Oral Answers to Questions

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

10. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of independent fostering agencies on fostering sufficiency in England.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

We must expand fostering to create the 10,000 extra places in foster care for children that we need this Parliament. We are shaking up the system to deliver this through the fostering action plan, and independent fostering agencies can play their part, bringing fresh energy and supporting new fostering hubs.

[Bob Blackman]

The Minister will know that there is an increasing number of vulnerable children who desperately need good-quality foster care. At the same time, there is a crisis in the recruitment of those foster carers. Will he undertake to set up a commissioning system that includes not only local authorities but independent fostering agencies, so that these vulnerable children can get a safe place where they are cared for, which they desperately need?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. We are introducing fostering hubs, including in the local authority in the area that he represents, and rolling out regional care co-operatives across the country. In the coming weeks, I will publish a new rule book for fostering that simplifies the system, consolidates a whole series of different bits of guidance and humanises foster care.

[Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)]

11. What support her Department provides to help colleges and training providers develop international skills partnerships.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

The UK is joining Erasmus+ in 2027. Colleges and training providers will have access to funding for partnerships with organisations across Europe and beyond. I take this opportunity to wish Team UK success at WorldSkills Shanghai next week, especially Oliver Coombs, who has the chance to be crowned the best young person in the world in additive manufacturing and who trained at Bath college, in the hon. Lady’s constituency.

[Wera Hobhouse]

Bath college is a shining example of how collaboration across Europe is creating opportunities for students through the WorldSkills UK programme, which the Minister has just mentioned. Will he work with the British Council to build on its international skills partnership programme so that providers such as Bath college can access funding and support? I was also wondering whether international skills could be part of the agenda of the EU summit that will happen very soon?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the hon. Lady for the question and for highlighting the British Council’s role in these partnerships. A focus of the set-up of Erasmus+ will be to ensure that smaller providers can access the opportunities that comes from the programme. That is absolutely a focus of this Government. I am sure that these issues will be talked about at the summit, as they frequently are.

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

I welcome the recent announcement of new technical education pathways at GCSE level, which will hugely benefit pupils in Feltham and Heston and across the country. Through visits to Germany, Singapore and Australia, I have seen how we can build opportunities for increased partnerships including internationally with world-leading specialist training providers. Will the Minister confirm that the Government will look to make sure that we invest in the skilled workforce and partnerships that we need to give our students not just the best chance for a great job but the best chance for life in an increasingly competitive world?

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend is right to highlight that one of the benefits of Erasmus+ is that it builds on the Turing scheme as well as expanding opportunities available through the partnerships to staff and students. It is a very good example to draw to the House’s attention. Around the world we have amazing practitioners teaching in a variety of settings, and it is in everyone’s benefit for them to connect with one another and be at the cutting edge of research and teaching.

[Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)]

12. What steps her Department is taking to ensure that schools have access to specialist expertise in SEND.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)]

13. What plans she has to ensure consistent financial support for kinship carers in local authority areas outside kinship zones pilot areas.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

Part of the kinship zones pilot is testing an allowance equivalent to the fostering allowance alongside a robust impact evaluation, but we are not waiting for that evaluation to improve England’s approach to kinship care. Our Families First reforms are unlocking the potential of kin-based care across the country through family group decision making by default, and practical support through family network support packages.

[Mike Reader]

Will the Minister join me in thanking kinship carers in Northampton and across all our constituencies who give children a stable and loving home? Outside the seven zones that the Minister mentioned, funding is still means-tested. Will he therefore commit to publishing interim findings before the end of the pilot in 2029 so that families have an answer on parity before the next general election?

[Josh MacAlister]

I will. I would also like to pass on and share my thanks for all the amazing kinship carers we have across the country. Outside kinship zones, a number of councils are showing that they can take steps to go further than others, and Plymouth city council, Sheffield city council and North Tyneside council are great examples of that.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

14. What steps she is taking to improve SEND provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

A new report by the charity Become shows that personal advisers are in some cases supervising up to 46 young care leavers each. These are the people who can make the difference between young people setting out into adulthood well or feeling completely on their own. Will the Minister therefore commit not just to reviewing the support, but to a funded national strategy and a cap on caseloads, so that no care leaver in Southampton or anywhere in this country has to face adulthood alone?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

I welcome Become’s report, which builds on the review into the early deaths of care leavers that I commissioned a few months ago. I would like to thank Ashley John-Baptiste and Clare Chamberlain for their important work in bringing to the country’s attention the tragic number of young care leavers who die far too young. That transition to adulthood is an important moment to get right. PAs play a crucial role in that. We are looking at additional training for PAs and also at changing the regulation that sits around them, so we can set a higher expectation.

[Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

I have been contacted by students, parents and teachers in my constituency telling me that the cost of transport is a key barrier to accessing education and other opportunities. A 19-year-old told me recently that it costs her more than £9 for a return fare to the county town of Hereford, and Hereford sixth-form college has told me that 21 young people dropped out last year because of transport problems. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the cost of travel is a big barrier to accessing education, training and work? Will she work with Cabinet colleagues and the Treasury to implement free bus travel for all young people, in order to invest in them?

Education and Skills Reform

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Let me begin by welcoming the new Secretary of State to her place.

Just yesterday, new statistics from the programme for international student assessment showed that English pupils are now in the top 10 in the world for reading, for maths and for science. That is a huge achievement, and a real English success story. We are punching well above our weight, while other countries are falling behind.

That did not happen by accident. It happened because of hard-won, evidence-led reforms and brilliant teachers. We raised expectations, we strengthened the curriculum, and we learnt from the highest-performing education systems in the world. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb built on Labour reforms to create an evidence-led school system that has catapulted us up international league tables. So why, when the Education Secretary herself has said that we should celebrate the PISA results and when the rest of the world is trying to learn from England, have the Government decided that now is the moment to change course?

The Secretary of State said in her statement that everyone

“can see the need for change.”

I think that the opposite is true. The Secretary of State has also argued that there has been

“an over-focus on academic outcomes”.

I profoundly disagree. High academic standards do not hold children back; they lift them up. Instead of acknowledging that our schools are the one part of the state that is not just working well but is world-leading, the Government seem determined to point the finger at schools for problems that they have failed to solve elsewhere.

