Higher Education and Research Bill
Gordon Marsden ExcerptsTuesday 19th July 2016
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I congratulate the Secretary of State and welcome her to her position. We look forward to the development of her thoughts on the subject.
The Bill has positive elements, which the Opposition welcome. The recognition and identification of social mobility as a key factor in the expansion of higher education is important. It is crucial that we create a system that works for social mobility not just for young people, but for adults. The introduction of a transparency duty for university admissions will be a good start, but more must be done.
We welcome the promise at last of an alternative student finance method, as pledged in the White Paper. We hope that it addresses the concerns of Muslim students about a lack of sharia-compliant funding. The Opposition had to press the Government hard on that issue during the maintenance grants debate in January, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has made clear. I am pleased that, finally, it has been taken on board.
I praise the Minister for Universities and Science for his strong and consistent advocacy of the importance that the EU has had for universities in the UK. During the referendum campaign, he spoke trenchantly against Brexit, saying that
“we’re potentially confronted with a funding black hole roughly equivalent to the size of one of our world-class research councils.”
He also said that ditching membership would mean
“losing a seat at the table when the big decisions about funding and priorities are made”.
There’s the rub. The reality is that our world and the education world are utterly changed since 23 June. That makes all the concerns and criticisms that the Opposition and others have voiced on the Bill much more powerful, but we find that the Government are still groping for answers. The Bill too often produces 20th century answers to 21st century challenges. It is laced with an obsession for market-led ideology that does not reflect the realities in higher education or those of the post-Brexit world.
Mark Field
As someone who was on the same side of the debate for the 23 June referendum, I recognise the concerns about leaving the EU. However, we must look to the future. There are great opportunities. One of the great things about our higher education system is that it is focused very much on being a global operator, particularly given the strength of the English language. Therefore, there will be tremendous opportunities. It is a difficult, unpredictable and uncertain time, but none the less a time that is open for and ripe with opportunities for our best higher education institutions.
Mr Marsden
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman says and the fact that he spoke so staunchly on the part of the remain campaign. The fact remains, as it were, that the Government have not put forward a pathway. I will talk about that later.
Everything one needs to know about that obsession can be found in one small section towards the start of the White Paper, which states that
“we need to confront the possibility of some institutions choosing – or needing – to exit the market. This is a crucial part of a healthy, competitive and well-functioning market, and such exits happen already – although not frequently – in the higher education sector. The Government should not prevent exit as a matter of policy...and it will remain the provider’s decision whether to exit and their responsibility to implement and action any exit plans.”
Such breezy complacency and laissez-faire attitudes would be comical were it not for the dire consequences that they threaten for thousands of students and dozens of research and higher education institutions.
The Government have made great play of their new teaching excellence framework as a way of strengthening HE’s offer to students. The Opposition of course approve of moves to value excellence in teaching—who could not?—and we approve of the concept of measuring teaching quality, but the lack of detail on how it will work is added to by concerns that the Government are using the TEF as a potential Trojan horse for removing the fee cap. If that happens, it could bring in its wake a two-tier system and a very damaging separation between teaching and research institutions.
We are strongly opposed to linking the TEF with fees, as are the majority of higher education institutions’ respondents to the Green Paper, which is why the Secretary of State was so coy in saying that only the best people believe in it. We are strongly opposed because, in the first year, it would allow almost all universities or HE providers to charge an automatic index-linked inflation increase to students. That is particularly problematic post-Brexit, with the fragility of our economy. There are no guarantees on the level of inflation for the next few years. Therefore, students could face significant increases in fees—the Government cannot guarantee otherwise.
In any case, as the White Paper makes clear, all bets are off, because we do not know what further increases will be permitted by the second and third stages of the TEF. The University and College Union and others are deeply concerned by the lack of parliamentary scrutiny built into the TEF. By putting key aspects of the TEF proposals out for consultation separately from the Bill, the Government are denying Parliament the chance to debate the vital aspects of the plan in full. The equality impact assessments the Government have published alongside the Bill raise further questions about the devil in the details of the TEF.
Amanda Milling (Cannock Chase) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the link between the TEF and fees means that universities will be made more accountable for any increase in fees?
Mr Marsden
There is no evidence for that. The point is that, if universities have a fees case to make, they should make it. A number of universities have already said—I will say more about this shortly—that they do not wish to pursue that link. It is telling that the House of Commons Library briefing says of the impact assessment:
“The material in the assessment is nearly all qualitative. The impact of few, if any, of the policies are explicitly quantified.”
The TEF in its current format will not provide assessment by course. The equality analysis states that the
“TEF will recognise both part-time and full-time teaching quality”
but there are no details on how that will happen. Institutions such as Birkbeck and the Open University, which teach a wide range of students from more varied educational backgrounds, have concerns that they may not be dealt with in the same way as students from more traditional backgrounds.
Mr Marsden
I will make progress and come to the hon. Lady presently.
Long-established institutions such as Cambridge University have said quite straightforwardly that they do not support the link between the TEF and fees. Cambridge University states:
“it is bound to affect student decision-making adversely, and in particular it may deter students from low income families from applying to the best universities”.
No wonder the Government’s equality analysis had to resort to newspeak, saying that
“TEF is expected to benefit students regardless of their… characteristics”,
in an attempt to meet their public equality duty.
Rebecca Pow
As someone who has put two daughters through university and who has a son who is thinking about where to go, I believe it is essential that more focus is put on the quality of what is offered at universities. That is what the Bill fundamentally tries to work in, which I applaud.
Mr Marsden
There is absolutely nothing wrong with quality, but we have to see where the quality extends. The truth is that that is not clear in the TEF before us.
In addition to the first year, we know that only the simplest of tests will be available to allow HE institutions to obtain tuition fee increases. In essence, it is a cash-in coupon. There are no guarantees about where that will take us in fee changes in years two and three. It is therefore not surprising that the vice-chancellor of the University of Bedfordshire, Bill Rammell, who is a former HE Minister—[Interruption.] When the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), stops barracking from the Front Bench, he might find that one or two respondents to the Bill have close connections with the Government and the Conservative party. It is not surprising that Bill Rammell says that the TEF proposal
“risks the commoditisation of higher education”,
even if the Government have had to row back from their original plans.
It took about six years in the early 2000s to get a broadly acceptable framework for measuring research quality with the research excellence framework. Simply using existing datasets and metrics in teaching such as the national student survey will not on its own do the business. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said that the use of metrics as proxies for quality was problematic. Although the White Paper claims that TEF awards will add up to £1 billion in 10 years, there are no cost predictions. The Government are proceeding on the assumption that there will be only one TEF assessment per university—a one-size-fits-all approach that has been criticised by a wide range of commentators, not least at the all-party parliamentary group meeting that the Minister spoke at last December. Where is the recognition of that, and where is the strategy for finessing that assessment, which could perhaps be done by schools of humanities, science, social science and so on?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is being very generous and I do not doubt his commitment to improving higher and further education, but for the life of me I cannot understand what his argument is with the teaching excellence framework. He begins by attacking the Government for extensive consultation and then attacks the Government for being too narrow and rigid in their application. Which is it: are the Government too open-minded or too narrow-minded? Can he enlighten the House?
Mr Marsden
From a right hon. Gentleman who has demonstrated his ability to turn on not one but several sixpences in the past few weeks, I think that that is a little rich. I will, however, deal with his particular point. It is not a question of saying that we do not support the teaching excellence framework. What we are saying is, “This is the Government and these are your Ministers. Bring forward the material to demonstrate it is going to work.” So far, they have not done so.
Mr Marsden
No, I will make some more progress.
The higher education White Paper emphasises repeatedly that the driver for the changes is that half of job vacancies from now until 2022 are expected to be in occupations requiring high-level graduate skills, but there is little clarity on what that means. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) asked earlier, does that include levels of technical professional competence? If so, why is there no strong linkage with the skills plan released by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills just two weeks ago? There is an obvious need for crossover between the skills plan and the higher education Bill, but the disconnect between them makes even less sense now that the Department for Education will be taking on skills and further education policy. If the opportunity for students at 16 and beyond to switch between higher education and vocational routes is to be real, why is the skills plan not linked directly with the HE White Paper?
A recent University and College Union survey showed that less than 10% of respondents recalled learning anything in school about higher education before year 9, or having any contact with a university. The Education Committee I served on and Peter Lampl at Sutton Trust have said for a number of years that it is imperative we give young people the aspirations they need at a much earlier age, so that they can make more informed choices about their future educational plans. I would like to see much more about that in the Bill, as I am sure would the rest of the House.
There are also huge question marks, following the changes to the mechanisms of government, about where the money is coming from. Will it all transfer over from the new Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy? With the existing cuts across that Department, where will the resources to implement these wonderful changes come from, especially since the Department has huge school funding issues to fix?
The Government strategy for expanding HE and skills rests on their “loans will cure all” philosophy. As we have already seen, however, that is no guarantee. Less than 50% of the money allocated to the 24-plus advanced learner loans was taken up because of resistance from older learners. BIS had to return £150 million unused to the Treasury. On top of that, students have already been hit in the past 12 months by the triple whammy of scrapping maintenance grants for loans, freezing the student loan threshold and removing NHS bursaries. That has damaged social mobility for the most disadvantaged students.
The Bill places immense faith in the magic of the market. Central to its proposals are a concentration on creating a brave new world of what the Government are calling HE challenger institutions, which are likely to be private and for-profit. Before any Government Member jumps up, let me say that we are not in any way, shape or form opposed to new institutions. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State has had her say. I speak as someone who taught for nearly 20 years in what was a new institution, the Open University, which is one of the proudest boasts of the Labour Government under Harold Wilson. We will take no lessons from Conservative Members on that. The Government propose that new providers could be given degree-awarding powers straight away. Students would in effect be taking a gamble on probationary degrees from probationary providers. Who is going to pick up the pieces if it all goes wrong? It is still unclear what resources the proposed office for students will have to police this progress. What if the problems are not picked up until students have been working for their degrees for, say, 18 months? As I have said previously, the White Paper chirrups about the
“possibility of exit being a natural part of a healthy market”,
but students are not market traders and they do not easily slip a second time into the womb of higher education when they have been let down by that new shiny market.
Cutting corners in the process of becoming a higher education provider also poses a serious risk to staff and students, and increases the risk of public money being misused. We know that in 2011 concerns around BPP and the Apollo group caused the previous Secretary of State, David Willetts, to pause a major extension. Previous expansion of private providers in other jurisdictions has already affected the reputation of their higher education systems, with reports of phantom students, fraud and low quality of education. As Research Fortnight argued in May:
“The government’s proposed reforms are being billed as bold and innovative but in fact they are no such thing.”
It says the wording
“proportionate for the Bill’s regulatory aspects”
is “code for light touch” and that
“instead…the UK government has instead decided to emulate a model from which many in the rest of the world want to escape.”
Encouraging universities or new providers is important, but
“the title of university needs to be seen as a privilege…not an automatic entitlement”
and,
“in the long term it is quality that is at risk if the proposed legislation becomes law.”
One example of a potential threat to quality, which concerns a number of universities, might be the proliferation of private medical schools. Three new medical schools will be opened in England by 2017 and possibly as many as 20 may seek to enter the market in the next few years. These schools will be able to operate free of some of the restrictions facing publicly funded medical schools, in particular around the recruitment of home, EU and international students. That will create a distorted playing field, where existing institutions are unable to expand home or international intakes without penalty. It is also feared that they will have limited engagement with research, lowering the standard of medical education in the UK.
Baroness Alison Wolf was a part of the excellent Sainsbury report to which the Secretary of State referred earlier. In June, fresh from a stay in Australia, which has had its own provider controversies, she urged caution on the back of the experiences in higher education she had found there. She said:
“The Australian experience confirms the madness of the removal of caps on enrolments. I think it is morally outrageous that we encourage young people to take out these big loans and give up years of their lives when it is increasingly becoming obvious that in some universities the average earnings of graduates is lower than the average salary of non-graduates.”
