospect, given the evidence that we heard this week, that this measure could fall into the same trap, if the issues raised by my hon. Friend are not addressed. It behoves the Government to ensure that they not only come up with a good idea but make it work for those who are being asked to deliver it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend has a lot of experience as a Member of Parliament for Middlesbrough, and understands how important it is, with economic change and new sectors emerging, that training and skills provision is available and co-ordinated. I worked with my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield on the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022; the introduction of local skills improvement plans was seen as a good proposal, but it is about delivery and making it work. It is important to have the right people involved in those plans, who are acting not simply out of self-interest but in the interests of the long-term—10 or 15 years hence. I still believe there is much work to be done on that.

Our amendment would bring all the relevant stakeholders together, simultaneously limiting unintended consequences and engaging the relevant groups with the policy while boosting awareness of the lifelong loan entitlement policy. I think this is a very sensible suggestion, but I guess I would say that.

So, on behalf of the sector, I just ask the Minister to provide some assurances that decisions made under clause 1(4) will not be implemented without sector and representative consultation and approval, and that is what these two amendments seek to ensure.

[Mr Perkins]

I do not intend to dwell on these two amendments; my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington has forcefully set out their purpose. Regarding the consultation, given what we heard in the evidence session, it is important that the sector is engaged. There is a real concern that until there is clarity about a new method of funding further education and skills, which we know will be more expensive for providers to provide, although—quite rightly—it will not be any more expensive for learners to learn, there will be a gap there. So, unless someone steps forward, there is a real danger that an excellent opportunity will be created for learners that they will not actually be able to access in their local area.

On the subject of the definition of a credit, it is important to remind the Committee what we heard in the evidence session. My hon. Friend asked:

“Should the Bill have written into it some sort of definition of what a credit is?”

Ellen Thinnesen from Sunderland College responded:

“My personal and professional opinion is that it should. If we are defining fee limits attached to credits, it is really important to communicate to a student what a credit means. Essentially, a student wants to know a number of things. First, how much is this going to cost me? Secondly, what will I have to expend in effort and energy to complete this module? Thirdly, what will I get for that module and those credits from the institution that I am choosing to go to? So transparency about the relationship of credit to fees, and of credit to module content and what is expected within that, is very important.”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 12.]

It was crucial and right that she said that, with her understanding of what motivates learners. It is also important, of course, that future employers understand what those credits mean; other witnesses referred to receiving a handful of certificates, but said that there was no clarity about what those certificates meant.

Alun Francis from Oldham College responded to a question from the hon. Member for Bassetlaw by saying:

“The more important questions will be about the standardisation of the credits…so that learners know what they are getting and paying for. That needs to be absolutely transparent.

It is also important to say that in these technical areas there is a big difference between what learners pay for here and in a traditional degree, because some degrees are positional goods—they are paying for the credential as much as the content—but in these qualifications they are paying for the content. Learners therefore need to be clear that what they are getting is what it says on the tin. The other aspects, I think, we will just get used to.”––[Official Report, Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Public Bill Committee, 21 March 2023; c. 13.]

Those are very powerful voices from the sector speaking in support of my hon. Friend’s amendment and if the Minister is not minded to support it, we will need real clarity for the sector as to how the definition of a credit will be assured if it is not in the Bill.

[The Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (Robert Halfon)]

I thank the shadow spokesman, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, for tabling his amendment and for his comments on it. He talked about the timing of the consultation and he said that it came out quite late. It came out quite late because we wanted to make sure that we got it right: we were having extensive consultation with the sector and with other stakeholders, as he rightly wants, and we wanted to make sure that we responded carefully. I do not know if he has seen the recent tweet by the vice-chancellor of the Open University, who said that he welcomed the engagement with the Government. There has been an LLE roundtable with previous Ministers and officials. I attended one such meeting only a few days ago on the LLE.

--- Later in debate ---

To sum up, we cannot support these amendments. Amendment 3 is unnecessary and burdensome, and amendment 5 seeks to require that the Government consult on an issue that they have already consulted on, and will continue to consult on and engage with all the way through.