Over the summer recess, while schools were closed and teachers were on holiday, our new Prime Minister used his so-called grand tour of the country to announce fundamental changes to our education system. Extraordinarily, this Government now seem to be blaming the NEETs crisis on schools—not those on their own Benches who, in government, failed to get a grip on the spiralling welfare bill, not their own “genius” plan to impose red tape on businesses and make it harder to hire young people, and not, critically, their huge rise in business taxes, which have made employing young people far more expensive. It is basic economics: if you make it more expensive for businesses to hire young people, fewer young people will be hired.

Instead of addressing the problems that they have created, the Government are laying the NEETs crisis at the door of schools, and in response—as has been confirmed today—are tearing up the education system once again and returning to a policy that has failed before: introducing a vocational pathway for those aged 14. This is not about being against technical qualifications; quite the opposite. Conservative Members have championed technical education and apprenticeships. However, 14 is far too young to start closing down academic options. We have tried this before, and it failed. Labour's reforms of GCSEs in 2005 were intended to strengthen vocational education options, but what happened was that children from poorer backgrounds were channelled away from the rigorous academic subjects.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

That is not what happened.

[Laura Trott]

It is what happened. Instead of raising aspirations, the system lowered expectations.

The danger in what the Government are proposing is obvious. History will repeat itself. Highly academic schools will continue to push their pupils towards academic qualifications while schools serving more disadvantaged communities will come under pressure to steer children towards technical routes far earlier, because that is what happened before. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what evidence she has that her reforms will produce a different result, and can she guarantee that choosing a technical pathway at 14 will not close down a young person’s opportunity to go on to complete academic GCSEs? Can she explain exactly how this approach differs from the failed approach in Scotland and in Wales? From where I am sitting, it sounds very similar.

There are also serious practical questions about how any of this will work. The Government say that the new pathways will begin in 2028, but what qualifications will schools be expected to offer? What standards will those qualifications have to meet, and do schools have the specialist teachers, facilities and employer partnerships required to meet them? What assessment has the Department made of the additional burden that this will place on schools? What funding will be provided? This is not happening in isolation. Schools are already being asked to implement major SEND reforms, and—

Social Work Regulation in England: Independent Review

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Thursday 9th July 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

On 5 November 2025, I informed the House that the Secretary of State for Education had commissioned Dame Annie Hudson to undertake the statutory independent review of the operation of part 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017. I am now updating the House to confirm that the review has concluded and that today I am laying before Parliament Dame Annie Hudson’s review report together with the Government response. The review and the Government response relate to Social Work England and the regulation of social workers in England.

I would like to thank Dame Annie Hudson, the review team, and the many stakeholders who contributed evidence and insight to this important review.

The review was asked to assess how effectively Social Work England is discharging its statutory functions and delivering against its statutory objectives, and to consider whether changes are needed to support more effective regulation and improved standards in social work practice.

The review recognises progress since Social Work England was established, including maintaining the register, developing its regulatory approach and standards, completing its first round of inspections, progressing equalities work, and developing approaches to early resolution of concerns.

The review nevertheless concludes that there is a clear case for change to secure sustained improvement. It identifies the need for stronger performance in core regulatory functions, particularly fitness to practise; greater clarity about the role and remit of Social Work England; and stronger governance, sponsorship and accountability arrangements. It also calls for a more coherent standards landscape across professional regulation, qualifying education and post qualifying development; clearer expectations for employers and the wider system; and better use of data, transparency and equalities analysis.

The Government accept the review’s central conclusion that sustained improvement is needed in social work regulation in England. This is a shared improvement agenda. Social Work England has a central role in delivering effective regulation, but Government, employers and wider partners also have responsibilities. The Government response therefore sets out the action we expect Social Work England to take, the steps Government will take to strengthen sponsorship and system coherence, and the areas where further work with partners will be needed.

Social workers do vital work with children, families and adults, often in complex and challenging circumstances. Effective professional regulation is essential to public protection, public confidence and high professional standards. It is therefore important that Social Work England is focused on delivering its regulatory functions effectively and that improvement is practical, visible and sustained.

Fitness to practise is the most significant operational priority identified by the review. It is central to public protection and public confidence. The Government recognise that fitness to practise pressures are not unique to Social Work England, and that regulators across sectors are managing increasing case volumes and complexity. However, delays, poor communication and insufficient grip across the end-to-end process affect everyone involved: people who raise concerns, social workers under investigation, witnesses, employers and the wider public.

The Government are clear that urgent improvement is required in timeliness, communications, user experience and strategic grip across the end-to-end process. They therefore expect Social Work England to deliver, within six months, an externally supported, end-to-end fitness to practise strategic improvement plan, building on work already under way and bringing existing plans together into a single coherent approach. This must include clear milestones, revised forecasts and key performance indicators (KPI) on timeliness, methods to track progress and arrangements to recalibrate at pace where needed. The Department for Education will provide strengthened oversight, with regular reporting and ministerial visibility of progress, risks and escalation points. If Social Work England does not meet this six-month deadline, or if reporting shows inadequate progress against the plan, the Government will escalate intervention, including through governance, sponsorship and statutory levers available to the Secretary of State.

The Government response also sets out our position on legislative and procedural changes that may support a more effective fitness to practise process. These include issues relating to the lawful sharing and use of relevant information from private family court proceedings, accepted disposal powers, the role of the Professional Standards Authority, information sharing, suspension, and any further changes identified through the fitness to practise strategic improvement plan. We will consider these carefully, including the appropriate route and timing.

The review also makes important findings about the role, leadership and sponsorship of Social Work England. The Government agree that the regulator’s role must be clearly focused on core regulatory functions and remain distinct from professional representation or wider sector improvement activity. This does not prevent proportionate engagement, communications, data and equalities work where these support effective regulation.

Strong leadership, effective challenge and clear accountability will be essential to delivering the improvements required. The Government will work with Social Work England to ensure the board has the right expertise, including in social work and regulation. The Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care will also strengthen joint working and senior engagement so that sponsorship better reflects both children’s and adults’ social work and supports clear accountability for progress.

