Neil O'Brien

IN THEIR OWN WORDS

The complete record

3,280 lines on record for Neil O'Brien, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, without an account. Most recent 500 lines shown. Search to find more. Page 10 of 10.

This is not an official version of UK Parliament proceedings. It reproduces the published record and links to it; the official version is the one UK Parliament publishes.

1. “I will now turn to clause 8, which was the subject of great confusion and endless inquiry in the other place, with lots of very knowledgeable and learned peers trying to understand what the Government’s intent was, what would be going on, and what the point of it was. I have read it all several times and I am not sure we really ever got to the bottom of it. Perhaps the Minister will help us to get the bottom of some questions about it today. Clause 8 amends the 2009 Act to specify that, when the Secretary of State deems it appropriate, Ofqual would have the discretion to exercise its accreditation power for technical education qualifications.”

   House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

2. “The policy document explains that the clause would mean that the position on third-party examinations would change from being obligatory to being optional, so clause 7 would make it possible for no third-party examination of a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan to be undertaken at all. Once again, it is DFE maximalism and a move away from a super-rigorous, employer-led system. We want the technical education system to be like the Deutschmark rather than the Weimar currency, right? We want it to be like the gold coin that can be bitten down on. We want everyone to know that it is really good. All those things that might seem inconsequential or annoying to DFE officials are there for a reason. That is why there is independent assessment, and once again, it is being got rid of.”

   House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

3. “It would be a problem for that hypothetical future Government to have those independent examinations that clause 7 is getting rid of, because independent third parties would object to the debasement of standards. I will not labour the point. Clause 7 would amend the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to remove the requirement for independent third parties to examine occupational standards or apprenticeship assessment plans before approval. Once again, the Secretary of State—there she goes again—would have the power to make such an arrangement.”

   House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

4. “I want hon. Members to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which there is a future Government unrelated to this one. Let us say that that hypothetical future Government have passed a Budget that is a bit of a turkey, and it has not done good things to the economy. That hypothetical Government are taking a bit of money out of apprenticeships to spend it on other things, which is giving that Government a bit of a problem. That hypothetical future Government might—because unlike the current one, they do not have good intentions—be tempted to try to prop up apprenticeship numbers, and numbers relating to other technical qualifications, by debasing standards.”

   House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

5. “If the Minister has any examples of the requirement causing big delays and being so awful that she has to be nimble, swashbuckling and able to bang all these things through, I would love to hear them. So far, we have heard no such examples, either in the other place or here. For that reason, I am keen to vote against clause 7 stand part.”

   House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

6. “So far in the debate on clause 7, we have not heard any examples of the requirement for an independent assessment causing a long delay. I thought the Minister would give us an example of the introduction of such and such a qualification being delayed for a year because of the requirement to get an independent view on it, or qualification x being introduced 18 months later than it should have been because of the requirement for an independent examination of whether it was legit. If she has examples of any such problems, I am happy to take an intervention from her. The requirement for independent bodies is quite a big safeguard to remove. We have the same safeguard with double belt and braces on the academic side, but for some reason it is not needed on the technical side. I do not know why, but as ever, it is not going to go to the ball.”

   House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

7. “Communist China would set a target to produce more nails, and billions of tiny, useless nails would be produced. Then a target would be set to produce a greater weight of nails, and people would produce a few massive nails, which would also be useless. Targetology is always dangerous; if we do not have the right institutions and the right independence, the short-termism of politicians can become a dangerous thing.”

   House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

8. “That is exactly the same point as was made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants: if we do not invest in people here, the work leaves, or we have to bring people in from elsewhere. We think it is a big mistake to cull level 7 apprenticeships to fill a gap that the Government are creating through their own policies. Not only are those apprenticeships vital across the public sector, but they are a vital way into the professions for people who will otherwise struggle to enter. They are the capstone of the drive to make apprenticeships truly prestigious and to make them ladders that people can use to get all the way to the top. To be self-critical for a moment, for some time we had a target of 300,000 apprenticeships, and I could see in Government how that created pressure to debase standards to hit a number. That happens all the time.”

