Neil O'Brien MP: speeches 2025

Speeches

• 13 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister says that this is an excessively onerous requirement. Could she give us some sense of the volume of work required as a result of this section in the 2009 Act? What does “onerous” mean? How many are having to devote how many man hours to doing what? How many people are employed purely to do what? What is the evidence that this is “onerous”?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Lady has already covered this, but is she happy to write to me about the level 7 apprenticeships?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. This statutory instrument effectively kicks the can down the road for a year while the Government come to a decision on the CITB’s future. That is obviously not ideal from the sector’s point of view, but I can see that it gives the Government time to think. The Opposition thank Mark Farmer for his thorough and very frank review, and for his analysis of the big challenges facing the sector in building a proper skills pipeline. His recommendations for a “fundamental reset” were very clear, including merging the two remaining ITBs into a single workforce planning and development body for both construction and engineering, supported by a statutory levy. The Department for Education has already said in response that it will not merge the two ITBs. I have some questions I would like answered today. I appreciate that it can be difficult for Ministers to answer everything in these short debates, but I would be very grateful if the Minister undertook to write on some of these issues if there is no time to answer today. In its briefing for this debate, the CITB explained that £143 million, or more than 12% of all the funds raised from the levy over the lifetime of this Parliament, will be spent on “running the business, including grant and levy administration”. That equates to about £28 million a year. Does the Minister think that kind of share—£1 in every £8—is appropriate? If not, what share would be appropriate? My second question is about the Government’s emerging thinking on the CITB. The Farmer review noted that the CITB had delivered useful training, but “it is not delivering the level of strategic forward thinking, scale and pace of influence or tangible bottom line impact that the industry now requires”. Specifically, the review said that the CITB had too little focus on upskilling the existing workforce, did not police well enough how levy funds were used, and needed a clear, modular, unitised system of qualifications. Can the Minister say anything about her emerging thinking on the future of the CITB? A third question is about the growth and skills levy. The Government have said that they will allow employers to take funds out of the current apprenticeship levy to spend on things that are not apprenticeships. The Secretary of State for Education has recently talked about allowing 50% of funds to be spent in that way. Other things equal, of course, we will end up with fewer apprenticeships if we take a lot of money out of apprenticeships. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact of allowing employers to take 50% out of their levy funds to spend on non-apprenticeships in, for example, construction? What will that do to the number of apprenticeship starts and participation? There is an overlap between the apprenticeship levy and the CITB levy for firms in this industry. If, for example, it turns out that employers are allowed to take out 50%, what would that do to the number of apprenticeships in construction? I ask not least because the CITB has identified apprenticeships as a key route into the sector. Fourthly, what assessment has the Minister made of the extraordinary joint appeal by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institute of Building and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for level 7 apprenticeships in the built environment to be exempt from the Government’s plans to cut level 7 apprenticeships? Those organisations say that they are “deeply concerned” by the Government’s plans and that cutting level 7 apprenticeships in this sector will be bad for upskilling existing workers and will be particularly bad for access to the profession for less well-off people. Will the Minister heed those warnings from a sector that is very worried about the Government’s plans by protecting level 7 construction apprenticeships from the planned cull so that less well-off people can get top-level jobs in these very important professions? I hope the Minister can answer some of these questions today, but if not, I hope she will write to us.

• 10 Mar 2025 · “Break Down Barriers to Opportunity” Mission · Hansard source

  More

  Labour’s plan says that the early years must be the top priority, but a survey by the National Day Nurseries Association finds that nursery fees are going up by 10% on average because the Government are not compensating nurseries for the cost of the national insurance increase. Will the Government rethink that decision, which the Early Years Alliance has described as “catastrophic”, or will it be just another example of a tax on working people?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Reading for Pleasure · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq). What is displacing reading for pleasure among children is smartphones and social media, including in schools. The Department for Education’s own behaviour survey found that nearly half of pupils in years 10 and 11 report that in most or all lessons, mobile phones are being used when they should not be. The guidance is not working, so why are the Government continuing to block our proposals for a proper ban on smartphones in schools?

• 10 Mar 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source

  More

  One reason why England’s schools rose up the international league tables in recent years is that they spent more time on core academic subjects such as English and maths. Having fallen sharply under the last Labour Government, the share of pupils doing double or triple science at GCSE has also gone up from 70% to 98%. Can the Minister reassure the House that time will not be taken away from the core academic subjects, and that their content will not be cut back, as a result of the curriculum review?

