Education
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(2 days, 14 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Josh MacAlister
The Secretary of State has made a written statement to the House this morning confirming the timing of the commencement of the higher education free speech complaints scheme and the regulatory conditions. The complaints scheme will be commenced from 1 September this year, and the regulatory powers of the Office for Students from 1 April 2027.
Harriet Cross
I thank the Minister for that update. The scheme is long overdue, but of course it does not go far enough. Let us take, for example, the case of Brodie Mitchell, who was suspended from Royal Holloway for a spat at a freshers fair. Under the new guidelines, he would not be able to complain directly to the Office for Students. Why is that?
Josh MacAlister
The OfS system in place at the moment allows for students to complain about breaches of freedom of speech. The written statement laid this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is all about expanding that coverage to staff, visiting lecturers and other speakers, as well as ensuring we have a system under which the OfS can go back to institutions and hold them to account.
[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 16.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister):
Josh MacAlister
The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education system in place at the moment allows for students to complain about breaches of freedom of speech. The written statement laid this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is all about introducing a new scheme for staff, visiting lecturers and other speakers, as well as ensuring we have a system under which the OfS can go back to institutions and hold them to account.
Jack Rankin
…Why can academics and visiting speakers complain under this proposal, but not students? It is called the Office for Students, or is the Minister planning to rename it “the office for everybody on campus except students”?
Josh MacAlister
As I have said, at the moment students have a route of redress through the Office for Students. The Government have been focused on pulling together an enforceable regime, and it is welcome that both Labour and Conservative Members, across the House, are supportive of action to protect freedom of speech at our universities.
[Official Report, 20 April 2026; Vol. 784, c. 17.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education:
Josh MacAlister
As I have said, at the moment students have a route of redress through the Office of the Independent Adjudicator. The Government have been focused on pulling together an enforceable regime, and it is welcome that both Labour and Conservative Members, across the House, are supportive of action to protect freedom of speech at our universities.
Young Adult Carers: Education and Training
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(6 days, 14 hours 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this debate, the second Westminster Hall debate he has instigated. He continues to be a fantastic champion for these young people and does a brilliant job of putting the spotlight firmly where it should be in this place. I also recognise the contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who did a wonderful job of explaining the reality of what it means to be a young adult carer or young carer using personal stories, which are often what move parliamentarians the most.
I fully recognise the difficulties that young carers and young adult carers face. They make an often overlooked and misunderstood contribution supporting family members and friends. The sacrifices they make at such a young age can be immense. Earlier this year, my noble Friend the Minister for Skills met a group of young carers at the launch of the report on the barriers to education for young adult carers by the APPG led by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), mentioned the role of the Minister for School Standards, who also has a lead responsibility for this. I reassure Members that the issue cuts across a number of portfolios in the Department and is an interest and focus for all of us.
The APPG chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is driving important work to support young carers across the country. The stories of young carers, including those I have heard as a Member of Parliament, are inspiring and bring to life the challenges they face when caring for loved ones, supporting themselves and their family financially, and accessing education and training, which is the focus of this debate.
This Government offer a wide range of high-quality education and training opportunities for young people so that they can get on in life and get the skills they need for a chosen career. The Government’s mission is about breaking down barriers to opportunity, which applies particularly to groups such as young carers. However, we know that group often faces more difficulties and challenges in accessing such opportunities than their peers. That is why the Government are actively working to ensure that changes under way across education and social care, which apply to many groups of young people, deliberately improve outcomes for young carers specifically—be that through better inclusion in education or a focus on better whole-family support and family help through changes to the children’s social care system.
We are making progress. There were a number of references to the importance of data. We are shining a light on the educational disadvantage faced by young carers by publishing, for the first time, attainment data at both key stage 2 and key stage 4 last autumn. I recognise that that piece of work has carried over between Governments; it is a good example of important work continuing regardless of party stance and despite the colour of the Government at any given moment. That evidence is driving change. For example, the new Ofsted education inspection framework introduced last November will put a direct focus on the needs of young carers. As Ofsted can be important as a motivating force for decisions by schools, although it has limitations at times, that also means that by putting it firmly in the framework, school leaders are attending to it in the way that is needed.
The Minister for Care chairs a regular cross-Government meeting with Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Education to consider how best to provide unpaid carers of all ages with the recognition and support they deserve. As has been mentioned, we are preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers, which will be published later this year. It will include action specifically to strengthen further support for young adult carers. We are also committed to providing bursaries for further education students aged 16 to 19 so that young carers can seek support for essential costs, such as books, equipment and travel, to help them stay in education. For those going into higher education, we are providing adult dependants’ grants for carers, and new maintenance grants will be available for students from low-income households.
Hon. Members have mentioned the Milburn review. I have had the chance to speak to Alan Milburn specifically about concerns to do with NEET rates for care-experienced young people. When I next have the opportunity to speak to him about his work, I will raise the importance of young carers, too.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned carer’s allowance. I recognise the issues around the 21-hour rule, which I appreciate can be a source of genuine frustration for young carers and their families. It is a long-standing principle that the benefits system does not normally support full-time students; rather, they are supported by the educational maintenance system. Part-time students can receive carer’s allowance if they meet the entitlement conditions.
I recognise the issues for a number of students finishing school and in programmes of study that are more than 21 hours. That means that many young carers who are also full-time FE students cannot claim carer’s allowance as a result of the 21-hour rule. The Minister for Social Security and Disability has taken a strong interest in this issue, including by meeting with Carers Trust, Carers UK, and the Learning and Work Institute to discuss it, and I am happy to follow up with him after this debate. How we can best identify and support young carers to combine study with their caring responsibilities where they can, including taking account of changes in the education system, will be one of our priorities going forward for this group of young people.
Jim Shannon
Not to interfere with the flow of the Minister’s reply—he is saying positive stuff, and I thank him for that—but perhaps the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) should be at that meeting and the follow-up, if that would be agreeable. The hon. Member could feed back to us, as participants in this debate, on how it went, if that is okay with the Minister.
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will do a much better job of convincing people than anyone else in this room, so I will gladly make sure that he is the focus of attention in that conversation. It is very much my intention to follow up with the Minister for Social Security and Disability and ensure that a conversation takes place.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. He has his London marathon bib sat next to him, and mine has just been delivered—on a whole range of fronts, he is raising attention and money for good causes, including this weekend. For this, for his many years of campaigning, and for his work as a teacher, we all thank him.
Young carers and young adult carers often put the needs of others before their own. They make an enormous contribution to the wellbeing of their families, their neighbourhoods, their communities and the country. They deserve to be championed, and to be assured that we will support them in return for their actions. However, the system needs to improve to meet the developing needs of children and young carers. They must be at the heart of our opportunity mission. I look forward to helping to progress some of these issues in the months and years ahead.
