Ian Sollom
MP for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire · Liberal Democrat · United Kingdom
“The Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor is one of the Government’s flagship regional growth priorities, with a ministerial champion in Lord Vallance to ensure joined-up delivery, yet if reports that option D is being taken forward for Cambridgeshire are correct, the Government will be choosing a structure with no realistic path to viability,…”
“The functional economic geography of Cambridge extends well beyond Cambridge city and South Cambridgeshire district, as the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough independent economic review established back in 2018. The boundary drawn here does not follow the task; it follows two administrative areas.”
“I will be voting against the order today, not because I oppose growth in Cambridge or the principle of strategic intervention where it is justified—I hope the Minister appreciates that I try to engage constructively with him on growth and infrastructure in my constituency; there are lots of brilliant opportunities there and it is a great…”
“The powers and functions order, which will determine what it actually does, including any planning powers, comes later in the autumn. We are being asked to vote on an institution before we know what it will be for. That is not just a procedural quibble; it goes to the heart of whether development corporations actually work.”
“We are establishing what will be the largest urban development corporation of its type, covering an area almost double that of all 17 previous urban development corporations combined, and the specific infrastructure it will deliver has not yet even been outlined, never mind detailed.”
“The greater Cambridge area already has planning permission for 37,000 homes that have not yet been built. The evidence is clear that planning is not the barrier at that level. Water, sewerage and transport—those are the barriers, and none of them is fixed by changing who determines a 250-home planning application.”
The complete record
Every one of 453 lines we hold for Ian Sollom, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 7 of 10.
“Although we understand that regional variation has its place—indeed, we championed pupil premium funding to direct resources towards disadvantaged children—it should not have come at the expense of creating the current disparities. The problem is reaching breaking point. With schools expected to somehow fund teacher pay rises from existing budgets, those with lower DSG allocations face impossible choices: cutting staff, reducing subjects or eliminating those enrichment activities that are vital to a well-rounded education. The Liberal Democrat solution is clear. We would invest in education above the rate of inflation, ensuring that all schools can operate sustainably regardless of geography.”
“If the playing field were level with another neighbour, Peterborough, Cambridgeshire would see £33 million in additional funding. Meanwhile, the demand for EHCPs has grown fast: it has risen by 91% in Cambridgeshire since 2017, far outpacing the 72% increase in funding for the high needs block over the same period. The widening gulf means more children waiting longer for vital support, more pressure on already stretched staff and more families reaching breaking point. The Liberal Democrats believe that equal opportunity in education is not a luxury, but a fundamental right. Every child deserves access to the same resources and opportunities, regardless of their postcode.”
“Friends have mentioned and which represents the lowest-funded education authorities in England—it now counts 43 of them in its membership—that is not a small anomaly but a systemic failure that affects hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren, who are being denied the education that they deserve through absolutely no fault of their own. We feel that acutely in St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. Cambridgeshire ranks 133rd out of 151 local authorities in the funding allocation. Our schools receive £6,133 per pupil in the schools block element, compared with the national average of £6,467. If Cambridgeshire schools were funded at a level equivalent to those of our neighbours in Lincolnshire, a typical primary in my constituency would receive an additional £118,000 per year.”
“That affects a wide range of children, including those who live in pockets of deprivation in parts of the country that are generally wealthier and so tend to receive lower dedicated schools grant funding. Although we know that there are other mechanisms to mitigate that, it ultimately means that a child with specific needs in one area can receive significantly less support than a child from a similar background and with the same needs in another area. That is not just administratively untidy; it is fundamentally wrong. For the organisation f40, which several of my hon.”
“I would be surprised if any MP had not had headteachers in their constituency tell them, as they have told me in St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, of the impossible choices that they face. At the heart of this crisis lies a fundamental injustice: an outdated and deeply flawed mechanism for allocating the dedicated schools grant. The national funding formula, developed years ago and based mainly on the typical distribution of funding provided by local authorities at that time, and further ossified by funding protections, has created a postcode lottery that fails children and communities. Let us be clear what that means in practice: similar schools in different parts of the country can receive dramatically different levels of support.”