[Mr Perkins]

If I have understood correctly, the Minister is effectively saying that what makes up a credit is up to the providers. They can decide what constitutes a credit, 10 credits or whatever else. Given the feedback we heard from Ellen Thinnesen and Mr Francis, and given the reservations we heard from those in the sector that there is a danger this might be burdensome and costly for them, how will the Government ensure that providers will not stretch what is worth 10 credits or a credit? How can we ensure that there is quality within this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

It is interesting to hear the voice of one of my hon. Friend’s local colleges in Middlesborough. The need for standardisation is at the heart of the issue; as I say, where this is working currently there is an existing relationship between education providers—whether colleges or higher education institutions—when it comes to the person who may be transferring out or in and what they will have attained by arriving at the other institution. That is really important.

We have to establish a currency or there will not be trust between the institutions when it comes to taking people on—they might not appreciate the value or standard that the learner may have previously achieved. It will take time for providers to build up these relationships and that is why standardised academic transcripts are important.

[Mr Perkins]

In the evidence session, we heard the Minister at pains to encourage our witnesses to say that as a result of the new approach there might be greater collaboration between the further and higher education sectors. We all recognise that that would be a good thing, and my hon. Friend and I have seen good examples of that. Does amendment 9 not give the opportunity for that collaboration to be far more consistent than it currently is? If someone has clarity about what they are getting at every stage, about the transfer and about where the responsibilities lie in the learning, it is much easier for those partnerships to form.

[Matt Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that these relationships form—and they are relationships of trust, really. That is why consistency and a standardised approach are really important to give substance to that trust and relationship.

We also heard from Coventry University, which is very much at the vanguard of modular study. We heard from Dr Norton, who was concerned about how stackability might actually work in practice. She was keen to ensure that credits are widely recognised and that there is a currency across the sector. She suggested that standardised transcripts would provide the absolute clarity and brand recognition—perhaps acceptance—that are needed. I would be grateful if the Minister can explain a bit more about what a standardised transcript looks like, what it could include and, importantly, what value it will hold.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Perkins]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. In this place, we often talk about the cost of learning as if the major cost to an employer is paying for the training. Of course, one of the other costs to an employer is the amount of time that an employee is out of the workplace in the learning institution. That is a very real consideration for many employers. For precisely that reason, a shorter-form commitment is often very attractive to employers, but it might enable their employee to develop skills that will either help them in their current job or help them into their next job. Particularly given that as a country, we are way below the OECD average in the amount that employers spend on training their staff, anything that can be done to make it more affordable for employers to let their employees have time away from work should be encouraged. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Matt Western]

It may come as no surprise that I often do agree with my hon. Friend. He genuinely has insight into and expertise in this sector.

I have a particular concern from not only the evidence that we heard from Matthew Percival of the CBI but my anecdotal experience of talking to businesses in my constituency, the Federation of Small Businesses, the chamber of commerce and others. There is a desire to upskill and improve the training provided to employees, but small and medium-sized enterprises face a particular challenge in doing so. There is a barrier to their taking up opportunities because the size of the course, the commitment and the financial obligations are just too much.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for moving the amendments. Let me respond first to how they are worded before I address the specific issue of the 30 credits. Amendments 2 and 6 have been worded to limit the default credit value to 10 and 20 credits respectively. I completely get that the intention is to probe the extent to which the Government are prepared to loan-fund modules of fewer than 30 credits under the LLE, but the amendments would not achieve that end because that is not what the default credit values in the Bill relate to.

It is worth clarifying the purpose of the default credit value: it is intended to allow fee limits to be set on full courses if they are not credit-bearing or the course is more suited to annual fee limits than credit-based fee limits. As mentioned, such courses may include some degree programmes at Oxford and Cambridge, and other courses such as nursing. For those types of courses, the fee limit will be calculated using a default number of credits instead of any provider-assigned credits. The default values will be set at 120 credits a year for full-time courses, which aligns with the sector-recognised standard number of credits in a full year.