The review also concludes that the standards landscape for social work needs to be more coherent. The Government agree that social workers, employers, education providers and the public should be able to understand clearly how different standards, frameworks and guidance fit together. The Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care will work with Social Work England and relevant sector bodies to develop an overarching framework, reducing duplication, clarifying the status of different standards and guidance, and supporting a more coherent relationship between qualifying education, professional regulation, continuing professional development, and post-qualifying development. Where the review recommends longer-term changes to post-qualifying standards and assurance, the Government will consider the appropriate route, timing and deliverability, including policy, legal, funding and capacity implications.

As part of this, the Government support Social Work England reviewing its education and training standards including the knowledge, skills and behaviours, and clarifying how they should support assessment in practice placements. The aim should be a clearer and more practice-focused framework for initial qualifying social work education, which supports high and common expectations across children’s and adults’ social work.

The Government also agree that better data, transparency, and equalities analysis are essential to effective regulation and public confidence, particularly in understanding fitness to practise outcomes, differential impacts, and the experience of different groups.

The Government will work closely with Social Work England and partners across the sector to deliver practical and sustained improvement, with clear expectations, regular oversight and escalation where progress is not sufficient. Copies of the review report and the Government response will be available on gov.uk and deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

[HCWS208]

Access to Further Education

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) for securing this timely and important debate. I have not had the chance to speak to her since her powerful and moving contribution earlier. FE colleges are engines of economic growth and social justice. They are anchor institutions, bridging talent with opportunities. While often overlooked, they are central to our very success and prosperity as a country.

I know full well the power of further education from my own local college, Lakes college in Cumbria, which, with the power of the Dispatch Box, I will declare is the best in the country. It has a distinctive national specialism in nuclear skills and engineering. But it is essential that everyone—whatever their background and circumstances and wherever they live—can access the opportunities of excellent further education.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. Minister, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to achieve, but the best colleges are in my constituency of Sussex Weald.

[Josh MacAlister]

I am just relieved, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you were not ticking me off for something else. [Interruption.] Okay. It is a growing list.

It is essential that everyone, wherever their background and wherever they live, has access to excellent further education funding. That point was made by a number of Members in the debate. Just yesterday, the Government announced an additional £120 million for further education in 2026-27, rising to £365 million in 2027-28.

[Matt Turmaine (Watford) (Lab)]

This Government have rightly made capital investment decisions for the long term. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to properly plan further education provision with the skills and jobs needed for long-term growth in infrastructure?

[Josh MacAlister]

I do, and it is only possible with the funding that I was setting out that the Government have secured.

Funding per student aged 16 to 19 will have increased by over 12% in two years. That comes at a time of significant growth in student numbers. As a result, total 16-to-19 funding will increase from £7.6 billion in 2024-25 to over £9 billion in 2026-27, which is a material increase. This is timely because of the current challenge we face of the rising number of young people not in education, employment or training. The number is too high, and the consequences are serious.

The Government have a comprehensive plan for further education and post-16 education and skills overall to support young people into rewarding careers and tackle high rates of young people not in education, employment or training. As well as technical excellence colleges—specialist further education colleges in England designed to deliver high-quality training in priority sectors—we are introducing the new V-levels, which will sit alongside T-levels as the technical route and A-levels as the academic route, which Members will be familiar with.

The youth guarantee is this Government’s commitment to ensure that all young people can access education, training and apprenticeships, employment support or work opportunities. We are supporting 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships and offering a £2,000 hiring payment for small businesses. This is complemented by the jobs guarantee, which provides eligible young people with a guaranteed six-month paid job, helping them gain work experience, skills and a route into sustained employment.

The hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby highlighted the need for capacity in FE. Demographics mean that this is a national challenge, but we expect 67,000 additional 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to enter the post-16 system in 2028, which is very soon. That means we are investing £570 million to create the space that is needed in FE. Post-16 providers that are not in mayoral strategic combined authorities—I believe that the hon. Member’s constituency is not—have been able to bid for the construction skills capacity fund, the outcome of which will be revealed very shortly.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) raised the variation in the cost of payments per pupil. High-cost 16 to 19 courses do receive more money. For example, engineering attracts 73% more funding than base cost classroom courses.

The hon. Member for Gorton and Denton (Hannah Spencer) was right to highlight the problems with the apprenticeship levy as was. We are making big changes to make it less bureaucratic for small businesses, in particular with the growth and skills levy. My hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) highlighted issues with transport, as did many other Members. He was right to say that bus access is integral to opportunities at further education colleges. I know that from my own constituency.

[Jayne Kirkham]

I would just like to highlight a point of inequity. Mayors sometimes subsidise buses for young people aged 16 to 19, which means that young people in urban areas are better set than those in rural areas where the councils cannot afford to do that and young people have much further to travel.

[Josh MacAlister]

As a Cumbrian MP, I know that problem all too well, and I know that many in Cornwall experience that too. We are building back our bus system in this country. There have been significant increases in funding for local authorities to build back that bus system. We do need to go further on it, and I completely recognise the connection that has been drawn by my hon. Friend.

The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Tom Gordon) asked about funding. About 70% of FE funding comes from the Department for Education through the funding for post-16 courses. Earlier in my speech I set out the 12% increase over the last two years. Because that is such a large proportion, I recognise the other issues with adult skills budgets, but overall FE college funding is going up as a result of all of that.

[Gareth Snell]

I appreciate that this is the responsibility of our noble Friend in the other place, but if the Minister’s officials could write with an answer, I would be grateful. It is reported that pension contributions in the college sector will likely drop by about 8% as a result of the funds doing very well. There is a rumour that some of the colleges’ dividend from having to pay less into pension funds will be clawed back mid-academic year as part of the Department’s negotiations. I appreciate that he cannot answer that now, but that would be incredibly damaging to colleges. Any way of mitigating it would be welcomed across the sector.

[Josh MacAlister]

I was about to turn to my hon. Friend’s question. He is right to recognise the limits of my knowledge, given that my noble Friend in the other place has responsibility for that issue. I will happily ask for officials to write to my hon. Friend about that concern. He is also right to highlight the need for care in handling the transition in qualifications—a point he has made many times and on which he has helped the Government get to a sensible place. I will also ask my noble Friend, given her responsibility for this brief, to contact my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) about the issue in his constituency.