UCU added its concerns, not least about the removal of minimum student numbers from the criteria for university title. So why are we scrapping the right to confer title by the Privy Council? In the rest of the world that might be seen as a symbol of excellence and scrutiny. The problematic unfolding and development of the office for students, certainly in its early years, means it will not be able to have the same sort of international clout, and it removes the role of Parliament from either approving or disapproving the university title as a backstop.
The alternative White Paper, produced by a broad group of researchers and academics—it is a good read—has also done us a service by reminding us of the history and chequered process over alternative providers under this Government and their predecessor. In December 2014, the Public Accounts Committee robustly criticised officials from BIS for repeatedly ignoring warnings from the Higher Education Funding Council for England about the for-profit sector. In the report published in February 2015, the Chair reported that
“Between 2010-11 and 2013-14, there was a rise in the number of students claiming support for courses at alternative providers, from 7,000 to 53,000. The total amount of public money paid to these students…increased from £50 million to around £675 million. The Department pressed ahead with the expansion of the alternative provider sector without sufficient regulation in place to protect public money.”
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) has already referred to the famous photographed private memo casting doubt on BIS’s ability to solve this problem.
The Secretary of State talked about past objections. I think it was a recycling of something the Minister said recently to the Higher Education Policy Institute conference, although she did not go quite so far back as the Minister, who took us back to the 1820s and the “cockney universities”. When the Minister was asked what these new institutions would look like, having already had a lukewarm response from Google and Facebook, he could only say that a lot of them were interested.
The concern is for students whose institutions are forced to close. It is still unclear what resources the proposed office for students would have to police this or how affected students could be financially compensated and given a clear plan for completing their education. The White Paper says that all institutions will have an exit plan for their students, but how will it work? The Government’s own equality assessment admits:
“Ethnic minority students are more likely to come from a disadvantaged background which may mean that they cannot access the same financial or social resources as white British students in the event of a course or campus closure. We therefore expect”—
not “demand” or “will organise”—
“protection plans to have a greater impact on this group.”
Margaret Greenwood
On potential closures, does my hon. Friend agree that this is of particular concern to mature students choosing to study in universities in their immediate locality? Because they have to continue to work, support children and family members and so forth, a closure would create extreme difficulties for them.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring us back to the nub of the issue, which is the family circumstances of the people affected.
In those blithe phrases from the equality assessment lurks the potential for hundreds of broken careers and dashed hopes of social mobility. As serious is the reputational damage that failed challenger institutions or scandals associated with them could do to universities as a UK international brand. The Government’s White Paper was already blasé about the potential knock-on effects for UK plc of their sweeping changes. HE providers across England and the devolved nations of Britain are internationally competitive because they are seen as part of a tried and trusted UK brand. There needs to be a UK-wide strategy in place to safeguard that. As we emerge into a post-Brexit world, it will be even more vital, if we want our UK brand to shine as brightly as possible, that we reassure Scotland and Northern Ireland, especially where there remain unresolved tensions over research between UKRI and the new England-only bodies.
The Government say that the office for students will cover access and participation, but what concrete action there will be to match the rhetoric remains unseen. There remain major concerns about how quality assurance will be affected by the merger of the functions of HEFCE and the QAA. The Government have consistently undermined their own rhetoric on widening participation with cuts to ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—adult skills and social mobility funding for universities, alongside their disastrous decision to scrap maintenance grants for loans, for which we held them to account in this Chamber in January.
Peter Lampl and the Sutton Trust, who have championed that access for more than a decade, repeated their fears in their briefing on the Bill, including, specifically—this has been alluded to but the Secretary of State was unable to give an answer—the fact that English students have the highest level of debt in the English-speaking world. The figures are: £44,000 on graduation and over £50,000 for those requiring maintenance loans.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman is being exceptionally generous in giving way. In improving access to higher education, is not improving the quality of secondary education one of the most important things? Is it not a great tribute to our previous Prime Minister and to the previous Education Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), that there are now 1.4 million more children in good and outstanding schools who now have the chance to go to university and achieve great things?
Mr Marsden
I am always happy to applaud excellence in the secondary sector, but it is a little rich coming from the right hon. Gentleman, given that he and his predecessor presided over a system in which level 4 schoolchildren were denied automatic access to work experience, which would have built up their skills and capacity to take some of these positions.
Margaret Greenwood
On quality in schools, does my hon. Friend agree that there is also the issue of access to further education, particularly adult education? I used to teach on an access to higher education course in a college for adults. When it comes to accessing higher education, that sort of provision is invaluable, particularly for people from disadvantaged backgrounds, but sadly the Bill is very short on anything to do with lifelong learning and part-time education.
Mr Marsden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I intend to remedy that as best I can in my remaining remarks.
In the briefing for the Bill, the Office for Fair Access emphasises that it needs to retain the ultimate authority to approve or refuse access agreements. It is timely to emphasise that OfS board members should have expertise around social mobility and fair access. The Bill’s introduction of a transparency duty for higher education applications is positive, but as the Sutton Trust said in May, the Government’s record on improving social mobility is poor. We agree with the National Union of Students that the Government need to create a requirement for an annual participation report.
If we want the office for students to be a genuine office for students, there also needs to be a designated place on the board for a student representative. However, it is not only students who are key stakeholders but people working at all levels in our institutions, and that is why I particularly underline what Unison said about the lack of accountable strategic decision making around employers and students remaining a concern. That is something else that the OFS needs to look at.
We cannot get away from the fact that the student position is nowhere near as rosy as the Government are saying. For 20 years, the official position has been that maintenance support is not meant fully to cover the annual costs of living for full-time students. The loans are supposed to be supplemented by earnings or contributions from family. Too little attention has been paid to the other debts that students contract. The debate around increases to tuition fees is important, but the fundamental problem of sustainability also lies in maintenance support and student cost of living. That is why student dissatisfaction levels are so high and so alarming.
I turn now to the issues around the separation of regulation and funding between teaching at OFS and research at the new UKRI body. GuildHE says that it risks undermining some of the positive interaction between teaching and research. I have already set out the risks that allowing challenger institutions degree-awarding powers from day one could have on the quality of our institutions. The regulation needs to be robust, rather than just proportionate, but as I have emphasised when we debated the Government’s scrapping of student maintenance grants earlier this year, FE colleges are a key driver of social mobility. They deliver more than 10% of all HE courses in this country, often to the most disadvantaged students and often in places with a dearth of stand-alone HE provision and a history of low skills in the local economy. They span the country, from the NCG in the north-east to Cornwall college and my own excellent Blackpool and the Fylde college.
Last year, 33,700 English applicants were awarded maintenance grants for HE courses at FE colleges. One would have thought, therefore, that the Government would have seen them as a key element for expansion as part of their array of challenger institutions, yet hidden away in the annex to the impact assessment for the Bill is the Government’s forecast for the number of FE colleges that will be delivering HE as a result of the Bill. The forecast figure for 2027-28 is exactly the same as that projected for 2018-19, whereas other alternative providers are projected to more than double in number. It is true that the Bill will make it easier for FE colleges to get degree-awarding powers, but what comfort will that bring when systematic cuts to colleges’ ESOL provision, adult skills and other areas have reduced the capacity of FE to participate in HE expansion?
In addition, many key HE programmes on which both FE colleges and modern universities rely could be scrapped if up to £725 million of EU money currently going to local enterprise partnerships is lost—money that produces jobs and skills for them and their communities and on which hundreds of courses and staff depend.
Liam Byrne
Would my hon. Friend underline how important this point is? For many of the communities we serve, further education is the critical springboard into higher education. In the great city of Birmingham, we have the grand total of just 100 young people on level 5 apprenticeships. We cannot change that number unless we radically increase the way in which further education and higher education work together. That is why this element of the Bill needs highlighting as so important.
Mr Marsden
My right hon. Friend is so right; in his previous position at this Dispatch Box, he championed that position and continues to champion it excellently today.
We and many others, including the Royal Society, have major concerns about the merger of the science councils and the consequent tensions between the new UK model, English models and the devolved Administrations. It is an issue that seems to unite many people across the piece, whether it be the former President of the Royal Society, Sir Martin Rees, who has said that the plans were “needlessly drastic”; the Academy of Social Sciences, which fears that it will lose autonomy and weaken communication with academics over future research planning; or Paul Nightingale of the Science Policy Research Unit, who said that it was doubtful whether having an “extra layer of bureaucracy” would help.
We share the concerns of Cambridge University and others that there need to be stronger safeguards for dual funding and protecting the integrity of the QR. To deliver this dual support, there will need to be smooth interaction with the devolved Administrations, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Scottish Funding Council and the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland. However, the Royal Society and others, and indeed the director of the University of Scotland, Alasdair Smith, are very concerned about how this will operate. These changes prompted the Lords Science and Technology Committee to write to the Minister to express its concerns. It has stated that it had serious concerns about the integration of Innovation UK into UK Research and Innovation. It is concerned that Innovation UK should retain its business-facing focus, and the recently distinguished Chair of the Science and Technology Committee, now the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood), also asked for clarification on this point.
The proposed changes to the departmental landscape since last week split responsibility for research and teaching across UKRI and the office for students respectively. Two separate frameworks, the research excellence framework and the teaching excellence framework, both lack links to funding.
Now, of course, there are major concerns post-Brexit about how universities are going to fund that research. At present, UK universities receive 10%—just over £1 billion a year—of their research funding from the EU. The Times Higher Education says that 18 UK institutions face losing more than half of their research funding as a result of the decision to leave the European Union. This affects some of our newer universities as well as long-established universities in the Russell Group. That is why Professor Paul Nurse in his research review for the Government warned that leaving the EU jeopardised the world-class science for which the UK is known.
Jo Stevens
I have three universities in my constituency—two new ones and one Russell Group university—and they are very concerned about what is going to happen as a result of Brexit. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have had no reassurance from the Government about the replacement of the funds that currently go to our world-class universities?
Mr Marsden
I am afraid that I would agree. This problem has been amplified by people such as Chris Husbands, the Vice-Chancellor at Sheffield Hallam University, who said that four out of 12 of his research projects are now in jeopardy. These are issues that affect the bread and butter of the whole workforce. We did not think that this Bill was really fit for purpose before 23 June, but the difficulties have been amplified in the wake of the funding uncertainty and instability after the Brexit vote.
Mr Marsden
Not at the moment, I am sorry.
Now is hardly the time for embarking on three years of creative chaos, meddling with what the Bill calls the “architecture of quality assurance”, where the White Paper cheerfully says on page 61 that HEFCE and OFFA will dissolve, following the creation of the OfS. It is therefore not surprising that many universities have urged a period of stability. The Vice-Chancellor of Coventry University, Stuart Croft, has said that
“to add the demands of that Bill to those of EU exit, at the same time, will be an intolerable burden for universities that, frankly, threatens to rock our very capacity to do everything we do to promote and extend the UK’s reputation globally”.
The Chairman of the BIS Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), has recently made a similar point.
There are more than 125,000 EU students at UK universities. What is to happen to their continued eligibility to study here or access student loans? If we are seen as insular and inward looking, what does that leave us with regarding the 10% increase in domestic and EU students by 2019-20, which the Government promised in the White Paper? The Chair of the BIS Select Committee also echoed these concerns, saying that
“the government has not provided that clarity needed to reassure individuals”.
The White Paper, of course, and this Bill argue that the new challenger institutions will be central for extending that, but at a time when our existing institution brands already risk losing tens of thousands of EU students, this obsession with untried, unnamed and untested providers could undermine rather than reward the sector. We should not think that will affect only England. There are 20,000 non-UK EU students at Scottish universities and 2,700 at Northern Irish universities.