The default credit values are there to provide a credit value for non-credit-bearing full courses only. They will not apply to modules. As all modules under the LLE will be credit bearing, modules will always have the fee limit calculated using the actual provider-assigned number of credits, not a default number of credits.

The Government have been clear that the modules must have a minimum size of 30 credits for funding purposes. We believe this is a suitable level to attract fees and maintenance loans as it represents a substantial-enough package of learning. It is based on significant consultation with stakeholders and is much smaller and more flexible for training, retraining and upskilling opportunities than the current one-academic-year minimum-size offer.

As mentioned, modules of a smaller size can also be funded—provided that they are bundled together in a single entry from a parent course to meet the 30 credits—to allow sufficient flexibility for retraining purposes. This will mean that funding will be available for a 20-credit module and a 10-credit module of the same course combined.

The hon. Gentleman cited the Augar report. Philip Augar is the key architect of this reform, alongside the former shadow spokesman for skills and universities, Gordon Marsden, who often spoke about lifelong learning. The Augar report is clear that a 30-hour credit represents a

“a significant amount of teaching and learning, and is an appropriate minimum for upskilling or reskilling.”

[Mr Perkins]

Will the Minister clarify for the Committee and for others listening to our proceedings how much loan a student who took on 30 credits would need?

[Robert Halfon]

Under the current loan system, the loan would be divided up in proportion to the 30 credits that the student was taking. It would depend on whether the credit is charged at £77 or £60, which would depend on whether the provider had a teaching excellence framework or an access and participation plan. If the credit was charged at £77, it would be £77 times the 30 credits. It would then be up to the student to decide whether they wanted to do the course.

To return to amendment 2, to cap all default values at 10 credits would make them unfit for purpose, as a full-time year is 120 credits. With that in mind, the Government cannot support the amendment.

Lifelong Learning (Higher Education Fee Limits) Bill (Second sitting)

Toby Perkins Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st March 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Matt Western]

Q Simon, could I briefly ask you what role the new platforms might play—online platforms particularly—in the delivery of LLE? How do we ensure that any new providers coming into this area provide quality?

Simon Ashworth: That is a really good question. You can look back in history at the individual skills accounts and some of the challenges. We have moved forward significantly and have some learnings, including ensuring that we have regulated providers who are delivering from a regulated list of qualifications. Some online platforms now negate some of the challenges we had historically around a paper-based system, which was probably a little bit of its time. There are key principles there around the controls and the providers.

As I said, the Office for Students regulates the provider base. I think we have moved on significantly from where we were previously in terms of access to providers and how the system can and does work. The whole concept of empowering learners and giving them an individual lifelong learning account is a really exciting move. It gives them much more control over where they access their provision, who they choose and when they choose it. I think it is a real game-changer for the individual. I would be less worried about some of the challenges we saw 20 years ago when we moved to a similar approach.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Q Matthew, we always seem to talk about skills shortages, and it feels like the sense among employers that there are skills and labour shortages now is stronger than ever. However, a recent National Audit Office report showed that in 2018-19, businesses were spending less on training than they had been nine years before. What is your sense as to why employers who recognise there are massive skills shortages are at the same time not spending the extra amount you might expect on training in comparison to 10 years before?

Matthew Percival: There is an interesting dynamic at play, particularly at the moment, around labour shortages. Given the extent of the skills and labour shortages, there is a stronger incentive and a stronger need than ever to be able to meet your skills needs, yet, at the same time, there are forces pulling in the opposite direction. I mentioned that in this environment, we have had a lot of job-to-job moves within our labour market. People have been able to move into different roles for more money, and there is pressure around salaries on hiring and salaries for retention. If you do not do something on retention salaries, you incentivise everybody to move more and to swap employers, so you get that element of the squeezing of budgets.