Oral Answers to Questions
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(1 week, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Following a 40% drop in apprenticeship starts over the previous decade, we are now seeing them rise for those under 25, and achievement rates are also up. We want an extra 50,000 young people to benefit from apprenticeships. That is why we are introducing new grants for small and medium-sized businesses to take on apprentices, and why we have introduced new foundation apprenticeships.
Lewis Cocking
New figures reveal that 73% of teachers think there is not enough focus on preparing young people for employment while they are still in school. A good apprenticeship can bridge that gap, but the number of starts has fallen for those under 19 in the past year. Will the Minister change course and lead a real change, and shift away from dead-end university degrees to high-quality apprenticeships for every young person across the country who wants one?
Josh MacAlister
I agree with the hon. Member about the need for high-quality careers education in schools. The Labour Government are committed to ensuring that we bring back work experience for every young person, and we will be following the standards set out by other organisations to ensure that we get good-quality careers education and support the Careers and Enterprise Company. We do not need to set up this issue as a debate or a choice between higher education and technical further education. Both need attention, and there has been under-investment and a lack of support for apprenticeships—that we can agree on.
John Cooper
At an awards ceremony in Scotland last month, apprentices said time and again how they were told throughout their school careers that their grades were good enough to go to university, and that they should think again about going into an apprenticeship. Apprenticeships create not just jobs but careers, so what can the Department do to help in Scotland where the Scottish Government have wrecked so much of Scottish education? Can they be prevented from destroying apprenticeships as well?
Josh MacAlister
Education is a devolved matter, so the one thing I can do as a Minister in this Parliament is encourage people to vote for Scottish Labour and for Anas Sarwar to be the First Minister of Scotland. The hon. Member is right to highlight the absolutely shameful record of the Scottish National party on education, not only in its approach to the curriculum, teacher training and standards, but in withdrawing from PISA—the programme for international student assessment. The lack of progress that has been made on education north of the border is shocking. This Government are taking bold steps with SMEs to ensure that we create routes to apprenticeships for 50,000 more young people.
Dr Johnson
On Thursday this week an excellent apprentice in my office will graduate with a first-class degree. Unfortunately, no one will be able to follow in his excellent footsteps, because the Government have withdrawn funding for the chartered management degree apprenticeship. Given the benefits of degree apprenticeships, will the Minister please reconsider?
Josh MacAlister
This Government made changes to the apprenticeship levy and have introduced the growth and skills levy to focus the apprenticeship system where it should be focused. Most Members across the House would agree that with the apprenticeship levy—now the growth and skills levy—we needed originally to create routes for those who were not able to go to university to achieve level 4 and above qualifications. That is where this Government are focusing our attention and we will not apologise for that, because those are the young people who are missing out on opportunities at the moment and need an apprenticeship system that is focused on them.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I recently met a young constituent who is hoping to start a legal apprenticeship. He told me that he has had to research each apprenticeship opportunity himself and, unlike his peers who are applying to university, he is having to apply in the crucial weeks before his A-levels, when he needs to be revising. The Government rejected the Education Committee’s recommendation that information on apprenticeships should be available via UCAS, so that students have a single source of all post-16 and post-18 opportunities, and that the timescale for applications should be aligned with university applications. Will the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to make apprenticeships available to young people on a more equitable basis?
Josh MacAlister
As someone who represents a constituency with one of the highest proportions of young people not going to university and going through apprenticeship or technical routes, I recognise the Chair of the Education Committee’s description of the complexity of the system of applications and the timing issues. I am happy to speak to her and ensure that there is a proper dialogue between the Committee and the Department on that issue.
Ms Polly Billington (East Thanet) (Lab)
I appreciate the efforts that Ministers and the Government are making to offer apprenticeships. In coastal towns such as Margate, Broadstairs and Ramsgate in my constituency, the growth sectors rely heavily on non-graduates, including in clean energy, ports and logistics, creative and cultural industries, nature protection, tourism, and leisure and hospitality, as well as health and social care. Will the Minister outline how “mission coastal” in the Education White Paper could address some of the skills and training gaps that are currently limiting the unleashing of our amazing coastal talent?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for making such an important point. There are a few ways to address this question. Too many of our coastal areas do not have the school standards in place to enable children to make the progress needed to access those opportunities. We need to ensure that there are real routes for young people to get into work opportunities, which is why the new deal that this Government are setting out will give a £2,000 grant for small and medium-sized enterprises taking on 16 to 24-year-olds who are new to work. There will be a new £3,000 youth jobs guarantee for hiring apprentices aged 18 to 24 who have been out of work and on universal credit for six months, and we are fully funding apprenticeship training in SMEs for young people.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Stafford college already delivers an outstanding apprenticeship achievement rate of 77.5%, which is an extraordinary 15% above the national average. Last week, it was announced that it will be one of the four new technical excellence colleges for advanced manufacturing. Its bid was built on its existing brilliant relationships with local employers, such as GE Vernova, Hitachi, Siemens and Moog. However, we know that there is always more to do, so will the Minister set out how the Government will support those extending colleges, such as the Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group, and those employers already backing Britain by investing in skills here, so that more apprentices can go through our programmes?
Josh MacAlister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on her efforts in campaigning for that technical excellence college. We announced 19 TECs last week, and our package of measures to create another 50,000 apprenticeships for young people will give power to the elbow of institutions such as Stafford college, so that they can continue to make progress.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
Apprenticeships should be the building blocks of a stronger economy. That is why the Conservatives are pledging to double the number. If the Minister has done his homework, he will know that any increase in apprenticeship numbers is due to the last-minute rush to do level 7, which this Government cancelled. In fact, if level 7 apprenticeships are stripped out of the figures, apprenticeship vacancies are at their lowest since 2020. With youth unemployment at an all-time high and apprenticeship vacancies at their lowest, it is time for the Minister to come clean: this Government are failing young people, are they not?
Josh MacAlister
The Conservatives’ new deal is funded by cutting opportunities in higher education. The Tory plan—[Interruption.] The Opposition Front Benchers’ proposal—
Mr Speaker
Order. This is a question to the Minister, not about what the Opposition might be doing.
Josh MacAlister
I apologise, Mr Speaker.
The proposals we have set out as a Government are all about expanding opportunities so that we get young people out of worklessness and into job opportunities. That is why we have set out a new deal for young people. To put it politely, the shadow Minister’s proposals borrow from a number of the features that we have set out in our plan. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We know that students and graduates have been left facing the sharp end of the cost of living crisis. That is why we are making the system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers by capping interest rates, future-proofing maintenance loans, reintroducing maintenance grants and making care leavers automatically eligible for maximum support. With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will share that we are concerned about students affected by providers’ misclassification of weekend courses. As Ministers, we have asked the Student Loans Company to collect any overpayments through normal student finance repayments and pause recoveries of overpaid grants until at least September while we consider the next steps.