Finally, what is to happen to the future careers of some of our brightest and best students and our future workforce? During the 2013-14 year, there were 15,000 UK students on the EU-funded Erasmus programme. This is not just about economic losses, but about the potential blighting of a whole generation, brought home to me by an email the weekend after the Brexit vote from a young man in Blackpool who, thanks to the EU Erasmus programme, had just completed a year of his university course in Munich. He said:
“I’m deeply concerned about our path forward as a nation.”
The former Chair of the Science and Technology Committee pressed the Minister on Horizon 2020, but the Minister refused to be drawn on future schemes to enable EU citizens to come to work in science. Why? Because he knows that, given her Home Office stance on migration, the new Prime Minister could veto it. Regardless, then, the Government are merrily pressing on with a Bill introducing major changes that could cause further massive disruption. No wonder people are saying, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”
The rhetoric of the White Paper is all about the mechanisms for gaining a rapid increase in young graduates, but there is little mention of the importance of adult skilling, and very little in the Bill to power it. There is a complete failure to plot any realistic lifelong learning strategy to tackle our skills gaps. We need to retrain and reskill older workers because there are not enough young ones.
There was much talk about improving social mobility by the previous Government, but little of it has touched on or benefited older and part-time students. The number of part-time students has plummeted by 38% and mature students have dropped by 180,000 since 2010. As the Open University has said:
“Part-time HE is a catalyst for widening participation. It is essential that the new government reaffirms”
their targets. The Secretary of State was quite right to talk about young people from disadvantaged backgrounds improving through part-time education, but that has not been seen for mature students, whose numbers have declined greatly.
The huge challenges are underlined by the latest survey of students by the National Education Opportunity Network, which says that
“over 40% may be choosing different courses and institutions than those they would ideally like to because of cost and restricting the range of institutions they apply to by living at home”.
This Government have talked the talk on widening participation, but they have not walked the walk. It is astonishing that in such a large Bill, they have not put centrally the importance of adult and part-time learning to improving social mobility. Instead, they tucked it away in a couple of paragraphs in the White Paper.
Speaking as someone whose passion for this area was fuelled by nearly 20 years as a course tutor in the Open University, and having cut my teeth as a post-grad with the Workers Education Association, I am proud to endorse, as is this party, an express commitment to part-time HE and adult education in the proposed general duties of the office for students. I have said previously that the worlds of FE, HE and online learning are morphing into each other far quicker than some Whitehall policy makes us realise. If we are not ahead of the curve, the consequences for our economic performance and social cohesion will be severe.
James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman mentions a number of criticisms of competition in the university sector, but does he not agree with Lord Mandelson, who said in his response to the Government White Paper:
“I welcome this focus on the range of universities…as they are essential for social mobility”?
Mr Marsden
Lord Mandelson and I are at one on that; I welcome a range of universities, but I want to make sure—I am sure most Members would agree—that they do what they say on the tin and can be trusted in the first place. That is the whole point of what we are saying. [Interruption.] I know, from a previous incarnation, that the Whips are trained to say things like that, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury (Mr David Evennett)
Wait and see.
Mr Marsden
I will indeed wait and see.
The Government should take into consideration proposals in the new report that has been prepared for the all-party parliamentary group for adult education, “Too important to be left to chance”. They should study the Fabian Society’s new proposals: it recommends gradually doing away with loans via national insurance and education learning accounts. The Open University, City and Guilds, the TUC, the Institute For Public Policy Research, Unionlearn and several other organisations have produced ideas to facilitate both credit transfer and personal careers accounts, and I have added my own thoughts. They build on the magisterial 2009 NIACE report “Learning Through Life”, co-authored by Tom Schuller and the late lamented Professor David Watson.
Knowledge is power, as shop stewards and industrial injury lawyers know only too well. Today we have an opportunity, but also a duty, to extend that power through learning to millions of workers across Britain. Lifelong learning should not be “siloed”. It contributes to social cohesion, so it is an issue for the Department for Communities and Local Government; it helps people to live longer, so it is an issue for the Department of Health; it helps to return offenders to society, so it is an issue for the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice; and it contributes to preparing economically inactive people to enter the world of work, if that is appropriate. I have laboured those points because I realise that, given the smaller budgets that the Education Ministers may have, they may have to go to some of the other Departments with the begging bowl if we are to see any progress in this regard.
Knowledge is not merely power, but the key to empowerment. We should be bold in the world of lifelong learning that we offer our citizens for 2020: we should offer practical skills along with pure knowledge. Instead, however, the Government have been content to make welcome but incremental changes, while the capacity of adult learning is unravelling further. As was pointed out earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the Bill contains little reference to the part that devo-max can play in expanding new providers, or to the productivity and job needs of the 21st century. That fear is echoed in the alternative White Paper, which states:
“'A private, for-profit university would have neither an interest in meeting a broader public remit nor the interests of the local economy in which it is located—its primary responsibility will be to its owners, investors and shareholders.”
Instead of looking at urgently needed and constructive ways of reducing the financial fees burden on our students, the Government have produced mechanisms which dodge Parliament’s ability to judge and regulate them. Instead of strengthening and shoring up our universities and higher and further education at a most critical time, they risk seriously undermining them by obsessively pursuing a market ideology. Instead of presenting analysis in the wake of Brexit, offering relief, assurances and strategies to safeguard both research excellence in our traditional and modern universities and the involvement of higher education in the local communities and economies that they serve, the Government have presented no answers to the urgent threats, such as brain drains, that are emerging post-23 June. Instead of strengthening our UK HE brand in the uncertain world in which we must negotiate post- Brexit, they have produced what many regard as a hotchpotch of structures in research and science, with unresolved tensions between new structures for England and the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have continually ducked the suggestions made to them about pre-legislative scrutiny to try to iron out some of these issues, although, thank goodness, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool has initiated an inquiry.
Given the result of the Brexit referendum and the collapse of the Cameron Government, we see how wise it would have been for the Government to reflect and take time. Instead, they are going hell for leather with a Bill that is obsessed with a toxic combination of market and competition-driven ideology. The small measures of progress and relief that they have offered in respect of social mobility could have provided an opportunity for them to paint a bold new picture of a system that would encourage social cohesion, but instead they have undermined their own social mobility agenda in the ways that I have described.
We could have had a Bill which addressed those issues, and which would have commanded wide support across the House and among the institutions that that supply HE and research, but instead, after a week in which the very structures of the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been turned upside down, we are pressing on as if nothing had happened. Maynard Keynes famously said:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
This is not the Bill that this Parliament needs. It is not the Bill that universities and HE institutions needed. It is not the Bill that our country needs—that our countries need. It is a Bill that is currently not fit for purpose. Especially post-Brexit, we need a Bill that will provide direction and structure, and tackle and settle the needs of a crucial part of our national life for the next generation. That is why we cannot support this Bill’s Second Reading tonight.
Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con)
As a new Back Bencher, I feel fortunate to have the chance to contribute to this debate; it has been well-subscribed, and conducted in the generous spirit one would expect of any education debate. And we have learned a lot, as we would expect in any education debate. We have learned that the University of Aberdeen is staying true to its internationalist foundations at a time of change. We have learned that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) is that rare thing on the Conservative Benches, a Guardian reader. We have also learned from his skilled powers of observation that the new Secretary of State for Education is slightly less blonde than the Minister for Universities and Science, but one of the things his observation has reinforced in my mind is that blondeness is clearly a quality that brings preferment under this new Government—and I know where I went wrong.
I also thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) for his contribution from the Front Bench for the Labour party. He was a distinguished editor of History Today and an outstanding Open University lecturer, but I fear that in his speech today he did not do himself justice. His speech was 45 minutes long, which is some 12 minutes longer than Mozart’s longest symphony, and during those 45 minutes, while there was a great deal of criticism of the Government’s proposals, there was precious little that was fresh, original or new in terms of policy vision. As an education reformer, he is not yet ready to join the ranks of Rab Butler, Lord Robbins or H.A.L. Fisher. It was a pity that instead of what we used to have from Labour—a comprehensive vision of education, education, education —we had instead prevarication, obfuscation and mystification. It is, I fear, sadly reflective of the condition in which the Labour party now finds itself—of the fact that a party that was once committed to the improvement of education, the extension of opportunity to all and radical reform to bring that about now has so little to say. That is not a criticism of the hon. Gentleman or indeed of those who spoke from the Labour Back Benches today; it is just an observation of the fact that where there was once intellectual fertility, there is now, sadly, aridity. But I wish my colleagues on the Labour Back Benches well as they try to ensure their party rediscovers its radicalism and policy vitality.
May I contrast the lack of ideas, fizz and energy on the Labour Front Bench with the qualities displayed by our new Secretary of State in her remarks opening this debate? I had the opportunity to remark earlier on the fact that our new Secretary of State has made extending social mobility the hallmark of all the roles she has taken in Government. She spoke eloquently and from the heart about her own personal journey and her commitment as a graduate of Southampton University and as a comprehensive school girl who was the first in her family to go to university to extend to others the opportunity she herself has enjoyed. It is a promising sign that she now leads a fused and reinvigorated Department for Education that covers the support of children from the moment of birth right up to the point at which they go on to an apprenticeship or into university. It was a mistake of Gordon Brown to separate universities—to make them orphans first of all in the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills, and then to have them spatchcocked into the business Department—because I feel an unnecessarily narrow and utilitarian approach was taken towards higher and technical education.
The restoration of a Department that sees education in the round and takes a holistic approach to human development and intellectual inquiry is all to the good, and the Secretary of State is absolutely the right person to lead it, and the Minister for Universities and Science, who has already proved himself a distinguished higher education Minister, is the right person to take this Bill forward in Committee.
It is appropriate that we legislate at this stage because this Bill is a sequel, in a way, to the changes we introduced under the coalition. It was the Browne report into higher education finance and the decisions taken by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), and indeed Vince Cable when he was Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, that ensured that we were able to place the financing of higher education on a sustainable footing for the future. Almost uniquely among European nations, our higher education system is solvent as a result of the courageous decisions that they took. He will not thank me for mentioning it, but the former leader of the Liberal Democrats, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr Clegg), displayed both courage and principle in rejecting his election promise and embracing the right policy outcome. Although he paid a political price for that decision, we should record that it was right, not just for the solvency of our higher education institutions, but also for access. As a result of those changes, more children from poorer backgrounds, and from working-class and disadvantaged homes, now go to university than ever before, and that is a direct result of the courage and coherence of the reforms that were made to funding. Having made those funding reforms, we must now complete the story and ensure reforms to the structure and quality of higher education, so that we maintain our position of global leadership.
Let us be in no doubt that universities across the United Kingdom are global leaders, and some of our finest institutions are among the top 20 universities in the world. Those include not just established institutions of great antiquity such as Oxford and Cambridge, but London’s universities, which are outstanding in research, teaching and their capacity to improve our productivity. We are fortunate that changes in the Bill will ensure that the position of global leadership that we currently enjoy will only be enhanced.
I welcome the fact that the Bill will lead to the development of new challenger higher education institutions. As the Secretary of State made admirably clear, at every point in our history, whenever it has been suggested that we expand the number of higher education institutions, “small-c” conservative voices have always said that more would mean worse. The Anglican clergy used to insist on a monopoly on higher education learning through their stranglehold on Oxford and Cambridge, until a brave, utilitarian radical helped to set up University College London, and helped to break that monopoly and extend higher education.
Throughout the 20th century we had the establishment of the red brick, the plate glass, and the polytechnics into universities, and each of those steps was an exercise in the democratisation of knowledge. It is a pity that in recent years, even though the University of Buckingham has taken its place among universities as a first-class institution, we have not had the same innovation and new institutions being created, but this Bill makes that possible.