There are other things that we see going on in relation to the current shortage environment. There can be an element of the off-the-job opportunity cost of a worker going off to do training. When you are already short on the frontline, it is even harder to free somebody up to go and put the time into the training, and we see a number of the providers in our membership—we have a mix; as well as the plcs that we are most synonymous with, there are universities, colleges and independent providers in our membership—particularly the colleges feeling the pinch when there are these shortages. They also have their own workforce challenges, which often make it so much more difficult to be able to provide the training where the employer is willing to do so. It is more important than ever to be able to address the skills gaps, but it is also more difficult to be able to deliver that at the same time, rather than a universally positive driver towards unlocking more investment than we have.

I think we miss a trick in terms of policy to be able to think about the question of what it would take to create an environment to unlock higher levels of business investment in skills. A lot of our political debate around skills often gets focused on what the state will buy for the individual, rather than on how the state could play a role in creating an environment for higher levels of business investment. An imperative for us would be to have more of that conversation.

[Mr Perkins]

Q Simon, we just heard from Matthew that one of the reasons that businesses are not able to invest in training is their inability to access a course, maybe because the provider—whether it is from the public or private sectors—cannot recruit the lecturers or the course does not pay. One of the strengths of your members has been their relationships with employers, and what we have seen under the apprenticeship regime is that, since we have had more of an employer-led approach, the bigger employers have taken on more and more apprenticeships, and SMEs have quite often been left out. Given that one of the ideas in the Bill is that new courses will be produced—to be paid for by the learners—to what extent is there an expectation that learners at SMEs might miss out again? The bigger employers might be able to have a course with 10 to 15 employees who can come to the fore. Once again, we will have a skills system that excludes SMEs.

Simon Ashworth: I think there is a real possibility of that risk materialising. As you say, one of the big challenges for SMEs is the complexity of accessing and funding the system. We know that large employers have a significant influence, certainly on institutions, around course development and course design, so we could see some of the challenges that you have articulated replicated here in terms of the provision and some of the accessibility arrangements. As you say, on the apprenticeship side, the role of providers to support SMEs is pivotal, because SMEs and small employers tend to be time poor as well—I am thinking about their engaging with the system. But I would absolutely echo the challenges with the LLE that we have seen in apprenticeships.

[Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)]

Q Your comments so far have been very interesting. There are two things I would like to raise. First, you mentioned publicity, and a lot of firms do not know what training is available. That obviously needs to be addressed by employers, politicians and the Government.

Secondly, one of the things we find when going around the country in various roles is that businesses complain that they are not getting people trained to have the skills they require. Do you think that the Bill will encourage more businesses to get more involved with universities and colleges, so that they can work together to make sure that they are encouraging colleges and universities to have the courses to fill the skills shortages? Subsequently, the firms will be able to participate in the upskilling, as well as individuals, or the Government.

Matthew Percival: I completely agree with the sentiment and the objective of how we get employers more involved in the system; I am not sure this is the mechanism we are pinning our hopes on for that. You would expect more of that objective to be achieved through a reform like the local skills improvement plans, which try to get that employer voice out to provide us with that bit more, rather than this being the specific mechanism for it.

To your earlier comment about employer engagement with programmes, the job we really have to do is not just to say, “Let’s make employers aware of the LLE”, but to ask whether we actually have a coherent story to take to employers and say to them, “This is what is valuable for you about engaging in this process and why you should do it.” If we have that story to tell, we can be a lot more effective in helping to engage people.

Often the way it comes across to employers is that there is a whole plethora of initiatives and they will say, “I am confused as to which one”. I know part of my job, as a representative employer, is to hold a bit of that challenge back to them and say, “Well, you can’t say both that you need it to be dead simple and there to be only one option, and when there is only one option say, ‘There isn’t an option that works for me.’”

We need a plurality of different initiatives and options, but we also need to challenge and support employers to navigate that environment. Rather than just saying, “Let’s try to raise awareness” and getting them to tick the box that says, “I’ve heard of the LLE”, because they might have heard about it as individuals rather than as employers, it is about how much we can get to the objective of them giving us quite a consistent message that, “This is the value in it for me, and I am confident that I know that element of it”, rather than just brand awareness.