The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), rightly highlights issues around funding. I believe I have covered that in relation to yesterday’s excellent news on FE teacher pay, overall funding and the population at post-16 settings; there will be a 12% increase over the next two years. The hon. Member and I spend quite a bit of time exchanging ideas and comments about each other’s plans; I have stopped keeping a tally of spending commitments from the Liberal Democrats, because they are racking up.

I congratulate the spokesperson for the official Opposition, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas), on his first time at the Dispatch Box. I can tell him that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) are of one mind on the need for a transformation in further education. I do not have time to tackle the hypocrisy of the Conservative party’s student loans plan, because I have been asked to wrap up.

With that in mind, let me finish by saying that further education colleges are a manifestation of so much that we value as a Government and as a country. We back them with the money, reform and status they rightly deserve. There will be more to come, but change is already afoot. I thank the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby for securing the debate and all Members for contributing.

Antisemitism: University Campuses

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) on securing this important and timely debate.

I will turn to a few of the remarks made by Members in this debate, starting with my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). He is right to highlight the number of former student sabbatical officers in this place, present company included, and the important history of the Windermere children. I am keen to do what I can to support the case he is making to find ways to both rebuild the school and bring greater Holocaust education to the north of England, and I share many of his aspirations in that respect.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) for praising the leadership of UJS, of which many representatives are here today, and for highlighting the leadership of Michael Necus. In setting out the historical context, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) reminded me of Baron Finkelstein’s excellent foreword to the UJS “Time for Change” report, highlighting that antisemitism can be taken as a warning sign of moral collapse.

The hon. Member for Dewsbury and Batley (Iqbal Mohamed) rightly stated that we must not conflate the action of the Government of Israel with the Jewish community, and I thank him for making that point so clearly. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) powerfully brought to life the harrowing experiences of Jewish students, and I thank him for taking the time in his speech to make sure that their voices have been heard here.

Universities are places where ideas are tested, challenged and, where necessary, shown to be wanting, through evidence, scrutiny and debate. Exposure to different viewpoints, including those with which we strongly disagree, is an essential part of higher education. Students should leave university having had their assumptions challenged and their perspectives broadened. Freedom of speech and academic freedom are therefore central to the university experience.

At the same time, universities have a duty to ensure that all students can participate fully in university life without fear of intimidation, harassment or discrimination. That is particularly important in the light of the significant rise of antisemitism. Too many Jewish students have been subject to abuse, exclusion and hostility because of their Jewish identity.

Although robust debate, including on controversial political issues, is a vital part of academic life, freedom of expression is not a cover for antisemitic harassment, discrimination or abuse. Universities must therefore both uphold the freedom of speech and take effective action to ensure that Jewish students can study, participate and thrive, free from antisemitism. Our task is not to choose between those principles, but to uphold both. In a liberal democracy, we do not resolve disagreement by shutting down debate, nor do we accept intimidation as the price of free expression. Instead, we create the conditions in which robust debate can flourish and everyone can participate with confidence. That must be our ambition for higher education.

The rise in antisemitism reported by Jewish students is not simply a challenge for one community; it is a test of whether our universities can remain places of inclusion, academic freedom and respect for all. When Jewish students feel unable to speak openly, participate fully or express their identity without fear, something fundamental is at stake.

The scale of the problem is clear, and has been set out by many hon. Members in this debate. In 2025, CST recorded 3,700 antisemitic incidents in the UK—the second highest annual total on record. Antisemitism is not an historical issue; it remains a present and persistent threat, and we must challenge the ideas and narratives that give rise to these incidents.

Too often, antisemitism is expressed through familiar tropes and conspiracy theories: allegations of secret influence, dual loyalty, collective responsibility or hidden power. Those claims can sometimes appear superficially innocuous, but they draw on centuries-old racist myths used to marginalise, persecute and dehumanise Jewish people. We should be clear that those ideas are antisemitic and we should have the confidence to speak out against them, and the Government must provide leadership on that. It is never acceptable to hold Jewish people or Jewish communities responsible for the actions of a foreign state. Criticism of the Government of Israel, like criticism of any Government, is legitimate; holding British Jews collectively responsible is not.

Tackling antisemitism cannot be left to Jewish communities alone. It requires a whole-society response and education is among our most powerful tools in doing so. That is why we are investing £7 million to tackle antisemitism across education and helping schools, colleges and universities prevent incidents, respond effectively when they occur, and foster environments where Jewish students feel safe, welcome and valued.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Does the Minister agree that people who are trying to divide us will sometimes pit one community against another, and where one community is being rightly and legitimately supported, they will try to weaponise that in another community and create friction? Does he also agree that the steps taken by the Government can be replicated across communities, and that communities and leaders in each of the discriminated-against communities should work together so that the support cannot be weaponised?

[Josh MacAlister]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to make that point. To pick up one thread of today’s debate, a number of hon. Members have raised the power of algorithms, which feed off people’s fury and anger and the differences that exist between them. Many of the themes highlighted in this debate could equally apply to other groups in society where our attention is also needed.

Government-funded training is already supporting university staff and leaders to recognise antisemitism, support Jewish students and respond appropriately when concerns arise. Last week, we agreed to fund projects through our innovation fund to help students navigate misinformation, engage constructively with difficult issues and develop a deeper understanding of different faiths and communities. We are also developing a new community cohesion framework with students in partnership with the University of Salford and the National Union of Students. Alongside that work, we continue to support University Jewish Chaplaincy to provide pastoral wellbeing and practical support to Jewish students across the country.

In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked about the statutory framework. Given the time remaining, I will give the brief update that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is due to update its good practice framework for higher education providers in handling reports of harassment later this year. In addition, we are working with the sector to improve transparency and accountability for tackling antisemitic abuse. We are also working with Universities UK to undertake a rapid assessment of institutional disciplinary and incident reporting processes and we will develop recommendations and priority actions in autumn this year.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive answer. In my contribution, I suggested that when universities fall short of their obligations, their vice chancellors should be called in to answer to a parliamentary Committee as to why no action had been taken. Does the Minister consider that that would be an effective way of ensuring that universities protect Jewish students and those of Jewish faith? Could calling in vice chancellors be a way of squeezing universities—and squeezing them tight?