“It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Butler. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Cameron Thomas) for securing the debate and for his powerful speech. The individuals he mentioned, the school staff he represents, and the educators and local authorities across the country grappling with similar financial challenges will surely welcome his putting the spotlight on this pressing issue. My hon. Friend is quite right that the pressures on all schools and, in turn, on the staff working in them—both the pressures of educating pupils with different and sometimes complex needs and the financial pressure of operating on budgets that simply do not stretch far enough at a time of high and rising costs all over the country—have increased significantly in recent years.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford for securing the debate and raising this important issue—”
“If the Government are serious about their growth mission, they have to work with the higher education sector to stabilise funding, protect fair pay and jobs, and ensure long-term sustainability. We have been calling on them to implement a full-scale review of higher education finance. We believe there are many more things that could be done to support universities that do not involve raising tuition fees further, such as recognising the benefits that international students bring and giving universities policy stability in that respect, and reversing the decline in quality-related funding for research. Finally, the Government should work with the sector to put clear plans in place for any university that finds itself in financial distress. We really do not want to lose any university in the higher education sector.”
“HESA predicts that, with the right support, 27,000 new start-ups, with a predicted turnover of around £10.8 billion, could be established by students and staff at UK universities by 2028. Despite the positive contributions that universities make to social and economic life, in far too many cases their finances are simply unsustainable. In the past year, around three quarters of universities have implemented significant savings programmes, including, sadly, redundancies, course closures, reductions in module options, and the consolidation of professional services and student support. Thriving universities are essential to a thriving UK, delivering stronger growth, better public services and improved individual life chances.”
“I had a slightly more—dare I say it?—conservative figure, £10, but the order of magnitude is clear, and it is reassuring that different research reinforces similar numbers. On top of that, universities are vital in supporting start-up companies across the country. Universities UK recently launched its “Unis start up the UK” campaign. It says that partnering with start-ups boosts economic growth by creating jobs and attracting investment, and sees universities equipping entrepreneurs with the right skills through incubator hubs. Analysis by the Higher Education Statistics Agency shows that between 2014-15 and 2022-23, there was a 70% increase in the number of start-ups founded in UK universities, and that in 2022-23, around 64,000 people were employed by those start-ups—up 170% from 2014-15.”
“Universities play a crucial role in our country by providing a high-quality education to many, through research and development and, crucially, by boosting regional economies. Many universities are the largest employer in their area, and the knock-on economic benefits of students living in those areas cannot be over-emphasised. The bottom line is that higher education is an investment in our future on many levels. When it comes to research and development activities, our universities are world leading and at the forefront of discoveries and innovations that boost growth and improve everyday life. The hon. Members for Colchester (Pam Cox) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned that for every £1 invested in university research and innovation, the UK gets £14 back.”
“We are in a global competition in that regard, and it is unsurprising that our institutions have ended up in such a fragile financial position. Figures released in November by the Office for Students revealed that 40% of education providers were already forecasting deficits, but I believe that new data suggests that, without mitigating action from the Government, up to 72% of providers could be in deficit by the 2025-26 academic year. It is unsurprising that many institutions are being forced to make difficult decisions on staffing across the sector, in all jobs—support workers as well as academic staff. That is deeply worrying, and will negatively impact the sector and the country more widely.”
“I am not as young as I used to be, so I hope it is valid for me to say that I cannot remember a time when universities faced such financial pressures. We desperately need the situation to change. The income that English universities receive for teaching UK students has declined in real terms almost every year since 2015-16, and is now approaching the lowest level since 1997. There are major budget shortfalls due to rising energy costs and, more recently, the increase in national insurance contributions, as well as a lack of investment and support after years of neglect from the last Conservative Government. That is coupled with a decline in international student numbers because of visa restrictions, as point that many hon. Members made well.”