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Lewell-Buck. We have had some superb speeches on all sides of the House today, starting with my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) who led us brilliantly. I thank the nearly 115,000 people who triggered this debate by signing a petition against the education tax, and particularly those who are here today. There is a good reason why all previous Governments of all colours have avoided taxing education. It is hard to imagine a Tony Blair Government doing what this one are now doing. In fact, we know that he slapped the idea down hard when it was suggested. Likewise, Clement Attlee did not do it, and nor did Harold Wilson or Jim Callaghan. The rest of Europe does not do it. But under this Government, schools are being hit by a triple whammy of VAT, business rates and higher national insurance. Even some Government Ministers have their doubts about this. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, no less, told the girls at Redmaids’ high school in 2022 that he opposed his party’s policy on taxing independent schools and said that it would not bring in what his own party was claiming. What an extraordinary thing for the Chief Secretary to have said. As the Labour hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) said, the Government are doing exactly what they promised they would not do by raising tax on working people. The Government’s claim is that they need to find some money. I note that they are able to find billions and billions to fund their bizarre payment to Mauritius to take our own territory off of us, but even if I could not think of anywhere that the Government could save some money—and I can—my advice would be that, if they want to tax people who have more money, they should tax people who have more money, rather than taxing education. The problem with taxing education is that it catches people who are not rich; it catches people who are sacrificing so much to invest in education. That is unselfish and has wider social benefits. If the Government wanted to tax fancy cars or holidays, or meals out or something like that, I would at least understand, but taxing investment in education is a mistake—and starting it halfway through a school year makes it worse and is vindictive. In my constituency on the edge Leicester, we benefit from lots of different types of people, but particularly from second-generation communities who really value education. I see whole extended families in my constituency coming together to spend what money they have not on fancy cars or luxuries, but on school. In the biggest independent school in my constituency, Leicester grammar, probably the most common occupation among parents is to be a doctor working in the NHS, and being a doctor is still a very common dream for the pupils there, too. Education has these wider social benefits, and I am struck that the Government praise these people one minute and then wallop them the next; one minute they love them, and the next they hate them. The other common reason that my constituents end up paying twice over for education is that their child has some sort of special needs. They first pay the tax, then they do not use the service that they paid for and then they pay again themselves to get what they think is the right thing for their child. Parents know what the EHCP system is like and they can see the ever-rising demand, so instead of adding to that demand they pay up themselves out of their own pocket. They are content to make sacrifices to get the care they need for their child and their special needs. Independent schools educate more than 130,000 pupils with SEND, of which around 100,000 do not have EHCPs. This is one of the big challenges created by the education tax: if a significant chunk—maybe not even a big chunk—of that 100,000 or so children with special needs but no EHCP are taxed into the state system, that will be a huge new load on a special needs system that has already seen demand explode over recent years. Councils are already struggling, and will have to do more assessments and find even greater resources. We know that 100,000 figure from both the Government’s own data and the ISC’s census, but behind every statistic is a real child. There was an example recently of how this is playing out just over the border from us into Lincolnshire: a girl was forced to move school because her parents could not afford the new tax, and the council has now gone from paying nothing to spending £8,200 a year of taxpayers’ money to transport her a long way to the nearest school that can take her. Some of these cases are profoundly sad. There was a report in The Independent recently about a girl who was hospitalised for eight months last year with a rare brain condition, which left her needing a very high level of support and unable to cope with the change of school placement. The daughter had attended a private school, which her dad says they had just about afforded, but the 20% charge on top made it unaffordable. She had been living in intensive care, and once she came out, she had only eight months left at her old school because she was in year 11. Her father raised her plight with the DFE, and he says of the letter back from Ministers: “I could have smashed my head against a wall when I got that letter, I was so angry and upset. It’s so heartless.” The Government claim that this is a great and vital revenue raiser, but in reality, that has always been highly uncertain. The rate at which it will shift pupils into state education is hard to predict, and the effects of this large group of children with SEN moving makes it even more uncertain. Pupil movement out of independent schools is already three times higher than predicted, as has been noted in the debate. Some 10,000 fewer pupils are in independent schools already, according to the September 2024 ISC pupil numbers survey. The drop was largest in the transition years, with a drop of just over 4.5% in year 7 entrance. The Government want to present all the parents who end up sending their children to independent schools as incredibly wealthy, but according to analysis by Diarmid Mackenzie, around 90,000 families who use independent schools are on below average incomes. They will be the ones who are most affected, and independent schools will become more exclusive. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) talked about the ability of schools because of this change to reclaim historical VAT on capital spending. That is worth about £5 million for Eton, but nothing at all for lots of smaller schools that are less well resourced—and some of them are not well resourced. I think of a small Christian school in Leicester, which got in touch with me because it was so concerned about this. Its income per pupil is probably below those of the neighbouring state schools, its fees are low, the teachers could get paid a lot more elsewhere and the parents are definitely not rich. Why do those people do it? They do it because it is a labour of love, and it is a labour of love for others, too. There are all kinds of reasons that children end up in the independent sector. Maybe it is their special needs; maybe it is faith; maybe it is to do with language; or maybe it is a particular educational approach that works for their child. In a word, this is pluralism. On the other side of the ledger, what do we have to show for it? The Government occasionally try to claim that the money is ringfenced for some purpose or other, but of course the truth is, as the Minister knows, that there are no ringfences at the Treasury. In the troubled schools Bill, we see measures that will unwind the educational reforms to state schools that propelled England up the international league tables. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that, over the last Parliament, per pupil spending in mainstream schools rose by about 11% between 2019 and 2024 when adjusted for inflation. That is an 11% per pupil real-terms increase, but for this coming year, the IFS has pointed out that state schools’ costs are going up faster than their income, with costs up 3.6% and funding up only 2.8%. It is therefore not the case that the education tax is unlocking some great funding bonanza for those of us who have got our kids in state schools. In fact, I see that the National Education Union has recently relaunched its “Stop School Cuts” campaign. There are 43 schools that have closed or announced closure since Labour came to power, and many of them have explicitly pointed to the education tax as the thing that tipped them over the edge. Schools that have closed include Hemdean House school, Abercorn school, Portland Place school, River House Montessori school, Alton school, Conifers school, Kilgraston school, the Study school, Ursuline preparatory school, the Hampshire school, St Joseph’s preparatory school in Stoke-on-Trent, Wings school, Argyll House, Chartfield school, Gracefield preparatory school, Lawrence House, North London Rudolf Steiner school, Redbourn Park secondary school, Sheiling school, the Copper academy, the GFC school, the Prepatoria school, Ashcroft school, Downham preparatory school, LIFE Wirral Sports school, Iona school, Brighton Waldorf school, Progress Schools, Summit school, Advance Education, Tashbar boys nursery, Maidwell Hall school near me in Northamptonshire, Loughborough Amherst school, Godolphin prep in Salisbury, the Village school for girls in Camden, Highfield prep in Maidenhead, Oxford House school in Colchester, Carrdus school in Oxfordshire, Bedstone college in Bucknell and Fairfield PNEU school in Backwell. Schools that have merged and reduced in numbers include Headington and Rye St Antony; Orchard House and Chiswick and Bedford Park; and Westbury House and the Study schools. I read those out because, as well as the number of children who will move into the state sector and have their education disrupted in that way—which seems to be much higher than the Government predicted—a huge number will have their education disrupted even if they end up in another independent school. That is precisely what is happening to a lot of parents in my constituency because of local closures. The Government will say that those children are privileged; I say they are children. Being forced to change schools and perhaps being separated from friends is disruptive and bad, whoever they are. The Government have often countered that not many pupils will be affected. We hear about the small percentage of pupils who will move, and how easy it will be for the state sector to accommodate them. We hear much less about how much extra that will cost, and we have heard nothing from the Government about the 10,000 fewer children in independent schools I already mentioned. The official impact predictions for VAT estimated that 3,000 pupils would leave this academic year; now we have seen 10,000 in the first term. There are still five months until August, so it may get worse before the year is out. If the number of pupils leaving the sector continues to run at three times the predicted levels, we would face not just—“just”—35,000 pupils displaced, but more than 100,000. In many cases, they will struggle to get a state school place. In at least 27 authorities, schools are full in certain age cohorts and, since Labour announced this policy, pupil number projections in the state sector have been revised up nationally—significantly so in many local authorities. That means fewer people in the state system will get their first choice of school. Although there is uncertainty about the fiscal impact of this policy, there is no uncertainty about it not being the best way to raise revenue. The other day, the Chancellor announced the introduction of a special new business rates relief for the film industry, even as the Government take away business rates relief for schools. The argument is, “The film industry is good. This is an investment in our future”—but schools are an investment in our future. The argument is, “This is good culturally. This is part of our culture”—but education is good for our culture as well. I will come to an end. There is uncertainty about the fiscal impact of this measure, but there is no uncertainty about it causing a lot of misery for parents with special needs kids and for parents who do not want to have their kids’ education disrupted. The Government are doing this for political reasons. There is no doubt that this is not the best way to raise revenue; this is a purely political decision and it is having significant, real-world, bad effects on our constituents right across this country.