[Josh MacAlister]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the essential aspect of accountability. The Office for Students has been given additional powers in recent years. It is also true that the scale of the challenge that we see with antisemitism on university campuses, and the challenge that many universities are facing in meeting their obligations to uphold the freedom of speech while also creating the climate and culture necessary for freedom from intimidation, may lead a Select Committee to hold an inquiry on that. It would, of course, be a matter for Parliament and a Select Committee to do so, but if that were to happen, the Department for Education would be very interested in its findings.

We know that many of the conspiracy theories and hateful tropes that underpin antisemitism are also features of extremist ideologies. Left unchallenged, they can create an environment in which radicalisation becomes more likely. At their most serious, they can form part of a pathway towards terrorism. Prevent data shows that in the year to March 2025, there were 8,778 referrals, 21% of which were linked to extreme right-wing concerns and 10% to Islamist extremism. Although Prevent does not record antisemitism as a stand-alone category, those figures illustrate how antisemitic narratives can, and often do, form part of extremist worldviews that carry a risk of terrorism or serious harm.

Most antisemitic incidents fall well below the threshold for Prevent intervention. Nevertheless, the data demonstrates that, in the most serious cases, ideas rooted in historical antisemitic prejudice can become part of a trajectory towards terrorism. That is why, through our wider Protecting What Matters programme, we are taking action to challenge antisemitism and extremism wherever they arise. We are strengthening oversight of universities’ Prevent duties; updating guidance on external speakers and events, which is due to come out very soon; improving our ability to identify emerging extremist activity; enhancing whistleblowing protections; and increasing transparency around incidents of antisemitism.

[Mark Sewards]

Can the Minister give us a more specific timeline than “very soon”?

[Josh MacAlister]

I reviewed a draft of that guidance a matter of days ago, and it is due to be published very shortly. The issue is probably more that there is a queue of things to be published, rather than it not being ready to go.

We must remain alert to the actions of hostile state actors who seek to exploit social tensions, spread disinformation and undermine community cohesion. The Government are therefore strengthening their response to state threats through tougher powers to identify and disrupt hostile activity, greater transparency around foreign influence, and stronger measures against those acting on behalf of foreign states. Where there is evidence of unacceptable activity linked to foreign actors, including Iran, we will not hesitate to act.

Our message is simple and unequivocal: there is no place for antisemitism, extremism or hostile state interference in our universities or our society. We will defend lawful free speech, protect students from intimidation and ensure that campuses remain places where learning, debate and mutual respect can thrive.

Higher Education: Student Outcomes

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Thursday 25th June 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

Our higher education sector has a world-leading reputation. The evidence shows that most graduates are significantly better off as a result of undertaking higher education, but we are determined to ensure that everyone can be confident of a good experience and strong outcomes from their investment in higher education.

We came into Government with a manifesto commitment to raising teaching standards in higher education. The post-16 education and skills White Paper last autumn placed quality at the heart of our vision for the sector.

We acted quickly to support financial sustainability for providers through the tuition fee increase. We are improving support for access and participation, re-introducing maintenance grants and supporting better pathways through the system. However, there is more work to be done to ensure consistent high quality across the sector. Too many courses are not delivering the outcomes students deserve.

New analysis published today by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that 25% of students do not see a positive return from their studies, with negative returns concentrated in certain subjects. I have today written to all higher education providers to outline further reforms to tackle the issues exposed by today’s IFS analysis and elsewhere, so that we can help all students benefit from everything our higher education system has to offer.

We will legislate to limit the growth of some courses that lead to poor earnings returns at some providers, when parliamentary time allows. This will not be a blanket cap on student numbers, but a focused measure to support the sector to prioritise provision where it delivers good value for students and the taxpayer. We will engage a wide range of stakeholders to inform the development of these options.

We also expect providers to include clear information about destinations and outcomes on their own websites, so that students can make choices that work for them. We are working with the Office for Students, UCAS (the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) and sector partners to make it easier for students to access the information available on Discover Uni, in time for the next cohort of students to consider their options in spring 2027.

Alongside this, our “Pathways to Priority Occupations” report, also published today, will support students to make informed choices about their courses. We are exploring how artificial intelligence can further strengthen the information available to them.

Finally, there must be robust standards to protect students and taxpayers from abuse. We intend to consult in the autumn on new minimum English language requirements for student finance, to provide greater confidence that recipients are able to benefit from their course. We will design this carefully, in collaboration with the higher education sector.

Together, these actions will help ensure that all students can benefit from the opportunities that higher education provides.

[HCWS150]

Draft Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 General Committees

[The Chair]

Before I call the Minister to move the motion, any hon. Member or official who wishes to take off their jacket has my permission to do so.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Lifelong Learning (Fee Limits) Regulations 2026.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The draft regulations were laid before the House on 18 May. This statutory instrument is the first of three pieces of secondary legislation needed to implement the lifelong learning entitlement, or LLE, which establishes a new system of tuition fee limits for higher education courses and modules that begin on or after 1 January 2027.

The LLE is a major reform to student finance, creating a single flexible funding system for levels 4 to 6 across further and higher education. It will support people to learn, upskill and retrain throughout their working lives, and will deliver one of the core commitments in our post-16 education and skills White Paper, underpinning the growth and skills missions. The concept of a lifelong learning entitlement stems from the recommendations made by Sir Philip Augar’s independent panel to the post-18 education and funding review back in 2019. Primary legislation enacted in 2022 and 2023 by the previous Government established the framework, and these regulations are the next step in delivering it—this is a true cross-party effort.

The regulations set out how tuition fee limits will apply under the LLE. A tuition fee limit is the maximum amount that a provider can charge per year if it is subject to a fee cap. Currently, that limit is £9,790 for standard full-time courses. Those fixed annual fee limits suit traditional degrees, regardless of the volume of study undertaken, but do not work for shorter courses or modules. The regulations introduce a credit-based system to change that.