There is, of course, an absolute requirement for new institutions to meet a quality threshold that ensures that public money and intellectual endeavour are well directed, and that is why I welcome the principle of the teaching excellence framework. Those on the Opposition Front Bench criticised the Minister of State for being a listening Minister and wishing to consult, while simultaneously suggesting that he was somehow closed-minded and rigid in his desire to ensure that we compare like with like. Let me come to the Minister’s defence—he does not need me to defend him because logic will suffice. The teaching excellence framework has been subject to extensive consultation. That consultation closed just over a week ago on year 2 of the TEF, and in that document of more than 60 pages a series of detailed questions were asked, all of which followed intense engagement with those working in higher education. It was a model for how a Department should consult, and the Minister has shown himself to be a listening, pragmatic and empirical steward of his responsibilities. The TEF has and will evolve as it should in the best traditions of the Department.
The idea that we should somehow object that the TEF allows us to compare different types of institutions is a fundamental misunderstanding. The hon. Member for Blackpool South said that it was a one-size-fits-all approach, but it is explicitly not that, as the consultation makes clear. It is an opportunity to allow individual institutions to be compared in a way that allows meaningful lessons to be drawn for undergraduates and for the Government.
Mr Marsden
Let me make it clear that we were not saying that the TEF was a one-size-fits-all measure. We were saying that the basis on which it was going to operate during the first year was one size fits all. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will remember that I went on to talk about the need for the TEF to be more disaggregated so that we could look at it within universities. That process might yet come forward.
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. Indeed, in the constructive spirit in which most of this debate has been held, I welcome what he says and entirely accept that this is a move towards greater consensus.
One concern that people sometimes have about an emphasis on quality is that it somehow runs counter to the important principle of access, and that there somehow has to be a tension between maintaining rigorous teaching and research quality in an educational institution and broadening access. I do not think that there is necessarily a tension between the two, and neither do those who lead our universities. It has been conspicuous, over the past six years and beyond, how energetic vice-chancellors and others have been in ensuring that they can broaden access to higher education.
I would make the point, however, that while universities have worked hard and collaborated with the Department for Education in its previous incarnations to try to influence the curriculum and examinations in such a way as to maximise access to the benefits that higher education can bring, still more could be done. I do not accuse any institution or individual of bad faith, but I believe that there is additional potential for higher education institutions to, as it were, get their hands dirty in the business of improving secondary education. As I have mentioned, King’s College London has helped to set up a new maths free school which will ensure that gifted students from across the state sector have an opportunity to graduate to the mathematic and scientific degree courses that our country needs. It would be a wholly good thing if more universities were to follow the example of those that have been in the lead in sponsoring academies. In saying that, I am simply reiterating the case that has already been made so brilliantly by my Friend in the other place, Lord Adonis.
As well as ensuring that we improve access, the Bill makes it clear that academic freedom must be defended. The National Union of Students—a distinguished former president of which sits on the Opposition Benches—has often been an effective steward and safeguard of undergraduates’ interests. At the moment, however, there are voices and individuals within the NUS who have not upheld the best traditions of academic freedom and who have in some respects created a chilling environment and a cold home for students, particularly those who are Jewish. I applaud the work that has already been done by the Minister of State in ensuring that academic freedom is not simply an abstract question of academics being allowed to publish, debate and discuss, and that it must also be about ensuring that our universities are places where individuals can feel confident that they are respected and that their intellectual journey will be allowed to proceed in safety, whatever their background.
That brings me to my final point. A number of speakers in the debate have talked about Britain’s departure from the European Union as though it were a cataclysm the like of which this country had never endured before—a sort of Noah’s flood that will bring devastation to our institutions. I respect the fact that passions were engaged during the referendum debate and that those who argued that we should remain were sincere in their belief that leaving the European Union would bring problems and challenges for our higher education institutions. All I would say is that if we look at continental Europe—I mean no criticism of those countries—we can see that there are no world-class universities in the eurozone that could take their place alongside the universities of this country or indeed of the United States of America or south and east Asia.
The spirit of intellectual inquiry—and, indeed, international collaboration—that marks out all our best universities globally does not depend on membership of any political union or subscription to any bureaucratic system. It depends on a belief in honest inquiry, a desire to go where the truth takes you and a commitment always to have an open mind to new facts, new experiences and new people. I am confident that those who lead our universities will take the opportunity that the Bill gives them to ensure that the superb work they do remains open to students from across this world, so that our higher education sector, which has done so much to strengthen our economy and to make this country such a very special place, can proceed into the future with confidence.
SATs Results
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. First, I should comment on the uniformly thoughtful and interesting contributions from Back Benchers. Let me begin by mentioning the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who challenged the Secretary of State on the whole issue of secondary improvements. Although that is not the subject of this debate, secondary schools would be assisted if they and their heads did not have to worry about how to play catch-up on key stage 2 SATs fails.
The hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh), in a thoughtful speech, was rightfully caustic about some of the Secretary of State’s newspeak on SATs. His quote from one of his respected local headteachers about this being “one big mess” is devastating, so we should all take it into account. It is worth mentioning that, in a survey, 97% of primary teachers and leaders expressed concern that schools were preparing pupils for the tests at the expense of the wider curriculum, and other Members have spoken about that today. The hon. Gentleman also talked about a sense of common enterprise. His contribution, like others, pointed out that we need not only a sense of common enterprise, but evidence-driven policy.
The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), the former Chair of the Education Committee, used the interesting word “volatility” to describe what has happened this year. That was not a great word to use; his five years as Chair might have given him a choicer set of words to describe the fiasco of the process and outcomes that this year’s SATs have left us with. He also talked about the need for people to row back in, but surely the whole problem is that the specs were not there in time for them to do so. That point needs to be taken on board.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Heidi Allen) struck a chord with many Members by talking about the way in which we need to keep our teachers with us. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) regaled us with tales of her days, and perhaps the Secretary of State’s days, in the sandpit. Apart from that, the most enlightening thing in my hon. Friend’s speech was when she relayed what her local headteacher, Katie, said. Perhaps it should have been what Katie did and what Katie did next. To be fair, the Secretary of State was gracious and told us what Katie needs to do next: get her thoughts in before 15 July. Again, this raises the issue that people can have legitimate concerns without being anti-testing.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) said that the tests should not be set to a low benchmark. Nobody in the House would dispute that point. He said that there needs to be more time for prep and more time for learning subjects other than English and maths. Perhaps we can welcome him as an additional recruit to those of us who talked to the Minister last week about the need to widen the EBacc.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) rightly expressed concerns that some of the outstanding schools in his constituency have had bizarrely low results. He also rightly asked what the Government would do about the security of the tests. I hope that the Minister will take on board those issues in his response.
My hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State got an unfair blistering from the Secretary of State. My colleague painted a stark picture of the strengths and skills of the young people who took the tests this year being cast aside or ignored because they have been the guinea pigs and victims of the Department’s shambles this year. She did show passion, and she needed to do so, because the pupils who took this year’s key stage 2 SATs have been very badly let down. Why is that? It is because the Department’s resources and Ministers’ focus were obsessively trained on their national programme of academisation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), among others, said when the previous statement was made, they took their eye off the ball. Tens of thousands of children have suffered, and for what? For a humiliating climbdown on forced academisation under fire from the Government’s own side, which now means that the Secretary of State will have to swerve and dodge in the academy-lite education Bill that may or may not come this autumn or under this Secretary of State.
In this instance, process cannot be divorced from outcome. Russell Hobby, the general secretary of the NAHT, was quite right to say that the Government had made
“serious mistakes in the planning and implementation of tests this year”
and
“with the delays and confusion in guideline materials.”
The Minister for Schools said in this House on 10 May that Pearson UK was investigating the uploading of the key stage test on to a website and was committed to investigating it quickly. I do not recall whether we have had a full explanation of that from the Minister, so I ask him to give us one now. I also echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling said by asking the Minister to tell us what steps he has put in place to reduce the possibility of this happening again.
The Secretary of State wanted to cloud talk of her failures by saying that this was all driven by an NUT plot. If she were to pause for a moment from her rant about the NUT, perhaps she would like to look at the joint statement that the National Governors Association and the NAHT put out. They said that schools did not need to draw conclusions from the SATs data because they provide
“no intelligence on the rate of improvement of teaching and learning.”
They went on to point out that many will be “feeling demoralised”, saying:
“Pupils, teachers and parents and all involved in schools should be proud of the work they have put in to implement”—
the new curriculum and the testing regime—
“in what has been a very short timetable.”
It is simply not good enough for the Secretary of State to be complacent about this matter. The Government’s complacency has already been commented on by the Public Accounts Committee, although that does not seem to have affected the Secretary of State’s ability to be Madam Pangloss on the issue. In her first response to the results, she said that they had been a “good start”, but Anne Watson, who was the emeritus professor of mathematics education at the University of Oxford, said:
“The aim to raise standards has resulted in a new way to measure performance so that no comparative judgments can be made…This means we do not know from the data alone whether the Government has done a good job or a bad job and whether the test designers and score-scalers have done a good job or a bad job.”
After all, these results mean that, according to this Government, 47% of children in this country are not ready for secondary school. How do we tell children and their parents that?
The Secretary of State—the Minister has said this on another occasion—talked about the fact that pupils either “don’t mind” or “enjoy” taking these tests, and the ComRes poll gave them some comfort in that respect. Pupils might not mind taking the test, but they mind with absolute justification the test being taken out of context and their teachers being left frustrated that they are not able to engage at an early enough stage.
When the Minister made his statement in May, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe made an absolutely key point:
“By rushing ahead with the policy without properly involving professionals or parents, the Government failed to spot the fundamental flaw in the design, which was that the test that they had developed were insufficiently comparable. As a result, they were forced to abandon their approach to baseline test entirely.”
He went on to say:
“There has been a constant stream of chop and change in primary assessment under this Government. Since September, the Department for Education has updated or clarified on average at least one primary school assessment resource every other working day.”—[Official Report, 10 May 2016; Vol. 609, c. 554.]
We do not regard that as good enough.
On the floor standard, I think the Secretary of State said that the details would be made available in September, yet her Department told Schools Week that the results would not be published until December. Whether it is September or December—the Secretary of State or the Minister is welcome to clarify this—what an indictment it is that schools should have that sword of Damocles over their head for four or six months.
Ultimately, this comes down to what happens in individual Members’ constituencies and the responses that they get. In my own area of Lancashire, the spokesman for the National Association of Head Teachers said that, with 94% of Lancashire schools judged good or outstanding by Ofsted,
“there is something wrong in the assessment process”,
and that schools need to support their children and their staff
“and carry out what is effectively damage limitation.”
Last Friday I visited one of my primary schools in Blackpool, where the head and others are doing some extremely good work. I observed a session with an excellent Pobble literacy tutor, but when I spoke afterwards to the head, he had a huge sense of frustration that the school had not been able to structure its exam preparation because of the continuous chopping and changing to which I and my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe have referred. The head said, “I fear it will put more pressure on testing in these students’ first year in secondary schools.” The schools will not regard the tests as useful, and the consequence will be deflated students and pressured parents—those are my observations, not those of the head.
The years between the ages of nine and 11 are almost as crucial for young people as the time of transfer to secondary school. I am old enough—I suspect that others in the Chamber may be old enough—to remember the nine-plus. I remember from doing the nine-plus that it was a testing time, so it is not good enough for the Minister and the Secretary of State to draw a veil over this year’s results by setting up straw people and saying that the Opposition or other critics are not interested in testing or in standards. We are interested in both, but we are also interested in their being delivered competently, and this Government have not shown competence.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Edward Timpson
The hon. Lady is right to highlight that money from the sugar levy will be spent directly on sport and physical activity. There is also a commitment of £500 million to help up to 25% of secondary schools extend their school day, and we have doubled the PE and sport premium for secondary schools from £150 million to £300 million per year, which is already making a significant impact on the quality of PE in many of our primary schools.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Character development includes turning young people to the outside world and helping them to gain confidence when thinking and working with people. Work experience in the teens is crucial, and it is damaging that Ministers scrapped the key stage 4 requirement in the curriculum. No wonder business groups urged them to do more, as did the skills commission on careers advice; and a five-year policy and funding vacuum has failed to prepare young people for that world of work. Will Ministers use the new Education and Adoption Act 2016 to restore work experience to the curriculum?