• 3 Mar 2025 · Independent Schools: VAT and Business Rates Relief · Hansard source

  More

  That was 1998!

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

  More

  That is an important question. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to go into the history of apprenticeship regulation in England, which dates back to 1536. I will not detain the House with all the details, but suffice it to say that that was a move from one arms-length body to another, so it was different from this. None the less, IfATE was better than either of those things, which is why we ended up there. The very act of a further reorganisation is likely to compound the effects of the Budget and the decision to move apprenticeships money into other projects. Indeed, according to the Government’s own impact assessment, there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while IfATE’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State. It says: “The transfer of function from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the bill.” It also says: “This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways for career advancement.” So there you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Government are moving money out of apprenticeships, and the Budget will also hit numbers, but instead of focused action to boost numbers for young people, the Government’s response has been to reduce quality, cut length and axe level 7 apprenticeships to try to prop up overall numbers. Now we have yet another reorganisation —one that takes us away from an independent, employer-led system, and one that will risk, in the Government’s own words, cutting apprenticeship numbers and hitting the most disadvantaged. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

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

  More

  I will come on to what businesses are saying in one second. The Government are doing two things that are going to be very bad for apprenticeship numbers. First, while apprentices are exempt from national insurance, the Budget—particularly its £25 billion increase in national insurance contributions—is cutting hiring and leading to job losses across the board. What employer groups are saying about that is pretty damning; be it the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses or the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, they are warning of serious job losses as a result of the Budget. That tax increase, and the damage it is doing, is focused on exactly the type of jobs that apprentices might traditionally get, so apprenticeships are being hit by the backwash from the Budget. Secondly, the Government are planning to move funding from apprenticeships to other areas. In opposition, Labour talked about allowing employers to spend 50% of their apprenticeship levy funds on other things. As the election drew nearer, that commitment seemed to be disappearing. On 20 November, the Minister said that the commitment to 15% was “currently being reviewed”, but just weeks later, on 9 December, the Secretary of State said that the Government were still committed to “50% flexibility for employers”. It would be interesting to hear from Ministers whether that 50% still stands now. Given that the levy funds £2.5 billion of spending, 50% is a lot of money to potentially move out of apprenticeships. We can argue about whether that is desirable, but all things being equal, it will certainly cut funding for apprenticeships. We might also be wary that it will undercut the purposes of the levy and have high dead-weight. In fact, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out: “In principle, this could help employers to pay for other forms of training that they and their employees would find valuable. But the history of these wider training subsidies, such as the former Train to Gain programme”— a programme under the last Labour Government— “suggests that the result is often that much of the spending goes on training that firms would have provided—and paid for—even without the subsidy.” The apprenticeship levy, whatever its flaws, did at least attempt to address this problem of dead-weight and discouraged freeriding by large firms, so that firms that invested in their workers did not lose out to those that did not. Since the levy was introduced in 2017, real-terms spending on apprenticeships and work-based training has increased in real terms by about a quarter, from £2 billion to £2.5 billion. In a written answer to me, Ministers have confirmed that the Department has a forecast for the number of apprenticeship starts, but they have also said that they will not publish it. If it was published, it would surely show that removing possibly half of the funding would lead to a substantial drop in the number of apprenticeships. Perhaps that is why we are not allowed to see it. Those same reasons are why the Government are going back to shorter apprenticeships and away from the higher level, reducing quality and cutting length to try to offset the hit to numbers from other Government policies. There are bits of this agenda where we share the same goals. We all want to see more SMEs offering apprenticeships and more young people getting apprenticeships. Although on average twice as many people started apprenticeships each year under the last Government as under the previous Labour Government, we still wanted that to be much higher. Although we are interested in the same questions, we have quite different ideas for how we address them. Part of the Government’s answer is to abolish the highest level of apprenticeships in order to redistribute the money. The level 7 apprenticeships that the Government are axing currently account for just 9% of apprenticeship spending, but a lot of good things will potentially be lost by abolishing them. I have been contacted by firms worried about the abolition of the solicitors apprenticeship, which is a great way into the law for people from less privileged backgrounds. One firm worried about that is Bolt Burdon Kemp, which told me: “This will really impact social mobility into sectors like law, accountancy, and consulting. The traditional route into law is expensive and therefore without the apprenticeship scheme many would not be able to afford to do so. We also believe it will have a wider detrimental impact on the reputation of apprenticeships.” It has taken such a lot of effort to get that route going, and it would be a huge shame to lose it. Likewise, level 7 apprenticeships are opening up great jobs and leadership roles in the public sector, too. Some 56,000 people started apprenticeships in the public sector last year. More than half of management apprenticeships at level 7 are in health and education. In fact, they were identified as having a key role in the NHS’s own long-term workforce plan. Public services will lose out, as will ambitious apprentices. Because level 7 apprenticeships are a small part of funding, I am worried that the Government will now go after level 6 apprenticeships, which is a much bigger share of spending. A lot of employers are worried about that, too. [ Interruption. ] The Secretary of State sighs as I say that. Presumably when the Minister gets to her feet, she will promise that they will not do to level 6 what they will do to level 7. It sounds like Ministers will be clear when they stand up, will they not, that they definitely will not do that to level 6 apprenticeships. The last Government moved to make it more attractive for SMEs to take on younger people. From April, 16 to 21-year-olds have had 100% funding, rather than requiring the 5% employer contribution. We need to build on that by cutting bureaucracy and making it easier and more attractive to take on young people. Building on that would be more sensible than reorganisation, centralisation and the defunding of higher apprenticeships. This Bill abolishes IfATE and gives the Secretary of State significant powers as a result, but it says nothing at all about the new body, Skills England, which is intended to be at the centre of the skills landscape under this Government. That has been a pretty unwelcome surprise to some in industry. In its briefing on the Bill, the Construction Industry Training Board noted that this was “contrary to the previous characterisation of Skills England that was outlined in the…King’s Speech…and contrary to the vision for Skills England to be an independent body, established in law, with a cross-governmental role”. The CITB makes an important point. IfATE existed to serve all employers—public and private—and across every Department. In contrast, Skills England will be a part of the DFE. The CEO of Skills England will be a job share between two civil servants who are currently running post-16 skills at the Department. I am told by former Ministers that they are good officials, but this is a recentralisation into the Department—as was pointed out by both the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.