Credits are a widely recognised measure of learning, with one credit typically equivalent to around 10 hours of learning. To illustrate that, the standard fee limit for a typical higher education course in the 2026-27 academic year is £9,790, and a full year of study usually comprises 120 credits. Dividing £9,790 by 120 produces a per-credit fee limit of around £82. The regulations mean that tuition fee limits can be apportioned in line with the credit size of any given course. That does not change overall fee caps—most students will not see any difference in what they pay—but applies them more fairly across full courses and shorter study, linking fees to learning volume.

Subject to Parliament’s approval of the regulations, we intend to lay two further instruments needed to establish the LLE. Those instruments, on student support and repayments, have been published in draft to give the House full visibility and to help the sector prepare. Both will be subject to the negative procedure. As they depend on the regulations before the Committee, they will be made only if these regulations are approved.

The regulations mark an important step in delivering the LLE and transforming our skills system. They put in place the new approach to applying fee limits, which is needed to support a more flexible approach to student finance that better serves young people and adult learners. That will allow people to study in ways that fit around their lives, support providers to respond to evolving skills needs, and help individuals across the country to access the education and training that they need to succeed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank Committee members for their contributions to the debate. I will endeavour to answer as many questions as I can.

The first set of questions came from the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Windsor, about face-to-face teaching. The system allows for credit funding flexibility, which is down to providers, but I recognise the importance of face-to-face teaching. That is one of the reasons why, earlier this week, my noble Friend the Minister for Skills set out the intention to link the outcomes of the teaching excellence framework scores to future access to fee increases. That is why, over different Governments, we have built a system that allows competition so that students can pick and select from a range of providers and, in essence, shop around for the best option. Greater visibility of the quality is important, and that should come from the teaching excellence framework.

A number of Members asked about the various impacts of the changes. Impact assessments have been published as part of this process. I will ask for copies of them to be sent to Members in the coming days. I hope that they will answer a number of questions.

The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and I have had several exchanges about student finance and student funding. I have a great deal of affection for the Liberal Democrats, but it is a system that was partly designed by them in office. His Majesty’s Opposition had affection for the Liberal Democrats at a certain point in time as well, so perhaps that is something that we can share.

The changes described are cultural for the country, affecting how adult learners look to access lifelong learning and do courses that will be shorter or compressed. The regulations allow for that. I think they will take some time to bed in, so it seems reasonable to give a five-year time horizon, but of course there will be a great deal of scrutiny from Parliament and elsewhere on their implementation.

I am happy to come back to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire on foundation degree fees and our plans for them. The question on credit fee amounts was very detailed, and I thank him for his scrutiny of the rounding convention that we are using—there may well be a future dormant asset fund to be raided by a Government in 20 or 30 years’ time as a result of it. Again, I will write to him about why we are using a different figure from the one that he mentioned.

Finally, the former Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, was heavily involved in the inception of this measure and the review that led to its recommendation. Again, I am happy to share the Department’s assessments of behavioural impacts.

The Committee will know that this SI is a critical step towards delivering the lifelong learning entitlement. It will bring further and higher education closer together and support the growth of more flexible modular study. It sets tuition fee limits for LLE-funded courses and modules, marking a transformation of our higher and further education systems that will start this January. The changes aim not to overhaul the entire system but to tackle a key weakness in the current model, which is too rigid and focused on the traditional three-year degree, limiting opportunities for adults to retrain or upskill across their working lives. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Bramhall High School: Condition of Buildings

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Wednesday 24th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) on securing this debate and on his advocacy for Bramhall high school. As a former teacher myself, who spent years standing in front of young people in Oldham and in Stockport, I know from first-hand experience that spaces around lessons really do matter—the classroom environment speaks to children before any lesson begins. That is why tackling our crumbling school estate is imperative: to show children that their education matters and their future matters.

Now, as a Minister in the Department for Education, I am proud that we are calling time on RAAC and rebuilding Bramhall high school, so that children and staff have the high-quality classrooms they deserve. This Government are doing things differently to fix the failures of the past. We published a 10-year infrastructure strategy, which—coupled with long-term capital budgets, the modern industrial strategy and a commitment to investing in skills and training—presents a lifetime of opportunities. Investing in infrastructure will drive growth and raise living standards in every part of the UK. Infrastructure will support our modern industrial strategy, and it will improve public services by taking a long-term approach to improving the fabric of our country. That, of course, includes our schools and colleges.

We are maintaining public investment at the highest sustained level in four decades, supported by an increase in departmental capital spending of over £120 billion over this Parliament, compared with previous plans. This was only made possible by the decisions this Government have taken about the fiscal rules, which have supported a necessary step change in investment. We will increase and prioritise investment where it is most needed through maintenance, renewal and rebuilding programmes, and that is what we are doing for our schools. That is why we increased overall capital investment in education to £38 billion up to 2029-30—the highest level since 2010, when Labour was last in government.

With over 22,000 schools and colleges in England, the education estate supports 10 million children, but we inherited from the previous Government the RAAC crisis and years of decline in the school estate. After years of under-investment, too many children are learning in buildings that have deteriorated and are in need of repair. For too long, schools have had to patch and mend buildings that have already deteriorated beyond repair, instead of undergoing the rebuilds they needed at an earlier point. We are turning the page on years of decline in the school estate, fixing a legacy of neglect and removing RAAC for good. At the core of our strategy is a shift to more proactive management, long-term maintenance, and more renewal of the existing estate. That comes alongside rebuilding more schools and making sure there are high-quality places from early years to post-16.

Our 10-year plan for the school estate, which I published a few months ago, is backed by unprecedented long-term funding. By 2034-35, we will be investing almost £3 billion per year in capital maintenance to improve the condition of the school and college estate, rising from £2.4 billion in 2025-26. We are investing almost £20 billion through the school rebuilding programme. Over 500 schools are already in that programme, with well over half in delivery. Some 59 schools have already been rebuilt through the SRP, with 47 of those completed under this Government, and we will select a further 250 for the next stage of the SRP at the start of 2027.

The renewal and retrofit programme, backed by £710 million to 2029-30, will improve the condition of schools that are coming towards the end of their life, but where deeper renewal and retrofit can extend that considerably. RAAC has been permanently removed from 80 schools and colleges, and we have set out a clear plan to finish the job. By 2029, every school and college in England that is not being fully or substantially rebuilt will be RAAC-free, and every school with RAAC that needs to be rebuilt through the SRP will be in delivery by that point. That includes Bramhall high school.

