Lauren Edwards MP: speeches

Speeches

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I do not support the amendment but will speak in favour of the Bill. As many have highlighted, there is a gap between the skills needed by employers and the skills held by the UK workforce. Skills shortage vacancies have been on the rise year after year, and the latest data shows that a third of all vacancies are due to skills shortages. It is holding our country back and, therefore, the system needs to change. The immediate skills gaps need to be addressed urgently, but just as pressing is the need to have a single body that considers the skills that our businesses will need 10, 20 or 30 years from now, with 1.4 million new jobs predicted by 2035 alone. Many of those new jobs will need technical green skills, digital skills and understanding of artificial intelligence. If our Government are to achieve the changes in this country that so many people voted for—more homes, green energy and economic growth that puts money back into people’s pockets—skills are the key ingredient. The importance of apprenticeships and technical qualifications to that mission cannot be underestimated. Indeed, I was immensely proud when the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary visited MidKent College in my constituency before the election to set out their ambition to put vocational education on the same footing as academic university education. If Skills England is to achieve its aims and help us to meet the skills challenges our country faces, it must cover all areas. I therefore welcome the Bill, which folds IfATE into Skills England to enable that integrated approach to support our labour market and economy. As others have mentioned, the Bill will make Skills England an Executive agency of the Department for Education. I am pleased that Ministers amended the Bill in the other place to require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament detailing the exercise of functions conferred on her by the Bill. I understand that will also make clear the functions that Skills England will take on and the expected effects of those functions. I likewise welcome the commitment to publishing details of the framework that will be used to hold Skills England to account for its delivery and its relationship with employers. The clarity those documents will provide is most welcome. I will also take this opportunity briefly to welcome the reforms announced by the Government during National Apprenticeship Week. The apprenticeship levy under the former Government, well meaning though it was, was too cumbersome and restrictive for too many employers and learners. As a result, apprenticeship starts fell off a cliff, and the latest data on apprenticeship completion shows a rate of just 55% in England. I am therefore pleased that the Government have listened to employers and training providers and committed to making the new growth and skills levy, which will replace the apprenticeship levy, simpler, more flexible and employer-led. I note that Skills England will be tasked with carrying out analysis of the broader types of training that will be eligible under the new levy and I look forward to seeing the outcome of that work, which will be hugely beneficial to employers and apprentices. A common issue with the current apprenticeship schemes in this country, as others have mentioned, is that it does not work for small and medium-sized enterprises, which do not have large human resources departments to help navigate the often complex skills landscape. Nowhere is this more apparent than in my local authority area of Medway where 90% of all businesses are SMEs. Can the Minister set out how the Government will ensure that the voices of SMEs will be heard, so that we get an apprenticeship framework that works for all types of businesses? That is particularly important if we are to drive growth across all parts of the country. I know, for instance, that there are some larger businesses looking at how they can provide practical apprenticeship support to SMEs in their supply chain, so it would be good to know whether the Government are considering how they can best incentivise approaches such as this, which will help hugely by “de-risking” apprenticeships for SMEs. Likewise, I know that there are some amazing smaller training providers. I have a fantastic women-led one in my constituency called Umbrella Training. It is equally important that these providers’ experiences and needs are reflected in the new apprenticeship system. There are always risks associated with change; that is unavoidable. There is obviously some concern that the transfer of IfATE to Skills England may lead to a level of disruption, so it would be helpful if the Minister provided details of the main risks identified by her Department for the transition and how they will be managed and mitigated. Doing so would help to provide assurance to those currently undertaking apprenticeships and other technical qualifications, as well as to employers. It will be particularly important to ensure that the knowledge and expertise of staff at IfATE—no doubt built up over many years—is not lost during this process. It will also be helpful for Skills England to set out a number of other issues in due course, such as what changes may be proposed to the local skills improvement plan framework, and assurance that local areas will be able to prioritise sectors or industries that are key to driving their local economy that may not feature in the Government’s industrial strategy, as mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) earlier in the debate. Anything further that the Minister can say on these points at this stage would be welcome. Finally, clause 6 removes the requirement to review technical educational qualifications at regular intervals. Instead, the Secretary of State will have the flexibility to focus on reviews based on need. It would be helpful if, in her response, the Minister outlined what steps will be taken to ensure that the quality and relevance of qualifications is maintained under the new framework.