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

  More

  I start by paying tribute to the work of Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers in driving up the number of apprenticeships in this House. Not only is that creating brilliant opportunities, but it is setting a brilliant example, so I pay tribute to them for the work they are doing. We have heard some brilliant speeches today, and not just from right hon. and hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches. We have heard really important questions from the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes); from the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins); and from the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis). We also heard a great speech from the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom). We do not always agree with the Liberal Democrats about everything, but a strength of the liberal tradition is suspicion of centralisation, which is what is in front of us today. We have three main concerns about this Bill. First, there were good reasons why standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. As we have heard from Members across this House and in the Lords, this is centralisation, and alongside the other changes that the Government are making, it will risk directly damaging the status of these qualifications. Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprentices, but rather than fixing those problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years—it is yet more reorganisation, rather than a focus on the real issues, and from the Secretary of State’s comments earlier, it sounded as if there might be a further reorganisation later to boot. Thirdly, we have real concerns that this reorganisation of the machinery of Government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues that we face. Those concerns are borne out by the Government’s own impact assessment. As with the schools Bill, this Bill is highly centralising and does not address the real issues. There are multiple things in the skills system that we need to address, but I am slightly baffled as to why the Government are starting by creating a new agency within the DFE and abolishing IfATE. It is worth explaining how we got to IfATE in the first place. For decades, people said that they wanted to make apprenticeships more prestigious, and part of the answer was growing higher apprenticeships. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went up from just over 3,000 in 2010 to over 273,000 last year—a huge increase—and the hon. Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson) was absolutely right to talk about how good those degree apprenticeships are. They are great routes into good jobs. Indeed, the latest data shows that the median first degree graduate earned £29,900 five years after graduation, whereas a level 4 apprentice earned more—£33,800 on average. As well as creating and boosting those higher apprenticeships, the other big change was a shift from a frameworks-based approach to a standards-based approach, and those standards meant a shift to a higher quality. They were led by employers, they had a longer duration—at least a year—and they had more off-the-job training and rigorous final assessments. That was much needed. In 2015, an Ofsted report found that even though some apprentices had been on the job for more than a year, they were not even aware that they were on an apprenticeship, such was the problem of quality. Things were being funded that did not ultimately benefit young people, but did allow employers to pay a lower wage, which was obviously concerning. The apprenticeship levy was designed to give employers much more ownership of the skills system, and making IfATE independent of Government was a big part of that, creating a properly employer-led system. I pay tribute to the work of IfATE—the Secretary of State did not thank it for its work, but I will do so. IfATE has created and maintained around 690 apprenticeships, supporting around 750,000 people on apprenticeships last year. It created 21 T-levels and 174 higher technical qualifications and enabled employer leaders to set a strategic direction for schools in their sector, and its website is an amazing resource. However, we now see the Government completely reversing the direction of policy. While we lengthened apprenticeships, they have cut the length of an apprenticeship to eight months. While we grew higher apprenticeships, they are abolishing most level 7 apprenticeships, and by abolishing IfATE and bringing it in-house at the DFE, they are eroding independence and employer ownership. Why are the Government suddenly moving in a reverse direction?