As the hon. Member for Cheadle has set out, Bramhall high school has faced building challenges, with parts of the estate dating back to the 1960s and the presence of RAAC. However, what stands out is the positive and determined way in which the school community has responded to those challenges. It was a major operational challenge, but the school, Stockport council and the Department worked together to keep pupils learning safely and to minimise the disruption to pupils as much as possible. I recognise that achievement. Through excellent joint working between Stockport, the headteacher and the Department, all RAAC mitigations are in place. That means that pupils can once again use the spaces safely while we get on with the job of rebuilding the school.

This is about not just resolving a building condition issue, but delivering a lasting legacy for pupils, staff, families and the wider Bramhall community. I am pleased to say that delivery is under way with real momentum behind it. Willmott Dixon is the appointed contractor, and it has worked closely with the school and the Department to design an ambitious new build. We expect to have spades in the ground later this year, but it is more than just a construction project. The rebuilding work will also provide valuable T-levels and placement opportunities and support apprenticeships, creating local jobs.

A new modern three-storey building will give Bramhall high school the facilities it needs for the decades ahead. Every building apart from the maths block will be replaced. That building was built post-2000 and has solar panels on the roof and other modern features. Detailed surveys have been conducted, which show it is in good condition and does not warrant demolishing or rebuilding. We are working with the school to remodel the block to integrate it with the new buildings that will be created.

In response to the hon. Member’s point, 90% of the school will be rebuilt. I understand that when there is a new school project like this—I have visited a number of them—the desire is to have the whole shebang and for the whole school to be completely rebuilt. In the context of a schools estate of 22,000 schools across the country, it is important that public funds are not used to replace buildings that are still well within their lifespan. I regularly look at lists of schools from the ’60s and ’70s that are not yet in any school rebuilding programme. They are well beyond their lifespan, and we are doing the job of clearing up that backlog. It does mean, however, that we need to prioritise investment in those buildings that absolutely do need to be replaced.

Through the school rebuilding programme, Bramhall high school will benefit from 25 general classrooms and a full range of specialist teaching spaces. That includes 10 science laboratories, computing and ICT rooms, workshops, a drama studio and an art and design classroom. The plans include a dedicated area for pupils with special educational needs. Sports and leisure provision will also be improved with a new four-court sports hall, activity studio and changing facilities. That includes two multi-use games areas—one for school use and one intended for community use. This is a substantial and exciting investment into a school that is modern, energy-efficient and designed to support excellent teaching, learning and sport.

The hon. Member mentioned the fixtures and fittings of the school. All fixed furniture, fixtures and equipment are provided in a school rebuilding project. That means that schools receive a huge amount of money for new furniture and equipment. For example, the school will get a new kitchen, all classrooms will be integrated with ICT equipment, drama will get the lighting rigs that it needs, and so on. However, we do not normally provide new standard loose furniture, such as tables and chairs, as schools should have an ongoing programme to replace them as they reach the end of their life. That is part of a school’s normal management of capital.

I acknowledge the strong partnership that has driven progress so far. I thank the headteacher, Paul Williams, and his staff; the chair of the school’s governing body, Sarah Brown; Stockport council; and Willmott Dixon for the work they have done together alongside the Department’s programme management team.

I reassure the hon. Member that this Government remain committed to delivering a safe, modern and high-quality school in Bramhall. Together we have moved from the challenge of RAAC and fear about the future of the school building to delivering one of the most exciting school rebuilding programmes in the country, which the people of Stockport and his constituents rightly deserve. More important than anything else is ensuring that pupils have the inspiring classroom facilities they need for the future. I am sure that there will be matters that he will continue to want to raise with me, and I will be glad to speak to him. This is a good example of the investment that we are making as a Government and as a country because of the choices we have made.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to support apprenticeships for young people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

Under this Government, apprenticeship starts by young people are up. We are going further and investing an additional £1 billion to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships with the new foundation apprenticeships, and providing £2,000 for smaller employers when they hire young apprentices.

[Jerome Mayhew]

There is no correlation between what the Minister says and what is happening on the ground. In Broadland and Fakenham, in the last year the number of apprenticeships has dropped by 20%. It has not gone up; it has gone from 150, down to 120. If the Minister thinks that more apprenticeships are a good idea, why does he not sign up for 100,000 new ones, and support the Conservative new deal for young people?

[Josh MacAlister]

I think we should look at what people do, not what they say. This is a Government who are reversing the decline; apprenticeship starts by young people reduced by 40% under the previous Government. We are taking a range of steps, including supporting small and medium-sized enterprises, and giving greater flexibility in the apprenticeship system, all to create an extra 50,000 opportunities for young people.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a governor at two educational institutions, and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form education. My question is on access to the apprenticeship register, because in Stoke-on-Trent, great companies such as the Spark Group are struggling to get the registration they want in order to grow their offer to young people. They are limited by the £100,000 de minimis for subcontracting, but they have young people who want to take on the apprenticeships they are offering. Will the Minister set out what this Government might do to change that, and will he agree to meet me and the Spark Group so that we can look at ways it can give young people the opportunities they want?

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend is a fierce champion for apprenticeships and technical education. I am happy to meet him to discuss those matters further. The Minister for Skills, my noble friend Baroness Smith in the other place, has taken a whole series of actions with the Secretary of State to reform our apprenticeship system, opening it up to create tens of thousands of additional opportunities for young people.

[Sarah Coombes (West Bromwich) (Lab)]

4. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to increase levels of funding for schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

7. If she will make it her policy to prioritise Hudson primary school, Sefton, in the school rebuilding programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

We inherited the reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—RAAC—crisis and years of decay in the school estate. Labour is investing almost £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme to rebuild over 750 schools across England. Over 500 schools are already in the programme, with well over half already in delivery. We will select a further 250 schools by early 2027.

[Bill Esterson]

Hudson primary school in my constituency does a brilliant job. It is a family hub, it specialises in support for children with SEND and autism, and it has a nursery, but its building, which is 80 years old, suffers from a high water table that brings damp, mould and structural problems for the building—as does occasional flooding. Will the Minister give Niki Craddock, the excellent headteacher at Hudson primary school, her team and all the children they serve the news that he will look favourably on—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Please, come on. I have a lot of people to get in, Bill. Do not take complete advantage.