   House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

9. “Similarly, Attwells Solicitors says: “Reducing funding to level 7 apprentices runs the risk of removing opportunities into professions where a qualification equivalent to a master’s is mandatory”. The firm adds: “Reducing funding for level 7 apprentices will likely impact diversity and social mobility in professional careers such as Law…Apprenticeships help break down barriers into not only Law but all career paths which could be inaccessible to young people without them”. Indeed, many of the areas where we currently have level 7 apprentices are things we are short of nationally. That is why the Campaign for Learning has called for a skills immigration worker test before defunding level 7 apprenticeships, so that we do not simply go from investing in British workers to importing workers from other countries to fill the hole.”

   House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

   Check this claim →

10. “One firm that is really worried about this—Bolt Burdon Kemp—told me: “This will really impact social mobility into sectors like law, accountancy, and consulting. The traditional route into law is expensive and therefore without the apprenticeship scheme many would not be able to afford to do so. We also believe it will have a wider detrimental impact on the reputation of apprenticeships.” That is right: by putting what might seem like the top of the pyramid on the system, we add to the prestige of the whole system. British Airways used to talk about the halo effect of Concorde: it changed the airline’s whole brand and the way it was seen more generally. Level 7 apprenticeships, as well as being useful and remunerative in their own right, also change the way apprenticeships are seen, in a way that all politicians have wanted for decades.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

11. “It says that “removing Level 7 apprenticeship funding will mean that fewer UK training roles are created. Instead, organisations are likely to turn to offshoring to replace UK training roles”. The Chartered Management Institute states, of its profession, that “cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships would risk creating gaps in leadership and technical expertise at a time when business and the public sector need them most.” I have been contacted directly by firms that are worried about the abolition of the solicitor apprenticeship, which is a great way into the law, particularly for people from less privileged backgrounds, but more generally for people who do not want to run up a large amount of debt at university and instead want to earn and learn.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

12. “Like the NHS, local government makes substantial use of level 7 apprentices, including for the extra town planners that the Government say are needed to deliver on their housing targets. Deborah Johnston, the deputy vice chancellor of London South Bank University, says: “Over half of the employers we work with…on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of increased demand and reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful.” Outside the public sector, the professions are also worried. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that axing level 7 apprenticeships will lead to work leaving the UK altogether.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

13. “Again, the NHS workforce plan proposes to increase the total number of nurses by 170,000, so that the number reaches 550,000 by 2036. The plan set the ambition that 28% of nurses would come through the apprenticeship route—so about 50,000 of that 170,000. Of those, around a quarter—23%—of NHS nursing roles are at “Agenda for Change” band 7 or higher, which typically requires a master’s degree or equivalent. We would therefore expect around 11,000 of those extra nurses to be coming via level 7 apprenticeships. Getting rid of them would create a big hole in the NHS’s workforce plans. These are all specialist nursing qualifications that we need, such as school nursing, health visiting, advanced clinical practice and community nursing.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

14. “Aside from the fact that we have taken out a route to the top professions for a group of people who might otherwise not be able to access them, it means that there will be a shortfall of around 2,000 medical places a year by 2031. The long-term workforce plan set out the need for 15,000 medical school places by 2031, of which 13% were going to be through apprenticeships. But the students who have already started on the medical doctor apprenticeship have been left in limbo. That is the Government’s statement of intent: they have already done in the level 7 doctor apprenticeship, and I am concerned that as part of the review, which is about to be published any day now, they will do something similar to nurses.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

15. “Restricting level 7 apprenticeships will disproportionately impact on public services. For example, nearly half of chartered management apprentices, who are nearly all at level 7, work in the public sector. Dan Lally, the head of skills and employability at Sheffield Hallam University, said level 7 restrictions will “disproportionately impact on public services…We are meeting vital skill gaps in disciplines such as Advanced Clinical Practitioner...these are NHS workers, civil servants and local authority employees. A high number of our L7 apprentices...come from the areas of highest deprivation”. To give a specific example within public services, level 7 apprentices are absolutely central to the NHS’s own long-term workforce plan. Last year, we saw the Government’s very disappointing decision to cancel the level 7 doctor apprenticeships.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