Edward Timpson
Many of us have had the benefit of work experience—I am sure some Members are enjoying that right now on the Opposition Front Bench—and we know that it provides people with a better understanding of the opportunities that they have in later life. The Careers and Enterprise Company is an important development because it seeks to open up those opportunities and create better links between schools and business.
The Minister for Schools (Mr Nick Gibb)
My hon. Friend is a strong promoter of educational excellence in Portsmouth. Centres of excellence in initial teacher training will be designated on the basis of criteria such as the quality of trainee teachers recruited, the quality of training courses, the outcomes for trainee teachers and training providers’ effectiveness in recruiting. We expect to confirm the schools and universities that have been designated as centres of excellence for the 2017-18 academic year when the allocation of training places is made in the autumn.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Ten days ago, we had the Government’s latest figures for apprenticeships. They showed that only one in four apprenticeships was going to young people under 19, whether it be in the number of starts or participation, and, even worse, that there were only 12,000 traineeship starts compared to 109,000 apprenticeship starts for under-19s. Does this not show that, after all the time and money Ministers have devoted to apprenticeships, they are still flailing around for a coherent strategy to get young people under 19 to the starting-block—either for traineeships or apprenticeships?
Mr Gibb
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. Following the apprenticeships review in 2012, employers are designing new apprenticeships that are more responsive to the needs of business. More than 1,300 employers are involved; 241 standards have been published; and more than 160 new standards are in development. In the last Parliament, there were 2.4 million apprenticeship starts, and the reforms to technical education will build on that. This is a very successful part of our education system.
EBacc: Expressive Arts Subjects
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure and privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Chope. We have had a fantastic debate here this afternoon so far. The contributions from all parties have been, without exception, inspired, passionate and admirable.
I want to start by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for the passion and comprehensiveness with which she put forward the case so well represented by all the people in the audience today. She was absolutely right to do the roll call of organisations that support the petition; she has saved me that job. She was absolutely right to cite the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is not often cited in these matters. The Minister and his colleagues might wish to take that issue on board if they are revising this particular issue in any shape or form, were it to have financial consequences. She also drew attention to the DCMS report and the culture of disfranchisement, restricting young people’s life chances, one-size-fits-all GCSEs, the Creative Industries Federation’s concerns, and the 46,000 fall in GCSE entries in arts subjects last year. Of significant importance—this point was taken up by other speakers across the divide—is the impact on the disadvantaged and the socially immobile.
In a spirit of cross-partisanship I also want to praise the absolutely excellent and admirable speech made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (David Warburton) with his focus on music facilities, widening participation and the creative industries. It was a paean to the study of music. As someone who came to my interest in history in a significant fashion via music, I entirely agreed with him. My right hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) reminded us, as have others, that what counts is what matters in government, and she talked about the law of unintended consequences and the impact. I was delighted that she quoted Maxwell Davies’s new opera because, again, when I was a teenager, one of the first things that got me passionately interested in medieval history was the setting by Maxwell Davies of “The Fader of Heven”, which comes from one of the English mystery plays. It is appropriate at this time when the Orkney festival is in full swing and when of course we have sadly lost Maxwell Davies that she should have done that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) not only drew on his own history as a distinguished member of the Government, but spoke movingly of his own experience as a black chorister at Peterborough cathedral and about the rigours and the discipline of the music. I can personally endorse what he said about the great partnership between the Department for Education and DCMS during what he described as the Blair years, because I was a Parliamentary Private Secretary in that Department at the time that that programme was being taken forward. It was a model of co-operation, with some financial tensions as always, but it was a model of co-operation across those two Departments, and it is a model of co-operation in getting out of silos that the Government would do well to emulate.
I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). She has been a fantastic chair of the all-party group. She and I have had various conversations about the issue of unintended consequences. She was absolutely right to point to the need to get young people out and to get them experiencing things, as did the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mims Davies), who has now left us. We can all probably remember school trips to theatres or music events that made an impact on us. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) rightly brought us back not only to the aesthetic aspects, but the bread and butter aspects. If I might say so, one of Bradford’s most famous citizens, J. B. Priestley, would have been proud of her. She said that too many of her constituents did not have access to technical qualifications and she linked that to the need to develop new industries. I feel particularly strongly about this matter because it is second-level towns, if I can put it that way, in England and Britain today—the Bradfords, the Prestons, the Blackpools—that need a creative boost in their economies in the same way that our big cities got a creative boost in the early 2000s.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) talked about the impact of BBC MediaCity on schools and creative learning. Again, when I was first a shadow Minister with responsibility for further education and skills, I went there with my hon. friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) and saw some of the exciting work that was going on. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) rightly pointed out that it was investment from the Labour Government in her school arts facilities that had potentiated them academically, and she made the point about how many people in Bristol earn their living in the creative industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) talked about the healing qualities of the arts and also the impact on the morale of the profession. Finally, the hon. Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan), as well as making the very sensible point that strict hierarchies of subjects are not a good idea, also gave evidence of how a mix of subjects could have an impact on overall behaviour and commitment. So there was a string of experiences and arguments that the Minister would do well to ponder.
I want to talk about what some other organisations have said about their concerns in this area. I want to quote the response by the Edge education charity to the EBacc consultation, which some Members here may have had. It made the point that
“there has already been a significant shift away from creative and technical subjects in KS4. Entries for GCSE Design and Technology have fallen by 29% in five years…These trends would be severely exacerbated by imposing the full EBacc on 90% of KS4 students, because they would have to drop non-EBacc subjects to make room for foreign languages, history and/or geography.”
The statistics it cites are alarming:
“To get to 90%, 225,000 students will have to drop one of their current options and take a foreign language GCSE instead. The result will be a sharp fall in the number of students taking technical and creative subjects.”
I have already quoted what Edge said about GCSE design and technology. In the note it sent to colleagues today, it said:
“The 90% EBacc target will limit choices. Harm large numbers of students. Reduce the uptake of technical and creative subjects. Add to the country’s growing skills gap.”
It is that growing skills gap that the Minister needs to focus on in his response.
Mr Marsden
I agree entirely with what the Minister says about languages but, as one of my colleagues said earlier, it is not our job to set up one choice against another. It is for the Minister to navigate that process accurately and correctly. Simply quoting individual statistics is not going to make much of a point for him.
I was about to say that there is a curious disconnect in this debate. When we finally see the much delayed skills plan, I hope we will be able to welcome it. We are told that it will be incorporated into the Minister’s portfolio in the Department for Education, or certainly into the Department generally. The work of the taskforce, which was chaired by Lord Sainsbury and included Baroness Wolf and the head of my own further education college in Blackpool, is crucial to the debate about getting all these things right. It is a question not of having either technical skills or expressive skills but of where we take them. Given that the Government have spoken about the importance of higher-level skills, it seems passing strange that their forthcoming Bill will not be associated with what comes out from the Department. The truth is that it is not a question of developing either technical and professional skills or expressive arts skills.
Catherine Sezen of the Association of Colleges wrote recently in the Times Educational Supplement that
“it is important that in striving to boost technical skills, this is not at the expense of creative skills”.
Many colleagues have made the connection between those two areas today, and I hope the Minister will think very hard about that. Catherine Sezen’s article continues:
“Failure to protect these subjects could leave another skills gap, but one that could be more difficult to fill…This, combined with the introduction of the more rigorous GCSEs graded 9 to 1, means it is more than likely that schools will offer a more limited number of optional subjects. This will have an impact on take-up of creative subjects”.
It should not be forgotten—I am well aware of this, as Member of Parliament for a seaside and coastal town where tourism is really important—that many occupations, including catering, hairdressing and architecture, combine technical and creative skills. It is a question of seeing where the joins are.
In April, I had the privilege of visiting the University of the Arts London’s new campus at King’s Cross, where I met many people who had come to the college as students through a combination of technical expertise and creative interest. As the Minister may know, UAL is the leading educator of talent in the UK’s creative industries, but it is very concerned about not being able to attract sufficient numbers of young people to London, not just because of the high cost but because of the increasing lack of coverage in schools. The danger is that that will also hit the expanding creative industries.
The combination of technical and creative skills in the creative industries is crucial. I will not cite the figures for the amount our economy depends on them, because that has already been done very ably by colleagues. However, I will make the point, further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West said about students with special needs, that those students are often very strongly represented, not just at UAL but at other places. That is another area that should concern the Minister.
Other Members have already talked about MillionPlus’s briefing, so I will not go into it in any great detail, except to mention that it says that the role of modern universities, as a group, in supporting the creative industries is crucial. At a time when we worry in separate areas about the impact on modern universities of some of the proposals in the Government’s new Higher Education and Research Bill, the Minister might want to take that on board as well. We know the figures for the declining take-up of arts subjects at GCSE, and I will not go over them again.
I have two or three questions for the Minister about his progress on the consultation. First, when do the Government intend to respond to it? Will it be under this Government or a future Government? I think most Members present want to see a response from the Government in fairly short order. Secondly, the point about working across silos has been made very strongly, so what internal discussions has he had about the consultation with other Departments—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills or the Treasury? Thirdly, what assessment has he made of the equality impact of the EBacc’s implementation? If he has not made one, will he include one in his response to the consultations?
We need to get that spark of creativity that fires up young people. That is particularly true for my own town of Blackpool, where schools have always been strong in creative areas, even as they have aspired to better skills and academic excellence. I think of photography and design at Blackpool and the Fylde College, and of the performances I see month in, month out, of what we might expect in a seaside town. Schools are very good at putting on musicals and things of that nature. Wordpool, the annual festival funded by Blackpool Council, involves schools and helps children to write stories and poems, most recently about their own school giant. We have been able to do that in Blackpool because of the support that local government, which we have not had much chance to talk about today, often gives to these projects, despite the cuts.
All this is summed up by a letter I received literally this morning from the librarian of Thames Primary Academy in South Shore, which the Minister should understand is an area of high transience. She said:
“I am the school librarian at the Thames Primary Academy. I also run an Arts Appreciate Club…But I also know how hard it is for schools to find the time for these subjects…I believe many leaders of the creative community”
are worried about
“how much these subjects are losing students at high schools and in further education, to the detriment of our creative industries…I was struck by the date of this debate. It is my late father’s birthday, he loved and was very knowledgeable about art, classical music and films…He worked in a factory all his adult life but never felt that art was not for him. I wish we could get back to that feeling in this country.”
I echo those sentiments.
As I have said, I am an historian and a medievalist. I got my interest in medieval history not just from the battles and the dates but from listening to the music, from seeing the Wilton diptych and other fabulous things on a day trip to the British Museum, and—stretching the period a little—from seeing as a teenager the fantastic performance of Glenda Jackson as Elizabeth I. Glenda Jackson, as hon. Members who heard her on Radio 3 recently might remember, was working in Boots and got her big break by getting a council scholarship to go to the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. Those are some of the issues that I urge the Minister to consider.
C. P. Snow famously wrote a book in the 1950s about the two cultures and the division between arts and societies. Let us not allow the consequences of the EBacc to perpetuate that division, however unintentionally. Denis Healey famously said that all politicians should have a hinterland. I think that the hon. Members who have spoken today have amply demonstrated their commitment to that hinterland, and I invite the Minister to do the same.