• 24 Feb 2025 · Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Through these regulations, the Government are increasing tuition fees to £9,535 a year. The maximum maintenance loan for students not living at home is £10,227, or £13,348 in London, so after a typical three-year degree, a graduate will need to pay back up to £59,000, or up to £68,600 for those who studied in London. If the Government continue to raise fees in the same way throughout this Parliament, those figures will increase to about £66,400 in the rest of the country, or £76,900 for those who studied in London. Those are two very large numbers. As it happens, this year’s fees hike has not made universities any better off because the cost of the national insurance hike wipes out the benefit to the sector of the decision to increase tuition fees. Effectively, one broken promise on fees is paying for another broken promise on tax. The Secretary of State’s website still has the ironic headline, “Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour Government”, but in reality they are paying higher fees and more tax, too. The current system produces some incredibly high marginal rates for young people. Those who have a postgraduate loan, or who pay the high-income child benefit charge, face incredibly high marginal rates, even on middling incomes. Sadly, the new Government have abandoned plans to reform the HICBC, so this problem will not go away any time soon. Graduates have 51% of their income taxed away at just £50,000 of earnings, a sum which will not feel like being rich for those renting in an expensive city. At £60,000 of earnings, graduates with kids, particularly postgraduates, face marginal rates in the 58% to 73% range—the kind of rates that used to apply only to super-taxes on the very wealthy. One way things have changed since the launch of fees is that we have much better data, particularly thanks to the creation of the longitudinal education outcomes dataset under the last Government. This lets us look at a degree’s value added compared with something else, and something else can sometimes be better. The latest data shows that the median first-degree graduate earnings five years after graduation are £29,900, compared with £33,800 for level 4 apprentices; the apprentices are earning substantially more. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has taken the deepest look at this question. It has considered how graduate earnings are evolving for those who study at different types of institutions and on different types of courses, and it has tried to compare that with counterfactuals for people with similar prior characteristics. It looked at how many people saw their earnings boosted by a degree and what the costs were, and worked out the net benefit for the individual and the taxpayer, and it combined these perspectives to get a final score. The conclusion of its 2020 report was that “seen over the whole lifetime, we estimate that total returns will be negative for around 30% of both men and women.” That is a huge share for whom it is proving not to be worth it. The IFS also noted that “While getting an undergraduate degree is worthwhile financially for most students, there is significant variation across subjects. Some subjects, such as medicine, law and economics, offer a springboard to very lucrative careers…However, a significant minority of mostly men are likely to not see positive returns as a result of going to university…lifetime earnings returns remain low or negative for subjects such as creative arts and English.” Today’s Times has a report based on my freedom of information requests to the Student Loans Company. That in itself is telling: the whole process of assessing public spending on higher education needs to be radically more transparent. We should not need to rely on freedom of information requests just to get this data, but now that we have it, it reveals the vast variations between higher education institutions in the share of loans that are being repaid. Where we see that only very small fractions of the money loaned out by the taxpayer is paid back, it often means that the courses are not that great for either the taxpayer or the student, who may feel that their degree has cost them a lot without necessarily taking them to where they hoped. Yet the Government seem to have looked first at jacking up young people’s fees, and they seem to have given up on reforming the system to weed out courses that offer low value for money. Speaking of value for money, one university that will benefit from these regulations is the University of Greater Manchester. The Minister will have seen the extremely concerning reports in the press, particularly The Manchester Mill , about the attempts to pay huge sums of what is effectively taxpayers’ money to relatives of the university’s managers, and to what appears to be a shell company in Casablanca. Can the Minister assure me that he is investigating those concerning allegations? I am very sympathetic to the plight of staff at universities where the leadership have got them into financial difficulties, be it through taking out ill-judged, expensive loans, overspending on buildings or becoming overdependent on one particular group of overseas students—I am sympathetic to universities and lecturers more generally, as it is a hugely important job. I am not saying that all universities are awash with cash, but it is worth saying that up-front real-terms funding per student is still substantially above the level of the pre-fees era, even as student numbers have exploded. There are many wonderful, valuable courses in our universities, which I hope will expand and prosper, but young people in Britain are now facing really large repayments and high marginal rates, which make it difficult to get on in life. We need to do right by our universities, but we also need to do right by our young people. I believe that reforms offer scope to get them a much better deal. We should look first to reforms, rather than simply increasing the burdens on young people. That is why we are sceptical about these regulations.