16. “Of those who answered the Department for Education’s own apprenticeship evaluation in 2023, 48% of level 7 apprentices were first-generation students; their parents had not been to university. They were the first generation in their family to get university-level postgraduate qualifications, in their case not by going to university but via the apprenticeship route. We finally made it a highly prestigious route; we really did treat level 7 apprenticeships the same as university degrees. Somone could go all the way to the top of the ladder using apprenticeships rather than going to university, and yet the Government were initially talking about axing pretty much all of them. The rhetoric seems to have been slightly tempered, and I hope we can temper it further. But they are still looking at axing some prestigious things, hence amendment 7.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

17. “They are also trying to redistribute money from level 7 apprenticeships into other things, and they have repeatedly refused to rule out doing the same thing to level 6 apprenticeships. The level 7 apprenticeships that the Government are planning to axe account for about 9% of apprenticeship spending, and about 7% of all starts. They are not a huge part of the system, but they are a big part, and a lot of good things will potentially be lost by abolishing them. Over the last seven years, almost 123,000 people have started a level 7 apprenticeship—that is a postgraduate level apprenticeship—with 24,000 people starting one in the last full year of the Conservative Government. It was ramping up quickly.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

18. “We have already mentioned the things this Government are doing that are not good for apprenticeship numbers: the £25 billion increase in national insurance at the Budget and the potential move of 50%—or some other number—of apprenticeship levy funds into other things. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that that is desirable, but it will not be good for apprenticeship numbers—once we find out what that number is. To address the gap that Ministers are creating with the Budget and their decisions on moving money out of the apprenticeship levy to other things, the Government are doing two things. They are doing shorter apprenticeships; as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out, that is an echo of the old traineeships that did not work out so well.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

19. “For decades and decades, politicians have stood up and said that they wanted to make apprenticeships, and technical education generally, more prestigious. Parity of esteem—we have heard that speech a million times. The last Government did things to push in that direction. We have already talked about the move from frameworks to much more rigorous standards, with independent examinations at the end. That was part of it, and the other part was the growth in the number of higher apprenticeships. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went up from just over 3,000 in 2010 to 273,000 last year. That is a huge increase.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

20. “I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 9, page 4, line 13, at end insert— “(c) the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions on the provision of level 7 apprenticeships in England”. The Government are completely reversing the direction of apprenticeships policy. Where we lengthened apprenticeships, they have cut the length of an apprenticeship to eight months. By abolishing IfATE and bringing it in house at the Department for Education, they are eroding independence and employer ownership. Where we grew higher apprenticeships, they are planning to abolish many or maybe even most level 7 apprenticeships, which have been carefully built up over recent years. Amendment 7 would require a report on those level 7 apprenticeships.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

21. “If the Government actually want to prop up the system and offset some of the other things that they are doing, they probably will go after level 6 apprenticeships. But whenever we ask this in the Chamber or elsewhere, and say, “Will Ministers rule out kiboshing level 6 apprenticeships in the way that they are with level 7?”, we never get an answer. I invite the Minister again today to rule out axing level 6 apprenticeships in the way that they are doing with level 7. I am very keen that we put this amendment to a vote. It is not good enough to say, “We are so evidence-led”, but then do something that is hasty, secret and is being advised against by many experts in the sector.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

22. “I think Ministers hope that it will move the resource to level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, and there is a perfectly good argument for trying to do more at those levels. That is why we brought in the 100% funding for small and medium-sized enterprises, for example, and we could go much further on that. However, as numerous organisations and academics have pointed out, if we kibosh level 7, the first place that the money will probably go to is level 6. That is why we keep asking Ministers, without ever getting an answer, to rule out doing what they are planning to do to level 7 to level 6 as well. That is where the real money is; I think it is about 36% of all the funding, compared with 9%. I might be wrong about the exact numbers, but it is roughly that.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

23. “It seems like a strange argument, in response to a clause that requires the production of more evidence, to say, “It is all fine because Skills England will be so evidence-led.” That is the entire point of our amendment. I do not think the Government want to talk about what they are planning to do on level 7 apprenticeships, nor did we hear any attempt to describe what will, or will not, be done as part of the review from the Minister. Sometimes the silences in these discussions are as telling as everything else. Quite a few of the organisations that are warning about the axing of level 7 apprenticeships also make the point, which I think is true, that this proposal will not do what Ministers hope.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

24. “I would be delighted to. I hope that we will get an answer on that point about level 6: is the Minister going to rule out kiboshing level 6 in the way that she is doing with level 7?”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