Abtisam Mohamed
A recent cost of living survey by Sheffield Hallam students’ union shows that 82% of students are struggling, and many are working more hours at the expense of their studies. Too many are skipping meals and going without essentials, harming their health and their participation in university life. That is compounded by serious financial challenges at our universities, including staff cuts that are putting further pressure on the learning experiences of students. What action is the Minister taking across Government to review and widen financial support for students? Will he meet me to discuss the financial situation at Sheffield Hallam University?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is a vocal champion for higher education and students in her constituency. To help disadvantaged students, we are future-proofing maintenance loans by increasing them by forecast inflation every year. We continue to look for ways to make the student finance system fairer for students, graduates and taxpayers overall.
Suella Braverman (Fareham and Waterlooville) (Reform)
The number of foreign students claiming fraudulent student loans is at a record high. That is making a mockery of the student finance system and costing the British taxpayer millions of pounds which could otherwise be diverted to support British students. What are the Government doing to reduce this fraudulent practice and fix our broken student loans system?
Josh MacAlister
We take this issue extremely seriously, but the description given by the right hon. and learned Member is of her own legacy in government as a Conservative politician. She is now a Reform politician. Nowhere in her question was an apology for the appalling track record of creating the plan 2 student loans system in the first place and administering it in a way that has led to the results that she describes.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
As the Minister said, on 23 March the Department told universities that weekend courses do not qualify for funding. The Student Loans Company’s own guidance changed only this year, and the issue affected 20,000 students, including those in key professions, such as nurses. The Secretary of State has been taken to court by nine universities, the National Union of Students is demanding that she halt her clawback, and Martin Lewis has said that this is an almighty mess. I heard what the Minister had to say, but I know that this Government always find someone else to blame, so will he confirm that any aggressive debt collection will absolutely be stopped and that payments will not be demanded from innocent students?
Josh MacAlister
I like the hon. Member, but unfortunately his question was written before I gave my earlier answer. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the Tory student loans plan would cost £4 billion and
“would not make an immediate difference to most graduates’ monthly repayments.”
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
Michelle Scrogham (Barrow and Furness) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We are fixing crumbling schools and colleges, which are a direct consequence of under-investment in our country. Labour is investing £20 billion in the school rebuilding programme, and more than 500 schools are already in the programme, with well over half in delivery. We will select a further 250 by early 2027, and we are also launching a new renewal and retrofit programme to modernise the school estate.
Michelle Scrogham
In January 2023, children at Sacred Heart Catholic primary school in my constituency were forced to evacuate their building after inspectors warned that it could collapse. I am pleased to welcome its headteacher, Simone Beach, to the Public Gallery today, and I know that the whole House will join me in thanking her for her exceptional leadership during three extremely challenging years.
This is one of the starkest examples of the consequences of under-investment in school buildings. I thank the ministerial team for their close engagement over the last 18 months, and for the investment to build a brand-new school which is due to open in September 2027. What further support can be provided as the school’s staff continue to face the financial impact of the evacuation three years later, working across a number of temporary sites?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to Simone, who is sitting in the Gallery. She is a wonderful Cumbrian, and a fantastic example of the excellence of school leaders and headteachers throughout the country. She has stewarded the school through a tumultuous few years, and with our Government support we will ensure that the new school setting is there for children who will need it in the future. Renewing our school estate is a massive challenge for the country: it is not just about building new schools, but about getting ahead of the curve so that we can modernise and retrofit existing school buildings that would otherwise have needed rebuilding altogether in 10 or 20 years’ time.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—has been an huge issue here in Britain, but we have some examples back home in Northern Ireland as well. It is important that we share the way in which we address these problems. The Minister is always helpful, and I thank him for that. Will he contact the Education Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that he and the Government can share what they have learnt here with us in Northern Ireland, so that we can address the issue in a similar way?
Josh MacAlister
The RAAC crisis here in England highlighted wider issues with the legacy of the school estate that England is now having to reckon with. I believe that we are now on top of that issue, and the Government are committed to stripping RAAC out of all schools in the years to come and ensuring that we have the school estate that we need. We have learnt a huge amount through that process, and I should be very glad to connect the hon. Member with relevant colleagues in the Department for Education and with Ministers in the Northern Irish Government.
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We are undertaking a once-in-a-generation reform of children’s social care, which includes ensuring that children in care are surrounded by enduring, loving relationships close to their communities, their friends and their schools. Creating an extra 10,000 homes in foster care is my top priority as the children’s Minister, and we are now implementing an ambitious action plan to meet that target.
Sally Jameson
I thank the Minister for his answer. Can he outline how he will implement the expansion of foster carers so that more children can stay close to home and in their schools, reducing their vulnerability to sexual exploitation and county lines—something that disproportionately impacts children in residential care? Will he also set out what more he is doing to support foster carers to make sure that they have an independent voice heard in local authorities, but also practical help such as house extensions and modifications, so that they can continue to increase the number of children they support and provide a home to?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that we need to take action on a whole range of fronts to transform our fostering system, so that we can expand it and retain the brilliant foster carers we already have in this country. That is why we are backing the plan with £88 million. We are taking action to bring local authorities together to create new end-to-end fostering hubs with clear targets. That process is currently under way, and my hon. Friend is right to highlight the really important action of the Room Makers programme. The Government will fund the extension and expansion of foster carers’ homes so that they can take in more children. That is important, because we are funding a residential care system in this country that is the size it is because we do not have the foster homes that we need.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Does the Minister accept that if we are to promote fostering credibility, we must move beyond simply running adverts saying that we need more foster carers and ensure that fostering is both financially realistic and backed by strong, reliable support for those who step up to care?
Josh MacAlister
Yes. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight both of those issues. We are expanding and funding the Mockingbird programme so that foster carers can get wider, family network-like support when they undertake this really important role, so that they are not left isolated. We are funding that to expand it across the country. We are also undertaking a piece of research to look at the variation in fostering allowances and fees across the country, and to identify both the variation and the relationship between the amount paid and the retention of carers, to address the exact point that he raises.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The Secretary of State has made a written statement to the House this morning confirming the timing of the commencement of the higher education free speech complaints scheme and the regulatory conditions. The complaints scheme will be commenced from 1 September this year, and the regulatory powers of the Office for Students from 1 April 2027.
Harriet Cross
I thank the Minister for that update. The scheme is long overdue, but of course it does not go far enough. Let us take, for example, the case of Brodie Mitchell, who was suspended from Royal Holloway for a spat at a freshers fair. Under the new guidelines, he would not be able to complain directly to the Office for Students. Why is that?
Josh MacAlister
The OfS system in place at the moment allows for students to complain about breaches of freedom of speech. The written statement laid this morning by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is all about expanding that coverage to staff, visiting lecturers and other speakers, as well as ensuring we have a system under which the OfS can go back to institutions and hold them to account.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) is absolutely right. Whether it is Zionist views, gender critical perspectives, climate scepticism, or challenging the perceived wisdom that diversity is our strength with the need to put terrorism barriers around Christmas markets, there is a clear two-tier approach to free speech on our campuses, and students are the nub of it, which is exactly why the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act gave students the right to go to the Office for Students. Why can academics and visiting speakers complain under this proposal, but not students? It is called the Office for Students, or is the Minister planning to rename it “the office for everybody on campus except students”?