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for Hudson primary school. He has spoken to me before about the excellent performance of the school and its headteacher. We will be selecting the 250 schools for the school rebuilding programme by the end of the year and announce them at the start of next year. It will be based on those schools that have the most acute need in terms of their building state. I am happy to discuss that further with him.

[Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)]

8. What steps her Department is taking to improve the SEND system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking to improve further education pathways.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

As detailed in “Post-16 pathways: implementation plan”, we are creating coherent pathways, aligning learning with the skills that employers need and improving progression. New V-levels, the expansion and improvement of T-levels, and clearer level 2 pathways will support young people’s progression to higher study, apprenticeships or employment.

[Laura Kyrke-Smith]

Every time I have been to Buckinghamshire College Group in Aylesbury I have met fantastic staff who bring decades of professional experience to their roles and have a deep commitment to the young people. However, many further education colleges, including ours, are struggling with staff recruitment and retention, in part because staff pay is higher in schools. As we do this brilliant work to expand technical education opportunities through FE colleges, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that FE staff salaries are competitive and that FE colleges can continue to attract the best talent out there?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to Bucks College Group and the work it does in her constituency. FE colleges have autonomy over staff pay. We have provided an additional £190 million for colleges and 16-to-19 providers for this financial year, which is broadly equivalent to the schools pay award. We have also set out positive new developments on FE teacher training support.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I recently met Alex Miles, managing director of Yorkshire Learning Providers, and heard a worrying tale that differs greatly from what the Minister has told the House today. I heard that established apprenticeship standards are being defunded and that new product foundation apprenticeships that no employer in Yorkshire has asked for are being rolled out. Yorkshire Learning Providers has no partisan points to make; it just wants to ensure that young people can get into work with an apprenticeship standard that works for them and for employers. Does the Minister accept that the Government are not getting this right and that he needs to look at this again?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the right hon. Member for the question and the serious spirit in which he asks it. We are providing £9 billion of funding for 16-to-19 programmes in the 2026-27 academic year. We are making a wider range of changes to further education support, qualification routes and apprenticeships to directly respond to the kinds of criticisms from providers and employers that he refers to, and I genuinely believe that the Government have got that right. If there are particular aspects that Alex Miles wants to write to me about, I will be happy to take a look.

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

11. What financial plan she has for improving SEND provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)]

13. What progress the school rebuilding programme has made.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

We are investing almost £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme to rebuild over 750 schools up to 2034-35. Some 500 of those are already in the programme—we have a further 250 to select, which we will do later this year.

[David Smith]

Young people in Berwick in my constituency have been taught for over a decade in a crumbling high school—the only high school in the town in a wide surrounding area. Following sustained calls from families in Berwick, the Conservative county council promised five years ago to rebuild Berwick academy. A planning application has now been submitted after missing the 2022 round. The school applied for the school rebuilding programme in April. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that Berwick academy will still be considered for the SRP funding, even as works are scheduled to begin later this year?

[Josh MacAlister]

Despite those delays, I can confirm that the school will be considered for the school rebuilding programme, despite those avoidable delays. I thank my hon. Friend for his continued advocacy, both raising it personally with me on a number of occasions and writing to me on multiple occasions.

[Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)]

Tiverton high school has been on various lists for a rebuild since 1999. I am genuinely grateful to the Department for Education for the work that has gone on behind closed doors since my election in 2024. However, there is still a worrying lack of commitment in public from the Department. Will the Minister give a commitment in the House to have the Department write to me, to Mid Devon district council and to Devon county council with a full update on the specifics of the school rebuilding programme for Tiverton high school, to provide the certainty that my constituents require.

[Josh MacAlister]

Yes, I can do that.

Turing Scheme

Josh MacAlister Excerpts

Thursday 18th June 2026 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

Following the decision to leave the EU and the related end of our association with the Erasmus+ scheme, the last Government introduced the Turing scheme. The scheme has been the UK Government’s global programme for students to study and work abroad, funding students studying across the UK and British overseas territories, in higher education, further education and schools.

The scheme is about to start its sixth year and applicant education providers will shortly be informed of the outcome of their application. I can confirm a budget of up to £78 million for the Turing scheme for the 2026-27 academic year.

The Government decision to associate with Erasmus+ in 2027 will build on the Turing scheme’s success in opening up world-class opportunities for learners, educators, young people and communities, while further strengthening our partnership with the European Union. Our renewed participation in Erasmus+ will increase the opportunities available to young people across the UK. We will therefore transition to this broad, expanded Erasmus+ in the 2027-28 academic year, ending the Turing scheme as Erasmus+ placements begin.

The Turing scheme has delivered strong outcomes in widening access to international opportunities, with the proportion of students funded who are from a disadvantaged background increasing from 39% in 2021-22 to 56% in 2024-25, with an estimated 61% planned in 2025-26. It has also provided additional funding for students with special educational needs and disabilities, additional support needs or additional learning needs.

We will build on the success of the Turing scheme through maximising the opportunities that our association to Erasmus+ brings, including supporting the participation of students from disadvantaged backgrounds or with additional needs. Erasmus+ offers a broader scope of activity than the Turing scheme, providing opportunities not only for students but also for staff, and extends to the adult education, youth and sport sectors. The programme also supports a wide range of institutional partnerships and policy development. These activities help drive quality, encourage research links and enhance international reputation.

Like the Turing scheme, Erasmus+ offers additional funding to help participants with fewer opportunities, including those from disadvantaged backgrounds, take part in mobility opportunities.

We expect that over 100,000 people in the UK could benefit from mobility and partnership opportunities through Erasmus+ participation in 2027.

Erasmus+ participants can travel to any European Union member state, plus Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, North Macedonia, Serbia and Türkiye. As part of Erasmus+, grant holders in some sectors can also allocate up to 20% of project funding to support international mobilities to some countries that are not associated with the programme. Erasmus+ also supports global collaboration through partnership projects, with opportunities to involve non-partner countries under certain actions.

[HCWS123]