25. “I thank the Minister; I think that very clearly did not rule out the Government doing exactly what are doing to level 7 apprenticeships to level 6. It was not quite phrased in that way, but clearly Ministers are keeping their options open. Given that Ministers are clearly looking to keep their options open, not just on level 7 but on level 6—which is very concerning, a backward step, and a real wrecking ball to a lot of the cross-party progress that has been made on apprenticeships over the past decade or more—I am even more keen that we have at least the report on the impact of what they are doing to level 7, so I am keen to put this amendment to a vote. Question put, That the amendment be made.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

26. “He thought that we would have what was promised in the King’s Speech—a Skills England Bill to set up the new, independent Skills England as a proper arm’s length body. I will not rehash all those things here, but I encourage the Minister to give us a sense of what she thinks the big opportunity is going to be, and what she will do as a result of the creation of Skills England.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

27. “Other than saying, “It will be more joined up and we will look at everything together at a high level,” is there a specific thing that Ministers are hoping to do off the back of that machinery of government? This is a big thing; the Government’s impact assessment says that it will lead to delays and a fall in starts. Ministers could say that that is acceptable because there is some big prize at the end of the road, but what is the big prize? I will not repeat all the quotes I have read out from former Labour Ministers and Labour peers in the other place worrying about what one of them called the lack of the second half of this Bill—the lack of the bit where we get to the setting up of Skills England. In particular, Lord Blunkett said that this was not quite what he expected.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

28. “It is very easy for Ministers to say, “We are going to bring everything together, it will all be in one place and we will have a great, coherent view over the whole system.” That is hard to object to in principle, but what are they minded to do as a result? Is there a big opportunity? Is it some new category of qualification, or some overlapping of qualification? They say they are going to look at everything together, which the DFE already does. There is a Department that can give an overarching view, and there is the centre of Government that can bring together the views of all the different Departments, so what is it that Ministers really hope Skills England can offer? The Secretary of State will provide this report six months after Royal Assent, but I am interested in hearing from the Minister what she sees as the big opportunity.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

29. “To be honest, it is less me who should worry about that and more Ministers, because I do not get from the proposals any great clarity on what they hope Skills England will do or how it will operate. Some degree of protection could be offered not just for employers, but for Ministers. This could offer some degree of insulation from these choices, so that the process does not become entirely politicised, but we have not yet got that. I hope that this report will be positive and the making of it will encourage the Government to clarify their thinking on what they are trying to achieve and how these new institutions in the DFE will work. We will return to this issue on new clauses 1 to 3, so I will rest my remarks there, other than to ask the Minister for a sense of what she really sees as the big opportunity.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

30. “Clause 9 has been included because of the level of disquiet about the Bill in the House of Lords. There was literally not even a mention of Skills England in the Bill when it was introduced. We will return to this issue when we debate new clause 1 from the Liberal Democrats, and our new clauses 2 and 3, in which I seek to put Skills England on to a statutory footing, or at least to put more of a clear legislative framework around it than we have currently. All we have at the moment is this report, which is pretty thin—I will not vote against clause 9 standing part, because it is better than absolutely nothing—and the framework, which, again, is very thin.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

31. “This is an extremely sensible amendment, which we welcome. Although I am not a liberal, one of the great strengths of the liberal tradition is its knee-jerk suspicion of centralisation. The Bill represents centralisation in many different ways. It takes lots of brakes off, and we keep hearing in our sittings that, “We must get rid of this or that form of scrutiny because we must move quickly.” The hon. Gentleman is right to be nervous about that and about the lack of limits to the consequentials off the back of the Bill. I support the amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

32. “There is nothing to stop such large changes being made off the back of clause 10. That is one reason why we are keen on the amendment. One sees Henry VIII clauses and one cannot quite imagine how they would be used, but that is a problem because we never know what will be done under them. Will the Minister check whether my understanding is correct that the Government could do such big things off the back of clause 10? If that is not the case, I would be delighted to hear it.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

33. “I have a specific question. Skills England does not bring the whole skills sector together. There are other excellent bodies, for example, the Migration Advisory Committee, which has a skills component. Other bodies, such as the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Industry Training Board, impose levies and have not been merged into Skills England or abolished. The Government have rejected the Farmer review’s recommendation to merge the CITB and EITB. I therefore wanted to check something with the Minister. My understanding is that the Government could use clause 10 to abolish the CITB and the EITB. I do not see any reason why they could not do that. The Minister may want to get advice about that—I appreciate that I am putting her on the spot.”