Josh MacAlister
As I have said, at the moment students have a route of redress through the Office for Students. The Government have been focused on pulling together an enforceable regime, and it is welcome that both Labour and Conservative Members, across the House, are supportive of action to protect freedom of speech at our universities.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The Conservatives’ legacy of almost 1 million young people being out of work and education is shameful, but we are cleaning up this mess. I am delighted to share with the House that we are introducing a new deal for young people that includes a £2,000 grant for small to medium-sized enterprises taking on 16 to 24-year-olds to work and a new £3,000 youth job grant for hiring apprentices aged 18 to 24 who have been on universal credit for more than six months. We are the Labour party, which means we are about getting young people into work.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Ind)
Whistleblowers have raised serious concerns with me about the governance of academy trusts in my constituency. I have raised this matter privately with the Secretary of State, but I wonder whether she might arrange for a Minister to meet those whistleblowers so that they can have those concerns taken seriously, as I am seriously concerned myself.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)
Josh MacAlister
I was concerned to hear that the school needed to shut last Monday—[Interruption.] Cheering a school closure is no laughing matter. Of course, I am thankful that the children will be back in school on Tuesday. I would be happy to speak to the hon. Member about the situation, but of course it is a legacy of the party of which he used to be a Member.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Experts at Hand service and the £3.7 million that has been given to Cornwall to set it up. We struggle, however, to get occupational therapists, educational psychologists and speech and language therapists in rural and coastal areas. What incentives are there, and what is the Minister doing, to encourage people to come down to Cornwall and work in our services?
Disclosure and Safeguarding: At-risk Children
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days 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
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) for securing this debate, and for doing so in a way that builds on the important debate held in this Chamber on 14 October, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist). I also thank all the Members who have contributed to this debate today from across different parties and have recognised the amazing young children whose lives were tragically cut far too short.
I also want to reiterate what I said on 14 October because it underpins the whole debate: no child should ever suffer at the hands of someone who was entrusted with their care and
“no family should endure such a loss.”—[Official Report, 14 October 2025; Vol. 773, c. 94WH.]
I want to recognise Maya’s family, in particular Gemma and Rachael who I have had the privilege to meet and spend time with over the past few months. Their unwavering determination took the petition from more than 6,000 responses back in October to 110,000 when it closed in February. I am grateful to them for giving up their time to meet with not just me, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and officials from the Home Office. I am grateful for their ongoing, tireless campaign to bring about change.
Through their petition, they are calling for the creation of a child risk disclosure scheme known as Maya’s law, which would require statutory services to disclose relevant past history when a risk is identified, establish multi-agency responses with protocols, and empower professionals to raise alerts where known risks exist. Changes to deliver the goals of Maya’s law are, I believe, in train. We are taking a number of steps to further strengthen existing schemes and improve multi-agency working. I hope to set out in some detail how the Government are doing that.
At the moment, the Government are taking action to strengthen information sharing in particular in three separate but complimentary ways. First, through strengthening the child sex offender disclosure scheme, which been referenced throughout the debate; secondly, through the introduction of a child cruelty register, which was not something on the cards when we last had this debate in October; and thirdly, through introducing a new information sharing duty in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Those changes cover different aspects of sharing information; they are changes that will come into effect in law and some of them are new since the debate we had at the end of last year.
As referenced in the petition, Sarah’s law already allows members of the public to make an application to the police for information where they have a child protection concern, enabling the police to disclose information to those best placed to safeguard a child from harm. Although formally known as the child sex offender disclosure scheme, it extends well beyond those offences to the disclosure of any relevant information that the police hold that is necessary to protect a child. That may include previous convictions for child sexual abuse, a history of child cruelty, domestic violence or intelligence relating to violent or sexual offences. The maximum timescale for Sarah’s law applications to be completed is 28 days from start to finish unless extenuating circumstances justify an extension. Where an imminent risk of harm to a child is identified, the police must take immediate action to safeguard those at risk.
Sarah’s law does not rely solely on applications from members of the public; it also provides a framework for the police to make proactive disclosures when they believe a child is at risk of serious harm. For example, if the police become aware of an adult with a conviction, caution or charge for child abuse having unsupervised access to a child, they can and will disclose that information to the person best placed to protect that child—usually a parent, carer or guardian—whether or not a Sarah’s law application has been made.
That is the current situation, which goes far beyond just cases of child sexual abuse, but in the Crime and Policing Bill currently before Parliament the Government are going further by strengthening Sarah’s law and placing it on a statutory footing. The clauses in that Bill will mean that chief police officers will have a statutory duty to follow the Secretary of State’s guidance, which will be issued shortly after the passage of the Bill on Sarah’s law. In practice, that will reinforce and strengthen the police’s responsibility to make disclosures whenever necessary to protect a child.
In addition, the same Bill will establish a new child cruelty register. That will require adults convicted of child cruelty offences to notify the police of key changes in their circumstances in the same way that registered sex offenders need to at the moment. That improves the visibility of known risks and supports police to make informed decisions, including where disclosure under existing schemes, such as Sarah’s law, may be necessary to protect a child. At this point, I want to pay particular tribute to Tony Hudgell’s family for their campaigning on this specific change.
Finally, through our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, we are addressing long-standing misconceptions about when information can and cannot be shared. We are introducing a new information-sharing duty and placing a clear legal obligation on police, children’s social care, health and other relevant agencies to share information to safeguard children. That responds directly to findings from, among others, the independent review of children’s social care, which I led before being elected to this House. It found that despite existing legislation there were both perceived and real barriers to sharing information between different agencies. We have worked closely with the Information Commissioner’s Office, practitioners and other Government Departments to ensure that the duty supports sharing across the full breadth of safeguarding or when promoting the welfare of children. That, along with the single unique identifier—which I referenced in the debate on this matter in October—will help professionals build a clearer picture of a child’s life.
Crucially, and relevant to Maya’s story, the information-sharing duty requires practitioners to share information with each other about other individuals in a child’s life where that information is relevant to safeguarding or promoting a child’s welfare. More robust information sharing will enable practitioners to act on and inform families of concerns appropriately. It also makes clear that any information that could protect a child should be shared at the earliest opportunity to prevent harm. Once the Bill is passed, I will be eager to fully involve Gemma and Rachael in the early drafts of the statutory guidance that would deliver on this commitment in the Bill. There will be an implementation plan published imminently after the Bill, and I am just as eager as my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central to see that the Bill is passed soon.
I also want to underscore that there have been debates in this House about the issue of malicious allegations. These are often made and are a feature of the children’s social care system where we have complicated family circumstances and people coming forward with information that may not always be wholly accurate. With that being a large feature of some of the information that services have access to, we should note that we need to design information-sharing systems that account for those kinds of malicious allegations.