Simon Ashworth: We refer to our members—providers —as the sales force. I think there is absolutely a role for Government to do with engaging employers. Our members—independent training providers, colleges and universities—deal with employers all the time. It is important to harness their links with industry and employers around awareness of the LLE. Ultimately, the LLE and the entitlement is about the individual as well. There is the employer demand and the employer support, but there is also the individual because, at the end of the day, it will be the individual who takes out the loan entitlement. There is a role for organisations such as UCAS to help promote that.

I would certainly encourage the Government to work with stakeholders and providers, which could do some of the heavy lifting around awareness. I do not think it is just the Government’s role to try to reach a million employers. I think they need to pull on all the different stakeholders that can promote the programme and make it a success.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With a brief final question, Toby Perkins.

[Mr Perkins]

Q Matthew, you were speaking about advertising the programme. When more businesses know about it, might some of them say, “Well, actually, I don’t have to pay for training myself any more. I don’t have to pay it through my apprenticeship levy pot. I can expect my employees to start investing in themselves, rather than me spending this money.” Do you see the possibility of this shifting the burden of who pays for training?

[The Chair]

I would love to know the answer, but unfortunately it is now 2.30 pm.

[Mr Perkins]

Oh goodness!

[The Chair]

Thank you to both Simon and Matthew. If you have anything else to say, you can always do so in writing.

Matthew Percival: Happy to follow up.

Examination of Witness

Sir Philip Augar gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Matt Western]

Thank you.

[Mr Perkins]

Q There are several things that could result in this not leading to the amount of take-up that we all hope for, and one of those is not enough institutions actually offering courses in this format. You spoke in your review about the incentives for higher education institutions needing to change, and those changing their behaviour. At this stage, are you able to see whether there is enough in this to mean that we are likely to get the enough course availability for people for this to be the game changer that you hoped?

Sir Philip Augar: That is a question that I ask myself quite a lot, Mr Perkins. It is hard to come up with a definitive answer. Obviously, for the independent providers and FE colleges, this is a massive opportunity. This is a chance to completely expand their market, and I would have thought that they are already on to it. For the universities, I am not so sure, because there is considerable demand from domestic and overseas students for the full three-year degrees.

I would hope that the forward-thinking institutions are looking at that demographic downturn in 2030 and thinking that it is not far away. This will come by very quickly. The cohort that starts in 2025 will have its three years and then we are into it. I hope that the forward-thinking institutions—the type that will be interested and able to offer modularised, credit-based lifelong learning—will be thinking about this: if not now, then pretty quickly.

[Mr Perkins]

Q I will not ask you to name the forward-thinking institutions, but is there a danger that the Russell Group universities will say this is not for them, and it will be what some people see as secondary HE institutions that do it? Is there a danger that it will get seen as a second-rate option at level 6 when we get to that?

Sir Philip Augar: That is clearly a risk, but a lot depends on how lifelong learning is portrayed by the schools and colleges that are speaking to young people and parents. Not everyone is suited to an academic route. That does not make someone who pursues a vocational route a less worthy person; it just makes them different. I very much hope that we can get away from thinking it is university or bust. It is absolutely not, and this is an important way to get us there.

[Mr Perkins]

Thank you.

[Andy McDonald]

Q Sir Philip, you talked earlier about the role of parents and pupils, and their ability to make informed choices. In the course of your work, did you come to any views about engagement with business? As MPs, we see a mixed bag in terms of business engagement in the education system and the transfer of knowledge about opportunity. Did you come to any views about whether, for example, there is space in the curriculum to develop this sort of awareness and engagement? How important is that?