• 24 Feb 2025 · Breakfast Clubs: Early Adopters · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. The previous Government substantially expanded access to breakfast clubs in primary and secondary schools, and crated the holiday activities and food programme. The national school breakfast programme has been running since 2018, and 85% of schools now have a breakfast club, with one in eight having a taxpayer-funded breakfast club. In March 2023, the previous Government announced £289 million for the national wraparound childcare funding programme, some of which is being used to fund breakfast clubs. That was part of a much wider expansion of free childcare that saw spending on entitlement to free childcare more than double in real terms between 2010 and 2024. I was struck by the comments made by Mark Russell from the Children’s Society during the evidence sessions for the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Given the resource constraints, he said taxpayer money should be focused on rolling out free breakfasts to a greater number of deprived secondary schools, rather than providing a universal offer in primary schools. He said: “I would like to see secondary school children helped, and if the pot is limited, I would probably step back from universality and provide for those most in need.” –– [ Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 55, Q122.] With that in mind, I want to draw attention to the uncertainty created by the Government’s refusal to commit to funding the existing free breakfast provision in secondary schools beyond next year, and likewise the holiday activities and food programme. A number of charities have called for Ministers to guarantee that funding beyond next year, and I join them in asking the Secretary of State to give that guarantee. Getting rid of the existing free breakfasts would mean a cut in provision for deprived children at secondary schools, so will the Secretary of State guarantee to continue them? According to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year: “Based on the experience of the national school breakfast programme, the estimated annual cost today would be around £55 per pupil participating for food-only provision and double that (around £110) for a ‘traditional’ before-school breakfast club. Labour’s manifesto offers £315 million overall in 2028; this could be enough to fund all primary school pupils under a food-only model, or 60% of pupils if the party plumps for a traditional breakfast club with some childcare element.” Will the Secretary of State respond to that point made by the IFS? Do the Government plan food-only provision? If not, how does she plan to close that funding gap? Paul Bertram, headteacher at Buxworth primary school in Derbyshire, told Schools Week that he had to pull out of the pilot scheme as it left him with a £9,000 funding shortfall. The charity Magic Breakfast said: “if it is expected that 100 per cent of people can access a traditional breakfast club setting, with the appropriate staffing, then the Government is many, many millions away from the budget that we would expect that would require.” Will the Secretary of State say how many schools applied to be part of the pilot, but subsequently pulled out? A number of journalists have asked that question. How many of the schools chosen to take part in the pilot already have a breakfast club, and how many already have a free breakfast club? Looking at the first 100 on the list, 71 have a breakfast club and 13 have a free breakfast club, but what are the numbers overall? If pupils need to have a one-to-one teaching assistant, how will funding for that work? Ministers say that the policy “will save parents up to £450 a year”. The Secretary of State said that again today, but Ministers used to use a figure of £400. To give £450 to all 4.5 million pupils in primary schools would cost over £2 billion a year. In contrast, the pilot will cost £33 million. Labour’s manifesto said the programme will spend £315 million by 2028, which would mean a spend of £70 per primary school child, not £450. Will the Secretary of State explain the discrepancy between the planned spend and the much larger benefits that Ministers are claiming? Parents on lower wages are bearing the brunt of the £25 billion increase in national insurance; as the Office for Budget Responsibility and the IFS have pointed out, that increase will directly hit wages, which even the Chancellor has now acknowledged. The biggest losers from that tax increase are those earning less than £15,000 a year. People who are among those most affected by the £25 billion tax increase may not feel better off from the £315 million of planned spending, so it is vital that we are clear about what Ministers are really claiming and on what basis. I mentioned that 85% of schools already have a breakfast club. The new requirement to offer free school breakfasts in all primary schools will interact with that existing provision in different ways. Many school breakfast clubs currently run for an hour on a paid-for basis, and I hope most will continue to provide at least the period they are providing now. However, if the breakfast club is provided for, say, an hour or more, the school will have to charge for the first 30 minutes of that hour, but not for the final 30 minutes, which is likely to give rise to considerable complexity. Will Ministers agree to report on the length of time that clubs are running in these schools, and on any reduction that this change may inadvertently bring about? Taxpayer-funded breakfasts for those who really need them are helpful, but there are a number of questions about Ministers’ plans and their claims about the scheme, so I look forward to the Secretary of State’s answers.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The hon. Member is in danger of literally saying it is too expensive to get to the truth. He just said that the cost of a national inquiry was the obstacle to having one. I really hope that he will rethink that point.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  As a constituency MP I have met victims of sexual abuse, yes, and it is clear, if people have been following the debate, that victims are calling for an inquiry. Indeed, numerous people in the Labour party agree that we should have a proper inquiry, for all the reasons that Oldham originally asked for one, namely that it does not have the powers locally to get to the truth and to get justice for the victims. The new clause would create a national inquiry and we hope that at some point the Government will support it so that justice can be done and those who have let victims down can finally be held to account.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The proposed new clauses press the Government to restore some schemes they have cut, namely the academy conversion support grant and the trust capacity fund. The latter spent about £126 million over the last Parliament, helping to grow and deepen strong trusts, helping them to do more to help their schools, and helping to create a self-improving system. Unfortunately, the fund was ended on 1 January this year. Its closure is a real loss and there is uncertainty now about who is responsible for school improvement in the Government’s vision. Is that still to be trust-led, or will it be led by RISE from the centre? What happens if ideas from RISE conflict with those of a trust? The removal of that funding sharpens the sense of a shift away from trusts as the engine for school improvement. The Confederation of School Trusts has said that this funding “has been very successful in enabling trusts to support maintained schools that need help, especially in areas with a history of poor education outcomes…That will become more difficult to do now. Trust leaders will be especially angry that Ministers have scrapped this summer’s funding round: trusts spent considerable time and effort creating bids and have been waiting for a decision for four months…School trusts have a wealth of experience in school improvement but sharing that effectively takes time and money, and we need to make sure that the wider school sector doesn’t suffer from this decision.” The confederation also says that it is “incredibly disappointed” at the decision to withdraw the academy conversion grant. It says: “Ending this grant will leave, in particular, smaller primary schools very vulnerable and without the financial and educational sustainability that comes from being part of a trust. It is a short-sighted decision that will weaken the school system.” It adds that that will have “clear consequences for the strength and sustainability of our school system…This is not a neutral decision and will impact the capacity of the system to keep improving.” Forum Strategy, another membership organisation for school trust leaders, has said of the decision to cut this funding: “It is difficult to see the vision or strategy that leads to these decisions, or what it means for making the most of the capacity and expertise of the school-led improvement system.” I hope that Ministers will listen to school leaders and reverse the decisions, as the proposed new clauses suggest.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause presses Ministers to un-pause the final free schools. In October Ministers “paused” plans to open 44 new state schools, including three sixth-form colleges backed by Eton and, more importantly, by the brilliant Star Trust in Dudley, Middlesbrough and Oldham. Many of the proposals have had years of work put into them, and they are the passion projects of huge numbers of teachers and school leaders. They have the potential to do tremendous good in communities across the country, including some deprived communities. The new clause encourages the Government to end the damaging uncertainty for those schools, which have now been in limbo for a long time. Free schools generally have fantastic progress scores, which are a quarter of a grade higher across all grades than would be expected given their intakes. That is exceptional across an entire type of school—an amazing result. When we look at Progress 8 scores in this country, free schools dominate the top of the league table. That is an amazing achievement from these passion projects—these labours of love—that have been created by teachers to help communities. We hope that Ministers will unblock the proposals soon, and end the uncertainty, so will the Minister give the Committee some sense of when these schools can expect a decision?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  Could the hon. Lady say how many different places it looked at?