Mr Gibb
That is where we disagree: young people living in a modern, complex society need to have mathematical skills that go beyond simple numeracy. They need to be able to do maths to the level of GCSE, which is why we have insisted that a GCSE in maths and in English are part of further education studies for students without those GCSEs.
No one in the debate is saying that those subjects should be dropped—in so far as that is concerned, we all agree. Our contention is that there is ample room to study, in addition to the EBacc subjects, the arts, economics or a vocational subject, if that is what interests the young person.
Mr Marsden
I understand the point that the Minister is making, but does he understand the point being made by the Opposition and elsewhere—that what is measured is what is valued? Unless the Minister says that every Ofsted report will look in the same detail at other, non-EBacc subjects, or take them into account in the rankings, as the EBacc subjects will be looked at—or as future employers will do—his argument is on somewhat weak ground.
Mr Gibb
People will look carefully at a school’s EBacc performance measure. We want more young people—90% by 2020—to be taking GCSEs in those core academic subjects, which will provide the widest level of opportunities for them in future. That is what all the evidence suggests, and the policy in China, Finland, the state of Ontario in Canada, the state of Victoria in Australia, Germany and Poland is that all young people study those EBacc subjects. In fact, no one present has disagreed that all those subjects should be compulsory to the age of 14, or that English, maths and science should be compulsory to 16: all the debate is about is whether young people should study a foreign language, or history or geography, for two more years. The policy of the Government is that they should be, because that is what is needed to have a broad and balanced education.
We deliberately kept the EBacc small—we received representations from all quarters asking for a whole range of other subjects, in addition to the arts, to be included in the EBacc. It could well become 10, 11 or 12 subjects if we gave in to those requests, but we deliberately kept it small—to seven or eight subjects—to enable young people to take an eighth, ninth or 10th GCSE, or an equivalent, in addition to the series of core academic subjects. That is what everyone in the Chamber today, I thought, had agreed with—that this is about what is in addition to the core academic subjects, and not instead of them.
On average, pupils in state-funded schools enter nine GCSEs and equivalent qualifications, rising to 10 for more able pupils. For many pupils, the EBacc will mean taking seven GCSEs and, for those taking triple science, it will mean taking eight. That means there will continue to be room to study other subjects, including the arts, as I have just said. If we extended the EBacc by including an arts subject, as proposed by the e-petition, pupil choice would be restricted, not expanded. Such a measure would prevent pupils from taking additional non-arts subjects of their own choosing, be that design and technology, religious education or a second foreign language. They might wish to study both history and geography, or to take a high-quality vocational course.
Mr Gibb
Messaging is one thing—I have said this to those who have been arguing about religious studies—but actually the lobbying itself is the messaging. I have never said, and no one in the Government has said, that arts subjects are any less valuable than the subjects in the EBacc. We have never said that economics is less valuable than any of the EBacc subjects. We have never said that vocational subjects are less valuable. In fact, we have had a whole review of vocational education, so that the remaining vocational qualifications that feature in the performance tables—more than 100—are valuable, deliberately, for that reason. We have never differentiated in our messaging between what is in the EBacc and what is not in the EBacc.
The purpose of the EBacc is to ensure that all young people take the combination of GCSEs that are taken by young people in the most privileged schools in our country and in the best and most high-achieving schools in the state sector. That is what we want and it concerns us that young people from deprived backgrounds who are eligible for free school meals are half as likely to take that combination, compared with their more fortunate peers. Tackling that issue is the core reason why the Government introduced the EBacc measure.
It has been suggested today that arts are not valued in the school accountability system. That is not the case. The EBacc is one of several measures against which school performance is judged. Progress 8, which forms the basis for the school floor standard, measures performance across eight subjects: English, maths, three EBacc subjects and three other approved qualifications. Those other slots can be filled by arts qualifications, if a pupil wishes. In addition, the once sprawling selection of GCSEs that was allowed to develop over the years has been narrowed to ensure that the ones we have are of a high quality—in fact, 28 GCSEs have been discontinued—which will further strengthen the position of core arts qualifications in schools.
There is no reason why the EBacc should imperil the status of arts subjects. Both core academic and creative subjects can, and should, co-exist in any good school. We have seen a dip in provisional arts entries this year, but since the EBacc was first introduced the proportion of pupils in state-funded schools taking at least one GCSE in an arts subject has increased, rising from 46% in 2011 to 50% in 2015. At Whitmore High School in Harrow, where 88% of pupils entered the EBacc in 2015, pupils benefit from opportunities to take part in a wide range of art, music and drama clubs.
GCSEs and A-levels in arts subjects have been reformed to include more rigorous subject content. From September 2016, schools will be teaching new GCSEs in music, dance and drama, and new AS and A-levels in music and in drama and theatre. We are working with exam boards and Ofqual to make sure it is very clear that all students should see live drama in the theatre as part of their drama qualification, and we expect that to be in place from September 2017.
It is worth noting also that one of the distinctive virtues of arts subjects is that pupils can and are very willing to participate in them as a part of their extra-curricular school experience. Pupils can perform in a school orchestra, take part in a dance group or participate on stage or backstage in a school play without necessarily taking music, dance or drama GCSE. It is for that reason that, between 2012 and 2016, we invested over £460 million in a diverse portfolio of music and arts education programmes designed to improve access to the arts for all children, regardless of their background, and to develop talent across the country. That includes support for the network of music education hubs, national youth music organisations, the National Youth Dance Company, a museums and schools programme and support for the Shakespeare Schools Festival. Those programmes are having an impact on pupils across the country. The National Youth Dance Company is in the middle of a national tour, which started on 26 June in Nottingham and takes in Newcastle, Leeds, Ipswich and Falmouth among other locations.
Music education hubs are intended to ensure that every child in England has the opportunity to learn a musical instrument through weekly whole-class ensemble teaching programmes. They are also expected to ensure that clear progression routes are available and affordable, and many hubs subsidise the cost of lessons for pupils. Under that programme, any budding seeds of musical passion that young people have will not remain un-nurtured. We announced in December that funding for music education hubs would remain at £75 million in 2016-17.
Introducing primary school pupils to the arts early on is important and that is why I am so pleased that every primary school in the country now has free access to “Classical 100”, which is a new resource to introduce pupils to classical music. It comprises high quality Decca recordings of 100 pieces of classical music from the 11th century to the 21st century that I hope will stimulate children’s lifelong appreciation, understanding and enjoyment of music. Examples include Beethoven’s fifth symphony and Vaughan Williams’s Fantasia on Greensleeves as well as children’s classics such as Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf. That is something I was passionate about getting off the ground.
As well as programmes to ensure that all pupils receive a good arts education, we are continuing to invest in programmes ensuring the most talented can fulfil that talent. The music and dance, and the dance and drama awards schemes provide means-tested support to ensure that talented young people from all backgrounds receive the training they need to succeed in careers in music, dancing and acting. About 3,500 students a year benefit from that support, studying at world-class institutions such as the Royal Ballet School, Chetham’s School of Music and the Italia Conti Academy of Theatre Arts.
We have heard today concerns that the EBacc will hurt our creative industries. We absolutely recognise how important the creative industries are to our economy and our identity, but we do not accept that academic subjects at GCSE should prevent pupils from taking arts subjects.
Mr Marsden
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, who is—quite rightly—giving a heart-warming list of Government initiatives. I do not object to those in any shape or form, but can I bring him back to the specific questions I asked him? When do the Government intend to respond to the consultation, what internal discussions has he had and what assessment of the equality impact has been made?
Mr Gibb
The equalities impact will be published alongside the Government response to the consultation. Officials are working with officials from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. The consultation response will be published—here is the date: in due course. I hope the hon. Gentleman is happy with that response.
Mr Gibb
Partly—that will do for now. We believe that for too long pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds have been dismissed, missing out on the core academic curriculum that is taken as a given by their more affluent peers. Our EBacc policy will ensure that that is no longer the case.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Boles
He is right, to the extent that we want massively to improve the quality of apprenticeships, as well as the quantity, and they are not in conflict. But of course, if we are going to do both, we have to have more money to spend. That is why the apprenticeship levy is absolutely critical. It will enable us to take Government spending on apprenticeship training from £1.5 billion a year at the moment to £2.5 billion a year in England by the end of this Parliament, which is essential if we are to get the quality as well as the numbers up.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Minister has tried to construct a reassurance on traineeships, but the facts that have been dragged from the Government tell a different story. Freedom of information figures published in FE Week show that just 9% of 19 to 24-year-olds and just one in five of all 16 to 24-year-olds went from traineeships to apprenticeships. The Labour party has consistently supported traineeships for getting many more young people into quality apprenticeships, so why have the Government wasted three years, failing properly to promote, explain or target them? Ten days ago, the Minister warned about Brexit uncertainties threatening apprenticeship growth and the levy, so will he now spell out new initiatives to tackle the necessary increase in traineeships, including support to further education colleges and providers who are desperate to press ahead with them; or else risk failing the young generation?
Nick Boles
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on being one of the few people to resist the temptation to resign in the past 48 hours. He and the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), will go down in the history books as brave champions of modern opposition.
I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman is an avid reader of FE Week; it is an interesting publication. He will know that traineeships are not only about pre-apprenticeship programmes. The whole point of traineeships is to take people into apprenticeships, jobs or further training—whatever is best for them—and he would seek to narrow this programme, the great strength of which is its versatility.
Joseph Johnson
Certainly. In our manifesto we committed to rolling out our very successful catapult network, which provides shared facilities that companies, on their own, could not afford to construct. That enables our businesses to maximise the value of research coming out of our university system. In this Parliament, we have already delivered new catapults at Alderley Park in Cheshire and in Cambridge, with the precision medicine catapult. This is an expanding and very successful network, and it will continue to be so.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Minister’s higher education White Paper rightly bangs on about how important high-level skills are, but the imminent skills White Paper is not even part of his new Higher Education and Research Bill. With those who teach, manage and work in HE fearful of the consequences of Brexit, should he not be prioritising skills strategies for both our community-based and internationally focused universities and using FE colleges as key HE providers? Why is he instead gambling the bank on allowing unknown, brand-new providers to get degree-awarding powers from day one—probationary degrees from probationary providers—risking our universities’ brand reputation overseas, as well as jobs and productivity at home?
Joseph Johnson
I am working closely with my colleague the Skills Minister, whose forthcoming White Paper will have many of the answers to the questions the hon. Gentleman has posed. We are surprised by the tone of scepticism about the potential for new higher education providers to lift quality and enhance the range of high-quality higher education on offer in this country. I am afraid, though, that that is of a piece with the Labour party’s previous opposition to the conversion of polytechnics and to new universities in the 1960s.
Further Education Colleges: Greater Manchester
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(7 years, 11 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Ryan, and a great pleasure to be present at this debate. I congratulate all my colleagues who have spoken. My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) gave a speech that was a tour de force, covering the whole area. That does not always happen in such debates; sometimes cobblers stick to their narrow lasts, but my hon. Friend should be congratulated, as should my hon. Friends the Members for Stockport (Ann Coffey), for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith), for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), for Heywood and Middleton (Liz McInnes) and for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk).
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East introduced a personal point at the beginning of his speech, and rightly so, because the event he referred to was a seminal moment in the history of Greater Manchester. I hope I may be forgiven for saying that it gives me particular pleasure to be here today to hear the things that have been said, because I was born in St Mary’s hospital in the centre of Manchester. My parents came from Didsbury and Burnage, and I spent my first years—until I left school—in Levenshulme and Stockport, so the places and names that I have heard today have a lot of personal resonance for me, as well as their strategic resonance.