    House of Commons13 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

34. “Will the Minister heed those warnings from a sector that is very worried about the Government’s plans by protecting level 7 construction apprenticeships from the planned cull so that less well-off people can get top-level jobs in these very important professions? I hope the Minister can answer some of these questions today, but if not, I hope she will write to us.”

    House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

35. “Fourthly, what assessment has the Minister made of the extraordinary joint appeal by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institute of Building and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for level 7 apprenticeships in the built environment to be exempt from the Government’s plans to cut level 7 apprenticeships? Those organisations say that they are “deeply concerned” by the Government’s plans and that cutting level 7 apprenticeships in this sector will be bad for upskilling existing workers and will be particularly bad for access to the profession for less well-off people.”

    House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

36. “The Secretary of State for Education has recently talked about allowing 50% of funds to be spent in that way. Other things equal, of course, we will end up with fewer apprenticeships if we take a lot of money out of apprenticeships. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact of allowing employers to take 50% out of their levy funds to spend on non-apprenticeships in, for example, construction? What will that do to the number of apprenticeship starts and participation? There is an overlap between the apprenticeship levy and the CITB levy for firms in this industry. If, for example, it turns out that employers are allowed to take out 50%, what would that do to the number of apprenticeships in construction? I ask not least because the CITB has identified apprenticeships as a key route into the sector.”

    House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

37. “The Farmer review noted that the CITB had delivered useful training, but “it is not delivering the level of strategic forward thinking, scale and pace of influence or tangible bottom line impact that the industry now requires”. Specifically, the review said that the CITB had too little focus on upskilling the existing workforce, did not police well enough how levy funds were used, and needed a clear, modular, unitised system of qualifications. Can the Minister say anything about her emerging thinking on the future of the CITB? A third question is about the growth and skills levy. The Government have said that they will allow employers to take funds out of the current apprenticeship levy to spend on things that are not apprenticeships.”

    House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

38. “I have some questions I would like answered today. I appreciate that it can be difficult for Ministers to answer everything in these short debates, but I would be very grateful if the Minister undertook to write on some of these issues if there is no time to answer today. In its briefing for this debate, the CITB explained that £143 million, or more than 12% of all the funds raised from the levy over the lifetime of this Parliament, will be spent on “running the business, including grant and levy administration”. That equates to about £28 million a year. Does the Minister think that kind of share—£1 in every £8—is appropriate? If not, what share would be appropriate? My second question is about the Government’s emerging thinking on the CITB.”

    House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

39. “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. This statutory instrument effectively kicks the can down the road for a year while the Government come to a decision on the CITB’s future. That is obviously not ideal from the sector’s point of view, but I can see that it gives the Government time to think. The Opposition thank Mark Farmer for his thorough and very frank review, and for his analysis of the big challenges facing the sector in building a proper skills pipeline. His recommendations for a “fundamental reset” were very clear, including merging the two remaining ITBs into a single workforce planning and development body for both construction and engineering, supported by a statutory levy. The Department for Education has already said in response that it will not merge the two ITBs.”

    House of Commons11 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

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

    House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

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

    House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

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

    House of Commons10 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

43. “This is part of our culture”—but education is good for our culture as well. I will come to an end. There is uncertainty about the fiscal impact of this measure, but there is no uncertainty about it causing a lot of misery for parents with special needs kids and for parents who do not want to have their kids’ education disrupted. The Government are doing this for political reasons. There is no doubt that this is not the best way to raise revenue; this is a purely political decision and it is having significant, real-world, bad effects on our constituents right across this country.”

    House of Commons3 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

44. “In at least 27 authorities, schools are full in certain age cohorts and, since Labour announced this policy, pupil number projections in the state sector have been revised up nationally—significantly so in many local authorities. That means fewer people in the state system will get their first choice of school. Although there is uncertainty about the fiscal impact of this policy, there is no uncertainty about it not being the best way to raise revenue. The other day, the Chancellor announced the introduction of a special new business rates relief for the film industry, even as the Government take away business rates relief for schools. The argument is, “The film industry is good. This is an investment in our future”—but schools are an investment in our future. The argument is, “This is good culturally.”