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I am disappointed to hear that from the Minister, and we are also disappointed not to hear any date for when the schools, which all those people—people with an incredible track record in our deprived communities—have worked so hard to bring into existence, will open. Will he commit to write to us to say when those people can expect a decision? The uncertainty, which is so damaging, has been going on for so long. At the moment it is without end, and no one knows when they will get an answer from the Government. I wonder whether the Minister write to us—or, more to the point, to those people—to say when they can at least expect an answer one way or the other. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 21 School attendance: general duties on local authorities “In Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Act 1996 (school attendance), after section 443 insert— ‘School attendance: registered pupils, offences etc 443A School attendance: general duties on local authorities in England (1) A local authority in England must exercise their functions with a view to— (a) promoting regular attendance by registered pupils at schools in the local authority’s area, and (b) reducing the number and duration of absences of registered pupils from schools in that area. (2) In exercising their functions, a local authority in England must have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in relation to school attendance.’”— (Neil O’Brien.) Brought up, and read the First time.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 18 essentially raises the same issues as new clauses 17 and 19, but for a different programme—in this case, the trust leadership programme, which helps teachers and heads move up to running a trust and helps to create a self-improving system. A huge amount of work has gone into getting it right in recent years. It has been designed by the profession. It really has had a lot of work put into it, and it is a product of school leaders, not just the Government. My understanding is that the programme will end after the current cohort completes it, and that there is no plan for another cohort. After all the work that has gone into the programme, that seems a real shame. The new clause would require Ministers to commit to the programme for further intakes and to put it on a permanent basis. I hope that Ministers will make that commitment, and that we can get good news from them today about the continuation of this really important programme.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I want to point out a tension between the arguments that we have heard. One type of argument says that the job is done; there is nothing more to find out. It dismisses calls for further work as “gesture politics”—that is one phrase that we heard this morning. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said that the grooming gangs had been “fully investigated”. I do not believe that, nor do the victims—in fact, not a single official has been held to account. More importantly perhaps, the Government do not believe it either. They argue that more work is needed—the disagreement is simply whether there should be local inquiries rather than a national inquiry. Members continue to make arguments that the Government were perhaps making at the start of the year, but that is not where the Government are now.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The arguments around this issue are reasonably well known, so I will be brief. This discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there, which it did because a local inquiry would not have the powers that are needed. For example, a local inquiry cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men leading the local investigation in Greater Manchester resign because they felt they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry, and that there should be local inquiries instead. However, there have been years during which those places could have held their own local inquiries, but they have not. In many cases, as is well known, local officials at different levels were part of the problem, and even part of the deflection, so they cannot be the people to fix it. In Keighley, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years, but even as Ministers argued in the House that there should be local inquiries, local politicians decided again not to hold one. In these debates the Government often refer to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which was an important first step, but it was not—indeed, it was never intended to be—a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. IICSA looked at about half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were between 40 to 50 places where those gangs operated, and the inquiry touches on them very lightly and does not look at the places where there were the most severe problems. It means that victims in those places have never had a chance to be heard.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  The new clause makes it clear that there would be a choice about who would provide the scheme. We heard from the Minister that there is a review of national professional qualifications going on. I will be happy to take an intervention if she is happy to tell us a date by which we will find out the results of that review. I do not know when school leaders who are currently benefiting from, or hoping to benefit from, this very important programme, designed by the sector, will find out from Ministers what its future will be. It sounds like Ministers are saying that it will not be until the review is completed, so I now have a question about when that will be and when we will have a definitive answer one way or the other. I wonder whether the Minister will consider writing to me to tell us roughly when the review will be complete. She is sort of nodding, but I am not going to probe the point. We will withdraw the new clause for now, but this is a wonderful scheme and a crucial part of the self-improving system, and I hope that, whatever happens at the end of the review, something along these lines will be maintained. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 20 Approved free schools and university training colleges in pre-opening “The Secretary of State must make provision for the opening of all free schools and university training colleges whose applications were approved prior to October 2024.”— (Neil O ’ Brien.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to proceed with the opening of free schools whose opening was paused in October 2024. Brought up, and read the First time .

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  It is wrong to pretend that IICSA was a report into the grooming gangs. It was not; it was never intended to be. It looked a tiny handful of places, so many of the people who were affected by that scandal have never had the chance to have their story told. It has never been clear why having a new national inquiry would prevent us from implementing any of those previous things—it obviously would not. The argument that the Government cannot do two things at the same time is clearly wrong, so it cannot be used as an excuse not to listen to all those who have never had the chance to tell their story.