Lewis Atkinson
I thank the Minister for his response and the very welcome commitment that he has made to involve the family in the development of the statutory guidance. As he alludes to, family circumstances differ significantly and the person in the family best placed to keep a child safe may or may not have parental responsibility—in some cases, it may be a grandparent, an aunt or so on. Will the Minister ensure that the statutory guidance reflects that in terms of the wider disclosure beyond just parents?
Josh MacAlister
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight that the question for children’s social care teams and anyone involved as a statutory safeguarding partner for these children needs to be: who is around this child who loves and cares about them? That will differ significantly among children. The hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) mentioned a case where it was the grandparent who was a really important part of a child’s life and was missing from the picture. We need to make sure the statutory guidance reflects that among children it will often be very different.
Strengthening child protection is this Government’s absolute priority, which means acting early so that the right support is in place before harms occur. That is why we are delivering landmark reforms by overhauling children’s social care, not just through the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the ways that I have highlighted, but with £2.4 billion of investment in changing our family help and child protection systems. We are also introducing multi-agency child protection teams, which will be mandated through the Bill, enhancing the child sex offender disclosure scheme and introducing the new child cruelty register. Together, those reforms put learning into action.
I hope to continue working with Gemma, Rachael and other family members who have been affected by these awful tragic stories to strengthen the implementation of these reforms, as well as others in the future. They reflect the loud call for change that this petition rightly demands. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central for opening this debate, and all those who have contributed to it. Let us honour Maya’s memory with not just words but change as soon as possible, so that no child is left unprotected, and no family unheard.
Further Education College Condition Allocation 2026-27
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(2 weeks, 2 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I am pleased to announce £307 million of capital funding will be allocated to further education colleges and designated institutions across England in 2026-27 to help them maintain, improve, and ensure the suitability of their estate. This is the second year of the FE college condition allocation, providing colleges with funding certainty to strategically plan and manage their estates.
FE colleges will have the discretion to prioritise how best to use this funding over a three year period, supported by spend guidance the Department has published on gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/further-education-college-condition-allocation-2026-to-2027
This funding forms part of the £1.7 billion investment announced in the UK’s modern industrial strategy to improve the condition of FE college buildings. It is also part of the Government’s education estates strategy, published in February 2026, which set out plans for an education estate that supports opportunity for all, backed by a 10-year plan to deliver a decade of renewal to transform schools and colleges. High quality and inspiring college buildings are essential for expanding opportunity, breaking down barriers, and ensuring clear pathways from education into skilled employment.
By investing in FE colleges, we are investing in the country’s future workforce and long-term growth.
[HCWS1495]
Draft Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(1 month, 1 week ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Further Education (Initial Teacher Training) Regulations 2026.
Thank you, Dr Huq, for chairing this Committee. Teacher training quality is critical across all phases of education, from early years through to adult education. In October 2025, the skills White Paper set out the vision for England’s skills system. The further education sector is central to that vision and requires high-quality teacher training to drive progress. The Government are acting to secure and improve the quality of FE teacher training; a high-quality, accessible and attractive teacher training offer will improve recruitment and retention in further education, support the commitment to recruit an additional 6,500 teachers and demonstrate a commitment to raising teaching standards across schools and colleges.
These regulations introduce a system across all types of providers of FE teacher training: universities, colleges, training providers and any other organisation offering specified FE teacher training courses. The regulations are based on clear expectations and quality standards and align with Ofsted’s initial teacher training education framework, which has been extended to encompass all publicly funded FE ITT.
Historically, the Government have regulated primary and secondary teacher training, but that has not applied to further education. Excellence does exist in parts of the system, but provision is inconsistent and some poor practice has been identified in recent years. Trainees in further education teaching have not always had the high-quality preparation that they require and employers cannot always be confident that their new teachers have the necessary knowledge and skills to perform their role.
Providers of FE teacher training courses specified by Government in this statutory instrument will be required to have regard to guidance on curriculum content and on delivery standards, to register with the Department for Education and to submit regular information and data to the DFE. We want the standards to be proportionate, but meaningful in terms of the shift they deliver. For the first time, Government, employers and prospective teachers will have transparency over what training is offered, where it is offered and who is offering it—transparency that supports a quality focus in the further education ITT system.
We want evidence-based standards that will help to drive consistency and improvement. Regulation will not constrain innovation and providers will retain flexibility to exercise professional judgment and expertise, as they do in initial teacher training in the schools space. The Department has engaged extensively with further education colleges and teacher training sector stakeholders; public consultations, a call for evidence and ongoing engagement have shaped the measures and there is broad consensus that the approach will drive up standards and maintain necessary flexibility. I give special thanks to the expert advisory group chaired by Anna Dawe OBE, principal of Wigan & Leigh college, a technical excellence college, and I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Josh MacAlister
There is an opportunity here for a brief respite from what might be happening in the rest of the building and to share some cross-party agreement, so let me say that we were delighted that the previous Conservative Government, and before them the coalition Government, continued many of the reforms that the former Labour Government initiated in the academies programme and the focus on evidence. Across the House, there has been some solid progress in the education system, which has benefited many young people. I hope this is an area where we can continue to work on a constructive, cross-party basis.
The focus on what is perhaps a less exciting political debate, the content of teaching for those who teach, is so important; it is probably one of the biggest single drivers of performance in our education system, whether in primary school, secondary school or colleges. It is right and timely that we are now making those changes in the further education system that have led to positive progress and made a difference in our schools system. I thank members of the Committee for their consideration and you, Dr Huq, for chairing the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. To begin, I would like to take this opportunity briefly to explain that in the explanatory note for the statutory instrument, there was a discrepancy, in that it stated that the percentage increase for 2026-27 was 2.7% when it should have stated 2.71%, and that the percentage increase for ’27-28 was 2.8% when it should have stated 2.68%. I can reassure hon. Members that a correction slip has been arranged regarding that, and the other figures in the draft SI—the consequential figures in monetary terms—are not affected. The SI, which was laid in draft on 5 February, increases the limits on tuition fees that higher education providers can charge students studying undergraduate courses at “approved (fee cap) providers” in the ’26-27 and ’27-28 academic years.
Our higher education sector is critical to delivering a key mission of this Government—economic growth. It does that through world-leading research and innovation, supporting businesses up and down the country, and by equipping people with the knowledge and skills that they need to thrive. In one way or another, higher education plays a part in the lives of most people in this country, whether through direct participation in university, through research or through its role in our local communities. We are all impacted by universities.
The sector is also crucial to our future prosperity and wealth as a country, but now it is facing severe challenges. Office for Students analysis suggests that without mitigating action, 45% of institutions face a deficit in ’25-26. English providers are attempting to manage significant financial pressures, including the £1.7 billion loss, in aggregate, on domestic teaching and the need for providers to draw on other income to cover it. Such challenges have been unaddressed for far too long, and seven years of frozen tuition fees, plus over-optimistic strategic and financial planning and potential issues with governance, have contributed to the financial challenges facing providers.