“I am sorry. I should know; I was just about to say that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) is a near neighbour of mine. Although I am here as the Lib Dem spokesperson for higher education, the proximity of St Neots to Bedford gives me a particular constituency interest in the concerns that the hon. Member raised about the challenges facing the University of Bedfordshire, which, as we have heard from hon. Members across the Chamber, are echoed around the country. It is clear that many universities are feeling huge financial pressure, and it is something we are all concerned about. Universities’ financial challenges are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they affect real people, their livelihoods and their communities, as well as the quality of education and research.”
“In its evidence, the University of Winchester warned: “The transfer of power from IfATE to the Secretary of State for Education raises questions about the independence of the proposed Skills England regulatory body.” It also observed that in IfATE, at present, “employers and academics come together to ensure that the standard is industry relevant, current, and academically rigorous.” The Skills Federation raised similar concerns: “The clauses in the bill which transfer powers from IFATE to the Secretary of State risk shifting the development of standards further away from employer demand.” It also said: “Too much centralisation leads to a lack of focus on sector needs”.”
“Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has reminded us several times that Skills England will be the 13th skills body to be established in 50 years. Given that history, employers, providers and learners desperately need stability and clarity.”
“It simply abolishes IfATE and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State, an approach that risks creating a governance vacuum in which there is no proper scrutiny or independent oversight. It is clear from the evidence received by the Bill Committee that I am not alone in having those concerns. The Association of Colleges, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the University of Winchester and the Institute of the Motor Industry all raised similar issues relating to governance and accountability in their written evidence submissions to the Committee. As was noted by many on Second Reading, skills policy in this country has suffered from constant reorganisation and restructuring. The right hon.”
“In considering the transfer of functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, we face fundamental questions about the Government’s accountability and the future structure of our skills system. While modest in size, the Bill has far-reaching implications for that system, and for millions of learners and apprentices. It represents a significant centralising of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without providing proper mechanisms for parliamentary oversight or accountability. I have sat through many hours of debate on the Bill, during which Labour Members have extolled the virtues of Skills England, but let me emphasise again that the Bill does not actually establish that body, as many assumed that it would.”
“Skills England needs to work with, among others, the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on future workforce needs, the Migration Advisory Committee on reducing reliance on overseas workers, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on green skills, the Department for Work and Pensions on employment programmes, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on priority sectors, the Department of Health and Social Care on workforce planning, and, following the Chancellor’s spring statement last week, the new defence growth board on critical skills for our defence industry.”
“I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said, and I certainly encourage those colleges on their path. As I will explain, my new clause will enable Skills England to support them more fully. Equally concerning is the need for effective cross-departmental co-ordination. Skills policy does not exist in isolation.”
“I would hope that better scrutiny and accountability in Parliament would help with delivering what is required, and holding the Government to account when it comes to keeping their promises. On the cross-departmental work that I mentioned, the lack of a published framework for Skills England as we consider the Bill is deeply concerning, and what we have seen so far suggests a structure that is heavily Department for Education-centric. Without statutory independence and appropriate seniority, Skills England will struggle to drive the cross-departmental co-ordination that Members on both sides of the House agree our skills system needs.”
“I will come to my preference for an executive agency that fits what the Government want to do. That is the reason for my new clause, and I do not think that it need delay efforts. Ultimately, a statutory, departmental body would have more clout. On the basis of what we understand, at least, I think that the remit for Skills England is very different from the remit for IfATE when it comes to that cross-departmental working.”
“If Skills England is to be the cornerstone of our skills system for years to come, even as an Executive agency with the Department for Education, we must ensure that it has the transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight to withstand changes in political priorities and economic circumstances. I urge Members across the House to support new clause 1, which would strengthen the Bill and help ensure that the transfer of functions leads to better outcomes for apprentices, students, employers and the economy as a whole.”
“New clause 1 offers a constructive path forward, building on the debates we have already had. Personally, I was disappointed that the Government opposed it in Committee, but I believe that the case for proper parliamentary scrutiny remains compelling. Although my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I ultimately believe that a fully independent statutory body would be the ideal model for Skills England, new clause 1 would work within the Government’s executive agency framework to add essential parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The Minister assured us in Committee that Skills England will have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability. If the Government truly believe in those principles, they should welcome rather than resist proper parliamentary oversight.”