It is right to think of Greater Manchester as an organic area that had a long period of emergence and evolution. As a historian I am tempted to give a paean to the role of Greater Manchester in the history of the industrial revolution. [Hon. Members: “Go on!”] We do not have the time. People talk about the northern powerhouse and other such things, and how to replicate them elsewhere; I have on occasion said that the Minister should remember that the Construction Industry Training Board apprenticeship levy took a long time to get together, and in the same way we need to recognise that Greater Manchester’s cohesiveness and forwardness has not come about in a period of two or three years. It came about over 30 or 40 years, going back to the mid-70s when the Greater Manchester county was created, and the 10 boroughs entered it. The Government in the 1980s negatively and vandalistically got rid of that, with consequences that remain today in the area of transport. At the same time, that period was of seminal importance, because the 10 boroughs of Greater Manchester came together in particular to defend their municipal ownership of Manchester airport. In a way that started the process of cohering and evolving to the point where we are today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East particularly talked about the fact that the Greater Manchester districts have for a long time been initiators, cheerleaders and co-ordinators for apprenticeships. When my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Dr Blackman-Woods) and I compiled a pamphlet for the Smith Institute in 2013 about the work of local councils on apprenticeships, we highlighted the work of a number of Greater Manchester councils. That is something to remember in the context of my hon. Friends’ comments about the fact that, with regard to skills, the current devolution process is but half-formed. Without that involvement in apprenticeships, there is much that needs to be done about skills shortages that cannot currently be done through area reviews or by Ministers, however well-meaning.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East made a huge number of salient points and referred to the skills shortages in key areas. He was right to quote, as other hon. Members have, the concerns of the University and College Union. One of the things that is missing, by and large, from the area review process is involvement and consultation. That is a frequent issue extending through government. I see it when I am wearing my other hat, in higher education, where we await a major Bill. It is not just a question of getting things right with college principals or vice-chancellors. It is also a matter of getting things right with the skilled people under their remit: the junior lecturers and assistants, and all the people who keep those colleges, universities and campuses going. That is too often missed out of the process.
As I have said, colleges have done great work to support young people, but also older people, in gaining skills. They are vital to sub-regional economies. We cannot afford damage to the link between colleges and businesses or the many decent networks of colleges and schools in the area, through errors and failures in the Government’s area review programme, even if it is an unintended consequence. That is why one of the first things I said when I took on my role on the Front Bench in October was that FE is all about getting local people into work, with skills, in the local economy. That is not just a pious plea. It is very necessary to think about it now. In January 2015 Professor Alison Wolf, who as the Minister will know was the author of the Wolf review of vocational education—which has been praised and much quoted by the Government—said that Britain’s supply of skilled workers could “vanish into history”. We cannot afford to let talented and skilled young people—and older ones—fall by the wayside because colleges have closed and the funding is not there to develop the skills needed to boost sub-regional economies. To that I would add the vital role of FE colleges in the community in working with local authorities and local enterprise partnerships.
We have heard a lot today about the working out of the devo max process—the devolution process in the Greater Manchester area. I particularly emphasise the point that my colleagues made to the Minister about the potential for combined authorities to take on skills, education and training powers. Over-centralised Whitehall-led area decisions that are taken now could hamper their ability to do that effectively. That is particularly the case for utilisation of the adult skills and community learning budgets that are being devolved under the relevant part of the settlement.
I want now to talk about some of the particular issues that have been touched on today in the Greater Manchester context. One hon. Friend—I cannot remember which one—referred to the Public Accounts Committee December report, which mentioned the absolute necessity of delivering “robust and sustainable” FE solutions. At the time that was said, we saw two things in the Greater Manchester process. First, the timescale that the Government set out—this is true across the country—was ludicrously optimistic. We know that there have been problems, delays, and everything that has gone with that.
The second point that has come out of what has been said today is the tension between what my hon. Friends are talking about doing—taking on more powers—and the clear frustration of the Greater Manchester Combined Authority that it is waiting in the wings, almost as a shadow boxer, while the process is going forward. I refer again to the points made by the Greater Manchester Combined Authority in the FE Week article, which came after the fifth steering group meeting on 25 May. The Minister needs to take account of this:
“The GMCA said it ‘remains to be convinced’ that the proposed outcomes will ‘deliver the integrated learning infrastructure that is needed, taking Greater Manchester as a whole rather than focusing institution by institution’.”
It also said that it
“wants to ask the Secretary of State to award it the ‘power to make further changes to these proposals, should it become clear that the current options cannot deliver a Greater Manchester-wide learning infrastructure that meets needs’.”
I do not want to rain on the commissioner’s parade and echo what my hon. Friends have said about the significant amount of co-operation that is needed to go forward in a sensible way, and I know that the commissioners are constrained by the narrow remit the Government gave them, which has been quite clear in some of the things that have been said publicly and even more clear in some of the things that have been said privately. This is an iterative process, and I ask the Minister what he proposes to do to widen that remit and to give more of that ability to his commissioners and others to be flexible. The Greater Manchester area-based review progress report, which went to the leaders of the town councils, says:
“As Leaders will recall, the options chosen are not the decision of the GMCA, they are up to FE Commissioner, Secretary of State and College Boards…which are still incorporated bodies which no one has the right to close at present”.
That is the factual state of play, and it is therefore important that it is taken into account.
The Minister will know that there have been massive funding pressures in further education for several years, which have led to a £1.5 billion deficit across institutions nationally. The report that Bury College put forward stating why it wanted, or felt it needed, to enter into this process, said:
“The Further Education Sector has been subject to five successive years of funding cuts and fiscal restraints, which has weakened the financial stability of Colleges across the sector. No college has been immune to this impact and many colleges have already sought to mitigate the impact by exploring different structural arrangements such as federation, merger or shared services.”
I could go on about our critique of the way in which the Government have, while promoting apprenticeships funding, treated them rather as a one-trick pony and have not looked at other serious cuts, such as in adult skills, retraining and so on, but I will not. FE colleges have often been very adaptable, but that statement from Bury College demonstrates that even adaptable organisations need to have a bit of framework to breathe.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington said, this process seems to be a shotgun marriage. There would have been more confidence in the process if those broader institutions had been brought into the equation. Greater Manchester is a particularly sharp example of that. Figures were quoted of the numbers of sixth forms in schools and the number of sixth-form colleges. Comparative to the number of sixth-form colleges countrywide, there is a very high proportion. It is therefore particularly important that some of the particular needs are met, both of sixth-form colleges that are included in the process, but also of schools and academy sixth forms.
James Kewin, the deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges Association, has talked about some of the flaws in the process in not including school and academy sixth forms. That, too, has been a problem. I ask the Minister again whether there is any prospect, even at this late stage, of taking account of that broader framework in the remaining reviews. When he or whoever comes to decide on the recommendations, will they bear that in mind when accepting or modifying the recommendations the Secretary of State receives?
We have also heard about the impact on students. As I reminded the Minister when we had a debate on the north-east FE situation at the beginning of the year, mergers between colleges can be particularly harmful to the social fabric and social mobility of young people in rural and suburban areas. Suburban areas are an issue in Greater Manchester, and the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington about how his students will be affected by what happens at Stockport College are a very good example. However, it is not just about the mass of students; it is also about some of the particular groups of students who may be affected. At the University and College Union’s recent conference, Elane Heffernan, a member of its disabled members standing committee, made that point, saying that FE is
“one of the most integrated places where you can be”
as a learner. I am conscious of what my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said about the need to beef up the role and position of students with special educational needs in FE, which is part of the point.
Another point I want to make is that the process will affect not just FE, but higher education. Literally thousands of people in the HE sector get their qualifications at FE colleges. Because of that, what happens to those FE colleges in the context of mergers will have a significant impact on the provision of HE in the areas concerned. I do not want to comment on the merits or demerits of individual proposals, but I am thinking particularly about the potential merger of the University of Bolton with Bury College and Bolton College. The Minister needs to think about that process as well, and I would like him specifically to address what will happen to higher education under this set of reviews.
To put this into the broader context, the Government’s Sainsbury review, which is very important, is about to come out, and hopefully a skills White Paper will come along with it. It seems bizarre to many of us that what is actually the higher skills issue is likely to be dealt with not in the new Higher Education and Research Bill, but in the schools-for-all Bill. I am not particularly concerned about where things turn up—it could be in one Bill or another—but I am concerned about the apparent lack of co-ordination and co-operation between the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. I am even more concerned because, at the end of the day—this comes back to the points that my hon. Friends made—if we are to be successful in driving forward skills for older people as well as younger people in Greater Manchester and elsewhere, there has to be a strong engagement between that process and the process of job creation which, of course, also involves the Department for Work and Pensions. If it all goes wrong, the Government will have a lot to answer for, not simply because the structure process has sometimes been untimely, but because of the way in which they have framed it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington referred to many people having felt that, in this process, they were part of a shotgun wedding. Many of the processes may have been shotgun weddings, but we need to see what sort of baby they produce. The baby that they produce will be firmly the responsibility of this Government and those two Departments. I hope they will take on board what has been said about the combined authority, and think positively and creatively about widening its powers and allowing it, and the boroughs concerned, to have a real say in the final outcome.
Joan Ryan (in the Chair)
I am going to call the Minister now, but may I ask him to be sure to leave just a couple of minutes at the end, so that I can go back to the Member who moved the motion?
Nick Boles
I am always happy to be corrected on a point of history; I am sure that there is room for Mr Adamson’s name on the birth certificate as well.
It is a great pleasure to respond, because normally I find in these debates that, when the fundamental purpose of the Government’s policy has been attacked, I have to spend so much time explaining and defending it that I cannot actually address any of the more detailed questions of implementation that have been raised. Today, given that there seems to be a general acceptance that, at least in principle, the area review has the potential to create a stronger and more sustainable system of further education in Greater Manchester, I hope that I can actually spend the time available addressing some of the particular points.
I will start with the points made by the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East. As his hon. Friends have said, he gave a brilliant exposition of the skills challenges facing the Greater Manchester area. He specifically asked about concerns raised by the UCU. I want to reassure him that last week I met the union’s general secretary to discuss some of those concerns and how we can ensure that, where possible, we consult trade unions and their members on some of the ideas emerging from the area reviews. I have asked the union’s general secretary to come back with some specific ideas about how that might work. I hope that will satisfy some of the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.
The hon. Gentleman asked an important question about break clauses on bank loans—I have been asked it before in the House but have never had long enough to go into detail. I know that this has caused people some concern. We do not yet have a specific example of a college that is facing a very substantial payment that it was surprised by and that it does not want to enter into. The first point to make is that in the restructuring of bank facilities it may be, in a merger or some other kind of transaction, that the bank will have the technical right to impose certain charges. It is a matter of negotiation. They may have the right to, but if they see that the overall new construction or group is actually going to be a better borrowing risk for them, and make it more likely that they will get their money back or be able to lend more money, which is what banks are in the business of after all, then they can novate loans—to use the jargon—without break costs when the new loan is lower risk.
The critical point, which will apply not only to break clauses but to everything in a sense, is that although we will be strongly encouraging colleges to undertake the changes and mergers when that is what is recommended, ultimately that will be a decision for them. They are independent institutions and they will be able to take into account the full range of costs and benefits. There may be costs, to some extent, or bank charges, but they will need to go ahead only if the benefits of other cost savings or advantages are greater than those charges. As I said, I hope that in reality those charges will not prove to be as much of a problem as the hon. Gentleman perhaps feared.
The hon. Gentleman raised a very interesting question that we will not be able to go into in great detail now. However, I hear him and have some sympathy with his point that adult learner loans are not available for short courses. Although we have career development loans, their terms of repayment are less attractive to students than those of adult learner loans.
Nick Boles
May I just finish my sentence and then I will be happy to give way? I understand the point. I think we need to learn from some past mistakes. If we start having the taxpayer subsidising loan provision for very short courses, which is not something I want to rule out in principle, one has to ask how the Government and the taxpayer will be reassured that those short courses are genuinely valuable—as well as being valuable to the individual and their employer, they have to have some transferrable skills value. That is so that taxpayers’ money is not subsidising activity that is beneficial only to that narrow employer in that narrow job. That is something we are wrestling with, and I would be happy to hear ideas from the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East and other hon. Members on the subject.