The Government have not shied away from these decisions. We started to fix the foundations by increasing fee limits for ’25-26 and boosting the sector’s income, but we must go further if we are to put the sector on a stable footing and provide it with the greater financial certainty that it needs. That can be achieved by boosting incomes, with conditions about improving the teaching quality.
That is why, through this draft SI, we intend to raise fee limits for a further two years. That is necessary to ensure that the sector can face the challenges of the next decade and that students today and in the future can receive a world-class higher education. It will mean that for the ’26-27 academic year, from 1 August ’26 onwards, tuition fee limits for undergraduate courses will increase by 2.71% and, for the ’27-28 academic year, from 1 August ’27 onwards, by a further 2.68%, in line with forecast inflation based on the RPIX inflation index. That means an increase to £9,790 for a standard full-time course in ’26-27 and to £10,050 in ’27-28. It means an increase to £11,750 for a full-time accelerated course in ’26-27 and to £12,060 in ’27-28. The fee limits that apply to lower fee foundation years for classroom-based subjects, such as business, social science and humanities, that begin on or after 1 August ’25 are preserved at ’25-26 levels for ’26-27 and ’27-28.
I recognise that people have concerns about the student finance system and the affordability of higher education. We inherited a broken system and we take borrowers’ complaints seriously. We have already committed to reintroducing maintenance grants and to future-proofing our maintenance support offer by increasing loans for living costs with forecast inflation every academic year from ’26-27. We will continue to look for ways to make the system fairer. The Government are firmly committed to ensuring that access to higher education is based on ability and aspiration, not financial means.
Eligible students can continue to apply for up-front fee loans to meet the full cost of their tuition. Given the inherited fiscal situation, we are making those necessary decisions to protect taxpayers and students. The Government continuously review student finance to ensure that it remains fair, sustainable and supportive of students from all backgrounds.
We have an expectation of the higher education sector too. We expect it to do more to improve access for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and to focus on efficiency and specialisation to deliver the very best value for students and for the country. We will make future fee uplifts conditional on higher education providers achieving a high-quality threshold through the Office for Students quality regime. That will protect taxpayers’ investment in higher education and reward providers for high quality. We will set out further details on future changes to tuition fee caps in due course.
We are clear that the diversity of the sector is a strength, but each provider needs to be clear on their distinctive role in the system and to move away from a one-size-fits-all approach. Each provider needs to be well run, delivering the very best value for students and operating as efficiently as possible. To conclude, the draft SI will put our higher education sector on a more secure footing, giving it greater financial certainty and therefore enabling it to deliver the world-class higher education that current and future generations deserve.
The Chair
I am minded to allow consideration to continue, notwithstanding the fact that the explanatory note is in effect inaccurate. I appreciate the Minister’s courtesy in correcting that, but in future those things should be done in advance and in writing, and put on the Table so that all members of the Committee can see. I shall be saying to my fellow Chairs that that should be the rule that we adopt. For the convenience of all Members present, I shall now let us proceed with our consideration.
The Chair
Minister, I assume that the correction slip that you drew the Committee’s attention to is going to be produced and delivered today.
Josh MacAlister
I thank Committee members for their contributions today. I will endeavour to respond to the points made by the hon. Members for Rutland and Stamford and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, but before I do, let me reiterate the importance of this statutory instrument for putting our higher education sector on a secure financial footing and providing the financial certainty that it needs. I have not heard how either the Conservatives or the Liberal Democrats would propose to do that in the absence of this statutory instrument for the financial years under discussion.
There are few phrases to describe the position of the Conservative party other than “crocodile tears”. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford highlighted repayment thresholds. I have not had the chance to look at her speeches or voting record from the time, but from 2012 onward the Conservative Government of the day designed and introduced the very system that she is now criticising. In the year that the system was introduced, they made a commitment not to freeze thresholds but to increase them. However, in their very first year, they froze the thresholds.
Josh MacAlister
I would be delighted to give way if the hon. Lady will answer this question: how many other times were thresholds frozen by that Government?
Alicia Kearns
I do not want the Minister to unnecessarily age me in this debate, so I want to put on record that, unfortunately, I cannot give him that data on my voting record because I was just finishing university then and was still enjoying the joys of life.
Josh MacAlister
I am pleased to hear that that is where the hon. Lady was at that time. The Conservative Government and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition froze thresholds 10 times.
Ian Sollom
The Minister has made that point in several debates. I would just like to explain that the commitment was to raise thresholds from when the first cohort graduated, which was in 2016. That was indeed why Martin Lewis investigated the issue and considered judicial review in 2016. There was no freezing of thresholds prior to that. They were due to rise from 2016. I am sure the Minister did not mean to misinform us.
Josh MacAlister
Certainly not. In fact, the current student loan system—I believe it is plan 5—which is due to come online with the first graduates this year, has been increased in line with inflation by this Government. The point stands that the choice of the Government back then was to maintain the threshold where it was and effectively freeze it, capturing many more people into the system. The cumulative effect of 10 threshold freezes in a decade where inflation was ticking up is being felt by students now.
It is somewhat galling to hear that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are outraged that this Government, who were able to find the money to lift the threshold in our first year in office, are now balancing difficult decisions so that we can make sure that we have the funding needed for further education, since over half of students do not go to university and need a well-resourced skills system. Both parties seem now to be walking away from their responsibility to make a system that they designed work effectively, which is unfortunate.
The Committee will know how crucial this sector is for our economic growth—I am sure this is felt across the House. Members will recognise its importance in contributing to research and innovation and the impact that it has on local communities and the lives of students. Challenges in higher education have been left unaddressed for far too long, and providers have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income.
The Government have not shied away from the decisions that are needed. We took action to raise the fee cap in 2025-26, and we have committed to bringing back maintenance grants and future-proofing maintenance loans for students, but we need to go further so that that our higher education sector can continue to deliver the world-class education and research that this country and future generations deserve.
Dan Carden (Liverpool Walton) (Lab)
I want to make a short intervention, as we may divide on this instrument. Although the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats do not have a leg to stand on in this debate, I have to take issue with the idea that by simply increasing the fee structure, we put universities on a secure and stable footing. They rely on cross-subsidy from international students, and it is widely debated outside this place as to whether the funding model in chaos and crisis.
In the end, we have a stonking great majority in the House of Commons, and we need to be thinking about reform that goes much further so that the university sector is fit for the modern day—especially for the AI revolution that is coming.
Josh MacAlister
I appreciate my hon. Friend drawing the Committee’s attention to the wider debate around higher education funding at the moment. It is true to say that fee income is only one line of income for universities and that they are facing a whole bunch of pressures in a competitive environment. The Government are committed to looking at the student loan system and making it fairer. I have made that commitment, as have the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary.