    House of Commons3 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

45. “The Government have often countered that not many pupils will be affected. We hear about the small percentage of pupils who will move, and how easy it will be for the state sector to accommodate them. We hear much less about how much extra that will cost, and we have heard nothing from the Government about the 10,000 fewer children in independent schools I already mentioned. The official impact predictions for VAT estimated that 3,000 pupils would leave this academic year; now we have seen 10,000 in the first term. There are still five months until August, so it may get worse before the year is out. If the number of pupils leaving the sector continues to run at three times the predicted levels, we would face not just—“just”—35,000 pupils displaced, but more than 100,000. In many cases, they will struggle to get a state school place.”

    House of Commons3 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

46. “Schools that have merged and reduced in numbers include Headington and Rye St Antony; Orchard House and Chiswick and Bedford Park; and Westbury House and the Study schools. I read those out because, as well as the number of children who will move into the state sector and have their education disrupted in that way—which seems to be much higher than the Government predicted—a huge number will have their education disrupted even if they end up in another independent school. That is precisely what is happening to a lot of parents in my constituency because of local closures. The Government will say that those children are privileged; I say they are children. Being forced to change schools and perhaps being separated from friends is disruptive and bad, whoever they are.”

    House of Commons3 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

47. “Schools that have closed include Hemdean House school, Abercorn school, Portland Place school, River House Montessori school, Alton school, Conifers school, Kilgraston school, the Study school, Ursuline preparatory school, the Hampshire school, St Joseph’s preparatory school in Stoke-on-Trent, Wings school, Argyll House, Chartfield school, Gracefield preparatory school, Lawrence House, North London Rudolf Steiner school, Redbourn Park secondary school, Sheiling school, the Copper academy, the GFC school, the Prepatoria school, Ashcroft school, Downham preparatory school, LIFE Wirral Sports school, Iona school, Brighton Waldorf school, Progress Schools, Summit school, Advance Education, Tashbar boys nursery, Maidwell Hall school near me in Northamptonshire, Loughborough Amherst school, Godolphin prep in Salisbury, the Village school for girls in Camden, Highfield prep in Maidenhead, Oxford House school in Colchester, Carrdus school in Oxfordshire, Bedstone college in Bucknell and Fairfield PNEU school in Backwell.”

    House of Commons3 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

48. “It is therefore not the case that the education tax is unlocking some great funding bonanza for those of us who have got our kids in state schools. In fact, I see that the National Education Union has recently relaunched its “Stop School Cuts” campaign. There are 43 schools that have closed or announced closure since Labour came to power, and many of them have explicitly pointed to the education tax as the thing that tipped them over the edge.”

    House of Commons3 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

49. “On the other side of the ledger, what do we have to show for it? The Government occasionally try to claim that the money is ringfenced for some purpose or other, but of course the truth is, as the Minister knows, that there are no ringfences at the Treasury. In the troubled schools Bill, we see measures that will unwind the educational reforms to state schools that propelled England up the international league tables. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that, over the last Parliament, per pupil spending in mainstream schools rose by about 11% between 2019 and 2024 when adjusted for inflation. That is an 11% per pupil real-terms increase, but for this coming year, the IFS has pointed out that state schools’ costs are going up faster than their income, with costs up 3.6% and funding up only 2.8%.”

    House of Commons3 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →

50. “That is worth about £5 million for Eton, but nothing at all for lots of smaller schools that are less well resourced—and some of them are not well resourced. I think of a small Christian school in Leicester, which got in touch with me because it was so concerned about this. Its income per pupil is probably below those of the neighbouring state schools, its fees are low, the teachers could get paid a lot more elsewhere and the parents are definitely not rich. Why do those people do it? They do it because it is a labour of love, and it is a labour of love for others, too. There are all kinds of reasons that children end up in the independent sector. Maybe it is their special needs; maybe it is faith; maybe it is to do with language; or maybe it is a particular educational approach that works for their child. In a word, this is pluralism.”

    House of Commons3 March 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗

    Check this claim →