Mr Marsden
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and entirely take his point about not wanting to subsidise—if I can put it that way—short-term courses that are not going anywhere. That might lead us into a broader discussion about credit accumulation processes and the rest, but I do not want to touch on that now. The point I want to make is that at the moment, as the Minister will be well aware, the take-up of those adult learner loans was somewhat less than 50% at the last count. It might be—dare I say it?—in his interests, or in the future interests of any person occupying his post, when negotiating with the Treasury, to make the point that there is this demand in the way that my hon. Friends have described, and that it could be valuable if a reasonable construction of it could be made.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Boles
The apprenticeship levy will apply to all employers throughout the United Kingdom with a payroll bill of more than £3 million. Of course, there is absolutely nothing to prevent any employer in Scotland that is paying the levy from putting pressure on whoever is in government in Scotland after this Thursday to make sure that they increase their investment in apprenticeships, as we are doing in England.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
Tucked away in the autumn statement was the Government’s admission that they will be cutting—their term is “efficiencies”—£360 million of adult skills non-apprenticeship funding between now and 2020. Does the Minister not see that there is a paradox in the Government going hell for leather on English and maths for young people’s apprenticeships while failing to ring-fence funding for basic skills, when England has 9 million people of working age with low literacy and numeracy, and we are ranked bottom in literacy and next-to-bottom in numeracy among 23 developed nations? Last year, the Government cut the adult skills budget across England by 18%. Now they have scrapped plans for advanced post-24 skills. Why is the Government’s key White Paper addressing technical skills shortages being delayed? Is all this a strategy or a wing and a prayer?
Oral Answers to Questions
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Boles
I am not aware of the particular case that my hon. Friend refers to. If he wants to write to me, I would be happy to meet him to discuss it. In general, we do not want mergers to be rushed into before an area review has had a chance to look at the provision in a whole area, but we do not want to stop institutions making arrangements that help them address problems, so I am happy to look into the situation with him.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
The Government want to promote apprenticeships in post-16 training and colleges, yet the proportion of apprentices with learning difficulties or disabilities decreased from 11% to 8% between 2010 and 2013. With the area reviews ongoing, an Ofsted report has just said that
“monitoring and evaluation of FE and skills provision for high needs learners…were ineffective.”
How effectively will the interests of young people in those positions, and those of children on the autism spectrum, be addressed, especially if area reviews force them to travel further to study in new environments? Will the Minister specifically guarantee decent outcomes for young people with disabilities?
Nick Boles
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important question. I recently had an excellent meeting, facilitated by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller), with groups representing deaf people, and I will shortly be holding a round table with groups representing people with other kinds of disability. It is essential to ensure that everyone can benefit from the opportunity of apprenticeships and other forms of technical education, and we are determined to do that.
Oral Answers to Questions
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nick Boles
We are delighted that we have been able to extend the availability of those loans, which secure the same level of subsidy as general student loans. They are now available not just to people over 24, as before, but to those over 19, and at levels 3 and above for any programme of study. We believe that that is a real opportunity for people to invest in their own skills development and futures.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s advocacy of national apprenticeship week, which of course the Labour Government started? It is worrying to learn that the number of people who completed apprenticeships in London last year, compared with the number who started them, is only 50%. Across England, similar statistics show that only 52% of people completed their apprenticeships, which is a drop of 6% on the previous year. The latest number of apprenticeships started in leisure, travel and tourism is down by 40% on 2010, and as the Financial Times told us, and as we heard today, only 4% of female apprentices take up engineering. Does the Minister agree that women—50% of the population—and the service sector must be crucial elements for his 3 million apprenticeship target? How will he have the muscle to achieve that, given the 23% cut in apprentice service staffing in the past nine months alone, and with more cuts to come?
Nick Boles
I think the Opposition will find that they are on a hiding to nothing if they try consistently to pick holes in and talk down the apprenticeship programme, which is dramatically successful and dramatically popular. Of course some people will not complete their apprenticeship, because an apprenticeship is not just a training programme; it is a job, and sometimes employers will decide that someone is not suited to continuing in that job. We want standards to go up and we want more numbers. Frankly, it would be good to have a bit of support from the Opposition for a programme that they claim to have invented.
Apprenticeships
Gordon Marsden Excerpts(8 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Skills (Nick Boles)
With permission Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about apprenticeships. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am evangelical about apprenticeships. We do not always agree with each other on every question, but I know that to a woman and to a man, all my right hon. and hon. Friends share this passion.
We believe in apprenticeships, because they are one of most powerful motors of social mobility and productivity growth. An apprenticeship represents opportunity, aspiration, ambition—things that we Conservatives cherish. Apprenticeships make our companies more competitive. Some 70% of employers report that apprentices help to improve the quality of their product or service. They offer people a ladder to climb, with both higher pay and a sense of personal fulfilment at the end of it. A level 2 apprenticeship raises people’s incomes by an average of 11% three to five years later. A level 3 apprenticeship delivers a 16% boost.
Apprenticeships improve the diversity of the workplace: 53% of the people starting an apprenticeship in 2014-15 were women; 10.6% were from a black or other minority ethnic background, up from 8% in 2009-10; and 8.8% had a disability or learning difficulty. An apprenticeship can take you anywhere. Sir Alex Ferguson did one. So did Jamie Oliver. And Karen Millen. And Sir Ian McKellen. So, too, did the chairmen of great businesses such as Crossrail, WS Atkins and Fujitsu.
The Government have great ambitions for our apprenticeships programme. In the previous Parliament, 2.4 million people started an apprenticeship; by 2020, we want a further 3 million to have that opportunity. We do not just want to see more apprenticeships; we want better apprenticeships in more sectors, covering more roles. The first thing we need to do is persuade more employers to offer apprenticeships. At the moment, only about 15% of employers in England do. In Germany, the figure is 24% and in Australia 30%.
We are therefore introducing a new apprenticeship levy that will be paid by all larger employers—those with an annual payroll bill of £3 million or more. This will help us to increase our spending on apprenticeships in England from £1.5 billion last year to £2.5 billion in 2019-20. Employers who pay the levy will see the money they have paid for English apprenticeships appear in their digital account. They will be able to spend it on apprenticeship training—but only on apprenticeship training—and as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has emphasised, employers will be able to get out more than they put in.
We are also making sure the public sector pulls its weight and follows the fantastic example of our armed forces, which, between them, employ 20,000 apprentices at any one time. We plan to introduce a new target for public sector organisations employing over 250 people in England. They will be expected to ensure that at least 2.3% of their staff are apprentices. We are using the Government’s power as a customer too. Procurement rules now stipulate that bidders for central Government contracts worth more than £10 million and lasting over 12 months must demonstrate their commitment to apprentices.
We are not only committed to greater quantity; we want to see better quality too. We have already stopped the short-term, low-quality, programme-led apprenticeships developed by the last Labour Government. They made a mockery of the concept and tarnished the brand. We are now asking groups of employers to develop new apprenticeship standards that will help them fill the skills needs created by new jobs and new industries. Some 1,300 employers are involved in this process, and we have published 210 new standards so far. A further 150 are in development. We are also establishing a new employer-led institute for apprenticeships to approve these new standards and ensure that quality is maintained.
Sixty of these new standards are higher and degree apprenticeships. We want everyone making a choice about their next steps after the age of 16 or 18 to know that the decision to do an apprenticeship is not a decision to cap their ambition or turn down the chance of a degree. It is simply a decision to progress in a different way—to learn while they earn and to take a bit more time, to bring home a wage and avoid large student loans. Next week is National Apprenticeship Week. I hope that the House of Commons will today speak with one voice. Apprenticeships are for everyone and can take you anywhere. I commend this statement to the House.
Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for limited advance sight of the statement. I suppose we should all be grateful, after the turmoil of yesterday, that it did not just turn up in manuscript.
What has turned up—if I can put it this way—is a dance of the seven veils. The Minister’s statement is simply a rehash of much of what was already said in the “English Apprenticeships” document. That is what concerns the sector: fine words butter no parsnips. The procurement rules he mentions are a pale shadow of what Labour proposed in its 2010 manifesto. Most crucially, there is no further clarity for universities, other areas and large employers about what their responsibilities will be. They want to know whether the levy will be extra money or a substitute for Government funding. Will it be extra resources or simply an Osborne payroll tax?
Will the Minister confirm how much he expects the levy to raise, and whether it will be more or less than the £1 billion he said he hoped to add to spending on apprenticeships in England? The Department was supposed to respond to the consultation on the targets for apprenticeships in public sector bodies by 4 March. Has it done so? When will he do so? There is confusion and concern among local government and others about who will be affected. Will he spell out in far greater detail how small and medium-sized enterprises will benefit from the process, and what does he have to say to the Chartered Institute of Taxation, which worries that smaller businesses will be unable to use their full £15,000 allowance?
The Minister has told us that he is evangelical about apprenticeships, but Members and the business sector want to know whether he will be too catholic in the definition. Perhaps he should avoid tarnishing his own brand by cheap politicking about the Labour Government, who set up both National Apprenticeship Week and the National Apprenticeship Service, and stop sounding like some old Soviet five-year planner on his tractor targets.
With concerns about the quality of these apprenticeships, will the Minister tell us who will supervise the operation of the apprenticeships levy? Will it be the Apprenticeships Delivery Board or the board of the institute for apprenticeships? What has he to say to the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who, I am told, said this morning, “No one knows what the apprenticeship levy is going to look like. It’s coming in in a vacuum of darkness, and I am concerned that it’s just a numbers game.”
What will the Minister tell the Public Accounts Committee, which is so concerned about the direction of his Department that it has recalled the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary for a second grilling before Easter? Finally, perhaps he would like to tell us how he expects to deliver the 3 million target and implement the levy over a very short period with the number of Skills Funding Agency staffing down by 40% since 2011, more cuts to come and an accelerated decline in the number of people in the National Apprenticeship Service?
Nick Boles
It is amusing to be accused in a relatively short statement from the hon. Gentleman of being a Catholic, a Soviet planner and a dancer with seven veils. I will want to put that in my epitaph.
I will try to answer the hon. Gentleman’s questions. First, to be clear, in the last year of the last Labour Government, public spending on apprenticeship training was £1 billion. It is now £1.5 billion. By the end of this Parliament, it will be £2.5 billion in England. That is extra money in anyone’s book. Not a single education budget or, indeed, other public service budget is increasing as fast.
The apprenticeship levy will raise £3 billion in 2019-20, and £500 million will be needed to make adequate and fair contributions to the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to fund, I hope, their apprenticeship programmes, but that is, of course, for them to judge. All the remaining £2.5 billion will be spent on English apprenticeships.
The hon. Gentleman asks how small and medium-sized businesses, which will not pay the levy, will nevertheless benefit from Government funding for apprenticeships. We expect them to carry on receiving Government money for apprenticeships in the same way as they do now. We do not expect all companies that pay the levy to use up all the money in their digital accounts, and there will be a great deal more money to go around, so we are absolutely determined that the level of apprenticeships provided by SMEs will continue as now.
The operation of the levy as a tax is obviously in the hands of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The operation of the digital system used to give employers control of the apprenticeship levy that they have contributed will be the Skills Funding Agency’s responsibility. The institute for apprenticeships will, as I have described, have complete responsibility for overseeing standards and quality control.
The hon. Gentleman and, indeed, the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee—I look forward to hearing from him, no doubt—would like answers to many more questions. They will have to wait just a little. The Chancellor will make his Budget statement next week, after which more technical details will be provided, so that everyone knows well in advance how the levy will work.