Sir Philip Augar: It is a very good point, and the panel did engage directly with employers and representative organisations. We had a number of roundtable meetings and invited them all along. The response varied, frankly. Some representative bodies and some employers absolutely got it. There is possibly a sense in other quarters of, “Look, this really isn’t our problem. We can’t get the staff, you know.” Actually, that is your problem. I am a big fan of the LSIPs. The engagement between local business, local education providers, chambers of commerce and the rest has the potential to close the gap that you identify, and I agree with you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robert Halfon]

Q Professor Rigby, you talked about unintended consequences. What is your view on how they should be dealt with?

Professor Rigby: Probably, in this Bill, the solution resides in that course year. If one could identify a course year with a loose allocation of credit—let’s say, plus or minus 20 or 25—that would not break the intent of the lifelong loan entitlement being a 30-credit minimum, but it allows 18-year-olds to fall over once or twice during a year and to be picked up in-year, rather than getting another £3,000 taken off their lifelong loan entitlement.

[Mr Perkins]

Q You will be aware that the legislation envisages moving from an academic to a course year, which can start at any time and run for 12 months from there. Universities, like colleges, are traditionally much more used to a big intake at the start of the academic year, checking out later on. Often, they have monetised their facilities over the summer, encouraging foreign students in that period. What sort of challenges will moving to the proposed approach pose for universities? In practical terms, do you see a lot of courses starting at other times of the year or, as it is broadly up to universities what they choose to run, will they end up choosing to run in line with when they do currently?

Dr Norton: Coventry has multiple start dates throughout the year already—we have six, I believe—so the volume of applications may increase throughout the year, which would cause some capacity issues, but overall I think it is a positive.

Professor Rigby: Most universities currently have multiple start dates, even the research-intensive ones, mainly because a lot of international students start their master’s courses in January. In the Bill as written, this is a technical realignment, which means that instead of someone starting partway through a year and their fees running through four years if they are on a three-year course, their fees will run over three years but in practice they will start and end in the same month. It is a technical change.

Throughout the Bill, I have identified a multitude of technical changes that will affect the provision of probably a couple of million existing students in order that, in ’27-28, we will start to see the roll-out of the LLE. Intuitively, I wonder why form does not follow function, in that we should design the LLE and then make sure that the funding system will permit it, rather than changing the funding system ahead and precluding some of the design opportunities that would otherwise reside in the LLE.

[Mr Perkins]

Q On your own institutions providing level 4 and 5 courses—with level 6 coming further downstream—do you anticipate offering significant numbers of those courses, or will you wait predominantly until the level 6 offer?

Professor Rigby: All undergraduate degrees tend to be 4, 5, 6. We currently accept top-ups into 5 and into 6, but there is limited demand at the moment for that provision. The real opportunity here exists in growing this ecosystem almost organically, and colleges working with their cognate universities—we are federated with Bath College, for example, and New City College in London. We are developing novel provision in that space, assuming that the funding will permit it. There is little that the funding will not permit; it is just not so obvious to the person in receipt of it. There is little in terms of top-up, one-year, short courses that we cannot do currently, but we sometimes have to look for something from commercial entities, rather than individuals taking out loans.

[Matt Western]

Q May I start with a couple of questions to you, Professor Rigby? On how the legislation is written, I have sensed concern elsewhere about giving the Secretary of State powers to remove modules or to say that they will not be funded. What is your view of how such powers might be exercised were we to have an institution or organisation where there is, not a vendetta, but a certain sense of action against it?

Professor Rigby: As I read the Bill as written, nothing gives me direct cause for concern, but it does give permissions for things to happen down the line that are not part of what is conceptualised at the moment in the lifelong learning entitlement. For example, nothing in the Bill would stop the Secretary of State in future refusing to fund a module or course in a particular discipline. Universities are worried about that, because we have seen the removal of extra funding for courses such as archaeology and design over the past few years. It makes us conscious that the Bill, while not designed for that function, gives permission to the Secretary of State to set fees at whatever level they might want for a degree that they might like, or to refuse funds at any level for a degree that they do not like. All of us around the table might worry about archaeology—notwithstanding that you did it; people do move on later—but most of us would see that design is something that is broadly useful to the economy.