One urgent point that I would draw the Committee’s attention to is that a number of years of freezes on the tuition fee cap has eroded the income value, which is a significant income stream for universities. If that were to continue, it would further heighten the situation. As a Minister, I have spent time listening to MPs making very powerful representations about the challenges that universities in their constituencies face because of the legacy of the erosion of the value of the fee income. If we were to not increase fees in line with inflation, which is what we are talking about here, it would further add to that funding challenge that universities face. I do not think it would be responsible for us to do that, given that the financial years we are talking about are pretty imminent.
Alicia Kearns
The Minister has opened the box on the topic of funding for universities by mentioning how central that funding is. One of my gravest concerns is the amount of money that is coming from the Chinese Communist party into our universities. Does the Minister believe that by taking this action today, the Government will be able to focus on cracking down on those universities that seem to think there is no problem with taking vast sums from China, which then threatens MPs by saying that it will not take the children of sanctioned MPs at its universities or that it will withdraw all funding from universities if the Dalai Lama speaks at them or there are efforts by Hongkongers or others? Given that the Government are taking action to make sure that universities have a more valid footing, will he make sure that those funding streams are cracked down on?
The Chair
Order. We are not debating how universities are funded by overseas territories, but I will let that go. Minister, you may respond very briefly on that point, and then we will move on.
Josh MacAlister
I am sure that the Committee will be delighted that I will give a short answer, and I can provide a point of reassurance. Of course, universities have responsibility to ensure that they contribute to upholding human rights and freedom of speech, and they have an important role to play in that. We have plans to strengthen their role and responsibility in that respect along with the role of the Office for Students. It is an important point to highlight, even though it is not directly relevant to this SI.
Question put and agreed to.
Post-16 Level 3 and Below: Pathways
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
The Government’s reforms to technical and vocational qualifications for 16 to 19 year olds in England represent once-in-a-generation reforms to vocational education, transforming the vocational landscape for millions of 16 to 19 year olds and supporting the Prime Minister’s ambition for two-thirds of young people to study higher level learning whether academic, vocational, or technical, by age 25.
Driving economic growth is a top priority for this Government. In October 2025, we published the post-16 education and skills White Paper, which set out our reforms to the skills system in England which will develop the skilled workforce our economy needs. The challenge is huge—nearly 900,000 more skilled workers needed in our priority sectors to 2030, nearly 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, and the ever changing impact of technology and artificial intelligence.
Today, the Government publish their response to the post-16 level 3 and below pathways consultation, which received over 750 contributions. Our response, building on the recommendations made in the curriculum and assessment review, sets out our vision for a reformed 16 to 19 qualifications system that ensures every young person has a clear choice of education pathways that support them to succeed in work and in life.
The Government will create a high-quality, coherent and future-proof system of technical and vocational qualifications that gives every young person clear choices and strong routes into further study, apprenticeships and employment. The reformed landscape will allow students to specialise if they choose to do so, or to study a broader programme if they wish to explore options. Students will be able to study a mix of academic and vocational learning, reflecting the increasingly diverse and portfolio-based nature of modern careers, and to adapt quickly to changing economic and technological needs. By linking qualifications to occupational standards, improving clarity and comparability across pathways, and ensuring all qualifications support meaningful progression, the system will ensure learners are engaged, retained in learning, and equipped to thrive in a modern labour market.
In response to wide support for clearer pathways, there will be three key changes to post-16 pathways for students. This will end the assumption that the only way to get on is academic progression and acknowledge the value and prestige that a strong vocational pathway can have.
V-levels—our new flagship vocational qualification that will sit alongside A-levels and T-levels. V Levels will be the same size as an A-level and can be taken alongside them to create a broad study programme appropriate for a young person who wishes to progress to higher level study without specialising in one particular area. V-levels will feature engaging applied teaching, learning and assessment designed to develop real world skills. V-levels will be linked to occupational standards, strengthening employer confidence in vocational qualifications and helping to meet the country’s long-term skills needs. In specific and limited cases, we will allow a partnered set of V-levels, in a similar way to the model of maths-further maths A-level, which will enable overall depth of study in a linked area with the ability to study another subject. We will not allow V-levels to be combined in ways that recreate a large technical study programme within a single route where a T-level exists, in order to avoid overlap.
T-levels—we are bringing forward improvements to T-levels, the technical offer for students who want a sector-focused post-16 choice. The T-level will be the only large qualification for 16 to 19 year olds at level 3. We will make changes to placements and assessment to support the accessibility and scalability of T-levels whilst maintaining quality. We will also introduce new T-levels in new subject areas that are designed with the understanding of sector needs and based on occupational standards to support progression into skilled, technical occupations. Together, these changes will support more students to benefit from these qualifications and the strong progression opportunities they provide.
Level 2 pathways—we are introducing two new pathways for young people who need to continue learning at a level equivalent to GCSE—level 2—at age 16. They will have a choice of two pathways—further study, which will help them to progress into a study programme of A-levels and, or V-levels, or a T-level—or occupational, which is a two-year programme that supports progression to a good skilled job.
A-levels will continue to be the level 3 option for students who want to study academic subjects and progress to higher education.
To maintain stability during this transition, and to give providers more time and scope to engage with the reforms, we will not remove funding from qualifications in the academic year 2026-27—including in health and science and digital routes—as previously set out.
From the academic year 2027-28, funding approval will be removed for large qualifications—those with 1,080 guided learning hours or more—in existing T-level subject areas, except for large health and social care qualifications, which will be removed from 2028 to coincide with the introduction of a T-level in social care. As more T-levels are introduced, funding approval for unreformed qualifications with 1,080 guided learning hours or more in those subject areas will be removed in the same year.
The Government have published their timeline for changes to funding approval for qualifications, and the provisional timeline for introduction of new qualifications in routes from the academic year 2027-28, which can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/post-16-level-3-and-below-pathways
The Government have today published a transition document for providers to support them with the transition arrangements to the new qualifications system.
The Government have also today launched a consultation on new 16 to 19 level 1 English and maths qualifications for students with prior GCSE attainment of a grade 2 or below. We know that good English and maths skills are hugely important for further study, work and life. The new qualifications will enable these students to secure the key knowledge and skills needed to achieve a grade 4-C or higher at GCSE to help ensure that students only retake exams when they are ready to make progress.
Next steps
By June 2026, the Government will publish an implementation plan. This will set out the subject lists for the phased roll-out, the updated approach to T-level development and delivery, assessment and grading arrangements, non-qualification activities, and further details on transition.
The Government response to the post-16 level 3 and below pathways consultation and a supporting document to support providers to transition to the new landscape will be available on gov.uk. Copies of the Government response will also be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
[HCWS1390]
Oral Answers to Questions
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
We will consider ways to make the student loan system fairer, as the Prime Minister said last week. This Government have already reintroduced maintenance grants and raised the repayment threshold to above average graduate salaries, and we are acting across the board on the cost of living by bringing down inflation and tackling transport, energy and rental costs.