• 29 Oct 2024 · IPP Sentences · Hansard source

  More

  I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) for securing this debate. The introduction of IPP sentences was well intentioned but in reality it has gone badly wrong. That is not only my view but the view of Lord Blunkett, who was Home Secretary when IPP sentences were introduced. We know that two of the key failures were that IPP sentences were intended for only the most serious violent and sexual offences but in practice captured many of the lower level criminal offences and were applied to shorter sentences, and that the practical implications of the recall provision were not properly appreciated or considered at the time of introduction. From what I understand, we have cross-party agreement on that assessment and on the intention to correct it. I view today’s debate as being about how we can best and most quickly achieve that aim and address, as others have said, a gross injustice. As a MP for only a matter of months, I am already acutely aware of the toll those sentences have taken, not only on the prisoners who are affected but on their family members. I have at least two constituents who are currently recalled to prison because of non-criminal breaches of their licences and who are dealing with post-traumatic stress and other mental health challenges. That is driven to a significant extent by the uncertainty about whether they will ever be released or even about when their next parole hearing will be. As I and others have mentioned, that also significantly affects the family. I am sorry to say that I have been made aware that one of their partners has committed suicide in recent days. Her family’s view is that her losing her partner and her main source of support, while he was on one of those sentences, has been a contributing factor. I know the Minister and the Secretary of State are taking action to implement the Victims and Prisoners Act 2024, passed by the last Government, and I really welcome that. The new automatic termination process and the presumption to terminate, and reducing the associated qualifying periods, will help a significant number of those currently on IPP licences. I ask the Minister to consider what additional steps the Government could take to accelerate the safe release of IPP prisoners who are still in custody, and to prevent the recall merry-go-round which many have experienced. Recalled prisoners are a growing proportion of the total number of IPP prisoners in England and Wales. Many of the reasons for recall speak more to the need for mental health provision than for a recall to prison. For instance, one of my constituents was recalled for things he said to the police during a mental health crisis while intoxicated. Having served 17 years on an IPP sentence, he will now be in prison for an indeterminate length of time while waiting to be seen by the Parole Board, having committed no further criminal offences. As far back as 2008, the chief inspectors of prisons and probation were highlighting the lack of resources necessary to rehabilitate IPP prisoners and the enormous strain IPP sentences placed on the prison system and the Parole Board. We know we inherited from the last Government a prison estate and a criminal justice system that is now in even worse shape. It is teetering on the edge and requiring the early release of some prisoners where it is considered safe to do so. I certainly welcome the action the Minister and his colleagues have taken to begin to clean up the mess. Last week in the main Chamber we were told that IPP sentences would be excluded from the sentencing review announced by the Secretary of State. I understand the reasons why, but the actions that are being taken for those on IPP sentences and the new sentencing review must speak to each other, particularly where they are addressing common challenges such as the need to focus on rehabilitation and support in the community and to free up prison places across the prison estate. Key to this will be the IPP action plan. We have a plan, but as yet no report to Parliament on its effectiveness. My understanding is that that was due in March, but was delayed to May by the previous Government and has still not been published. I therefore urge the Minister to bring forward that publication as a matter of urgency, together with the annual report by the Secretary of State on steps taken to support those serving IPP sentences with their rehabilitation and progress towards release. I also urge the Minister to consider the ways in which the IPP action plan could be improved, reflecting on some of the feedback on its inadequacy that has been highlighted by previous Justice Committees and other civil society organisations. We must understand the adequacy of the current support available to prisoners serving IPP sentences or who have been recalled and have clear measures of assessment. We cannot continue to have IPP prisoners languishing in our overcrowded jails. As of March this year, 80% of unreleased IPP prisoners had been in prison for over twice their original tariff length. I previously mentioned that IPP sentences had been attached to offences other than the most serious offences that were intended in the original legislation. I note that around 190 IPP prisoners are still in custody more than 10 years after completing their original tariff of two years. As the Justice Committee, the Howard League for Penal Reform and the Prison Reform Trust have said, there are high rates of self-harm and recall to prison among IPP prisoners. That should cause us to look very closely at the adequacy of the support they are receiving, both in prison and when out on licence, and make improving it a priority for the new Labour Government. It is self-evident that those two things are linked, and that it will be very difficult for IPP prisoners to show that they no longer present a threat to the public if they are not receiving intensive support to deal with the psychological effects of believing they may never leave prison despite, for instance, having passed the end of the two-year tariff more than a decade previously. Lord Moylan has in the past described IPP sentences as “a form of mental torture”, as other Members have referenced today. I agree with him that we have a moral responsibility to administer justice to IPP prisoners, who have been neglected for too long. Some Members have today raised resentencing. I know from her answer to my question in the Chamber last week that the Secretary of State is not in favour of resentencing. However, it is not clear to me why it could not be done in a way that balances the protection of the public with justice for the individual offender, as recommended by the Justice Committee in the past, via an expert committee that could correct any disproportionate sentences while considering public safety. A wide range of respected organisations consider that that could be done and I would welcome more clarity from the Minister on that point. Just as I opened with words from Lord Blunkett, so I will end with them. He has described the current situation concerning recalled IPP prisoners in particular as “unequal”, “unjust” and “immoral”. The coalition Government took the right step in ending IPP sentences in 2012, but they left unfinished business. Those still serving IPP sentences, or who have been recalled, need a system that will be fairer to them and give them the necessary support to leave prison while preserving public safety. It is our issue to fix as the new Labour Government.