David Chadwick
Many graduates feel as if they are drowning in debt and that they were sold a promise—that a university education would help them to pay off their debts quickly—which has not come true. Their debts continue to mount. Will the Government consider scrapping the planned freeze of the repayment threshold?
Josh MacAlister
We had a Westminster Hall debate about this last week, and it is good to see that the debate continues. We will consider ways to make the system fairer; there are a range of options. The threshold freeze raises £5.9 billion next year, and it is incumbent on any party that is serious about fiscal prudence to set out how it would pay for changes.
Mohammad Yasin
Student loan problems long predate plan 2 loans. I welcome the Government’s commitment to making the system fairer after previous Governments ruined the university funding model. It is wrong that generational inequality is baked into the system, which leaves young people with debts for which they can service only the interest. Does the Minister agree that tinkering is not enough, and that fundamental reform is now urgent?
Josh MacAlister
I recognise my hon. Friend’s description of recent history and how we have ended up where we are today. We will consider ways to make the system fairer. As I say, there are a range of options, and we need to do it carefully.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
Sammi from Keyingham in my constituency, who was one of the first in her family to go to university, graduated in 2016 after borrowing £40,000. She has now been working in the medical field for over four years, but that £40,000 has grown to £46,000. I was glad to hear the Minister’s previous answer, but Sammi and others want to hear that there will be concrete action to stop the outrageous interest, which is higher than one would expect for a personal loan or a mortgage. Will the Minister do something about it?
Josh MacAlister
I hope the right hon. Member started by apologising to Sammi in his correspondence, because the last Government froze the threshold on 10 separate occasions. I could list them all. They started in the year that the policy was designed and introduced—the same year in which the commitment was made to increase the threshold in line with inflation, which the Conservatives did not do.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Concerns raised in recent weeks about plan 2 student loans, including unilateral and unexpected change in the repayment terms and repayments based on the consumer prices index, are about the promise of higher education: whether working hard for an undergraduate degree really does result in a good quality of life when graduates face 30 years of student loan repayments on these terms. In the light of these escalating concerns, can the Minister tell the House what discussions he has had with the Treasury on this issue, and when we can expect to see the work that he promises to make plan 2 loans fairer for students?
Josh MacAlister
I know the Chair of the Education Committee is looking at these issues and the Government will be very interested in that work. We will set out the details of our work soon. My hon. Friend is right to highlight how transformational higher education can be. I would not want any young person outside this place who is listening to this debate to take away from it that they should not make every step forward to follow their talents. The Brit awards were just a few days ago and including some brilliant British talent, many of whom were on creative arts courses at university.
Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)
On “Newsnight” on 23 February, the Minister for School Standards acknowledged that the student loan system is not perfect, but justified no change by saying the Government face huge pressure and must make tough choices. Given spending choices made since this Government came to power, is not the truth that the political choices that the Minister’s colleagues are talking about include balancing their “Benefits Street” Budget on the back of aspirational graduates?
Josh MacAlister
I would like to think there is cross-party agreement that tackling educational inequality is one of the most important things that we can do. It is a shame on our country that we are one of the most unequal when it comes to the relationship between how well a child can do at school and how much money is in their parents’ pockets. The Labour party is all about addressing such inequalities, and that is what this Government are doing. That is in no way at odds with finding ways to make our student loan system fairer and fixing it after the 10 years of freezes on thresholds by the Conservatives that hit working graduates.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy for a technical excellence college in his constituency. We have launched the applications for 19 of those. They get to the core of what this Labour Government are about, which is creating opportunities in every corner of this country.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
Scottish colleges are struggling to cope with huge cuts to staff and funding, including West College Scotland in my constituency. The Scottish National party has cut funding by 20% in five years. What can the Minister do, working with other Departments such as Defence, to ensure that Scottish colleges become engines of growth and opportunity again, particularly for the young people of West Dunbartonshire?
Josh MacAlister
The SNP’s track record on education is so poor they needed to pull out of the programme for international student assessment—or PISA—league tables because Scotland was plummeting so low. There is a chance to fix that in the elections later on this year. Skills policy is devolved, but as part of our defence boost we are seeing fantastic opportunities to bring colleges in Scotland along on that journey.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
Does the Secretary of State agree that we should prioritise the promotion of British heritage in schools? If so, will she bring in a policy to ensure that every school flies the Union Jack outside its premises, and that a different pupil gets the chance to raise the national flag every morning?
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
Given that this is Colleges Week, may I take the opportunity to mention Stafford college, which is widely accepted to be the best college in the country? It already has 1,150 students on manufacturing courses, and works with 250 local employers in the sector. Does the Minister agree that if Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group were made an advanced manufacturing technical excellence college, it could build on its excellent relationship with manufacturers locally?
Josh MacAlister
I gladly congratulate Newcastle and Stafford Colleges Group on its recent Ofsted rating, which is fantastic, and I note my hon. Friend’s support for its application to become a wave 2 technical excellence college. The applications closed on 16 February, and we expect to make and announce a decision next month.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Alderley Edge school for girls, in my constituency, has just announced its closure, blaming increased costs, such as national insurance costs, and, most significantly, VAT on school fees. Given that the Secretary of State is responsible for its closure, what will she do to help minimise the disruption to pupils who are now being forced to change school against their wishes, and to look for places in schools in the Cheshire East area that either no longer exist or are full?
Kinship Zones
Josh MacAlister Excerpts(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
Kinship care ensures that children who cannot live with their birth parents are able to grow up in homes filled with love, stability, and a sense of belonging, often at times of crisis and without preparation. The Government recognise the vital role that kinship carers play in keeping children safe within their families and communities and are committed to improving the support available to them.
Today I am announcing the launch of new kinship zones, designed to test how co-ordinated, locally led support can improve outcomes for kinship families and the children in their care.
Kinship zones will bring together local authorities, the national kinship care ambassador and central Government to provide joined-up support to kinship families. The ambassador will be working with the participating local authorities to develop their delivery plans for the pilot, including how they could repurpose any existing expenditure on allowances towards support for family networks and to develop their kinship local offer.
The kinship zones pilot will operate in seven local areas across England from 1 April 2026 for three and a half years, the final two years subject to approval at the next spending review, with an investment of over £126 million of Government funding. In addition to providing a financial allowance to kinship carers, each kinship zone will respond to local need, while contributing to a shared evidence base on what works best for kinship families. Eligible financial allowances made under the pilot scheme will be income tax free, ensuring kinship carers get the full financial benefit of the support offered.
This pilot builds on the Government’s response to the independent review of children’s social care, which highlighted the importance of family-based care and the need to better recognise and support kinship carers. It also aligns with the ambitions set out in “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive”, which reinforced the importance of strengthening family networks and providing early, joined-up support. Alongside other reforms, including the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the kinship zones programme will help test approaches that could inform future national policy.
An independent evaluation will assess the impact of the pilot on outcomes for children and families, including placement stability and carer wellbeing. Findings will be used to inform further decisions on the future of kinship support.
[HCWS1374]