“The Secretary of State indicated on Second Reading that the Government may review Skills England’s status in 18 to 24 months to consider whether it needs to be an independent statutory body, and the Minister confirmed that timetable in Committee. But why wait? Why create uncertainty about the future status of an organisation that needs to establish credibility with employers now? It is worth noting—as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), did in Committee—that the Government plan to put the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on a statutory footing “when parliamentary time allows”, according to their own documentation. This suggests that they recognise the value of key strategic bodies’ statutory independence, so why should Skills England be treated differently?”
“As the University of Winchester argued in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee, Skills England should be structured “to ensure and protect its regulatory independence from Government and other agencies.” The framework document and annual reports are important tools, but they are prepared by the Executive without any meaningful parliamentary input. Skills England’s current shadow operations are welcome preparation, but operating in shadow form, without parliamentary scrutiny or approval, only underscores the need for new clause 1. Important decisions about structure, governance and priorities are being made right now, without any oversight in this place.”
“Thirdly, she emphasised that Skills England is already operating in shadow form and is poised to take these functions when the Bill passes. Let me address those concerns. On the issue of delay, new clause 1 would require reporting and parliamentary approval within six months—a reasonable timeframe that would not significantly impede progress. As the Skills Federation noted, proper planning for the transfer of functions is essential for success, and parliamentary scrutiny would reinforce, rather than impede, the effective delivery of Skills England. The existing accountability mechanisms are indeed important, but they are surely insufficient for an organisation of Skills England’s significance.”
“Having a properly accountable Skills England, even as an executive agency, would ensure that employer voices remain central to standards development rather than being merely consultative; that technical expertise is maintained and developed across economic cycles; that Parliament maintains appropriate oversight for this critical area of policy; and, crucially, that political short-termism does not override long-term skills planning. In Committee, the Minister argued against new clause 1 on several grounds. First, she suggested that it would cause unnecessary delay in addressing urgent skills challenges. Secondly, she pointed to the existing accountability mechanisms for executive agencies, including framework documents and reporting requirements.”
“This approach strikes the right balance between allowing the Government to implement policy at their desired speed and ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny and meaningful stakeholder engagement. As I said, I tabled new clause 1 in Committee because I believe that parliamentary scrutiny is essential for an organisation with such far-reaching responsibilities. The Minister argued that the standard accountability mechanisms for executive agencies are sufficient. However, I contend that Skills England is not just another executive agency; it is central to the Government’s economic growth mission and to creating opportunities for millions of people. Standard executive agency protocols are built for “business as usual” functions, not for what should be transformative bodies at the heart of the Government’s economic strategy.”
“It provides a constructive solution to many of the issues that I have outlined, and proposes a clear pathway for establishing Skills England as a dedicated executive agency within the Department for Education. As I said, my party ultimately believes that a fully independent statutory body with cross-departmental authority is the optimal approach, but we recognise the Government’s preference for the executive agency model, so new clause 1 works within that structure but provides essential safeguards. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would produce draft proposals for establishing Skills England within six months, lay the proposals before both Houses, secure parliamentary approval before establishing the agency, provide annual statements on the agency’s work, and evaluate its effectiveness 12 months after establishment.”
“GC98.] The Government’s impact assessment also acknowledges risks, noting that the transfer of functions could “potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process”, which “may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners.” In Committee, the Minister emphasised the urgent need to address skills shortages and said that delay “is not an option.” Although we share the Government’s commitment to addressing skills shortages urgently, I respectfully suggest that there is wisdom in heeding the warning that the University of Warwick gave in its evidence. Getting the foundations right is more important than hasty construction. In light of those concerns, I tabled new clause 1, which I proposed in Committee.”
“The Skills Federation warned in its evidence that “there is a key risk that transfer of functions from IfATE will become the key focus for the set-up of Skills England and less attention (and potentially resources) placed on achieving the overarching aims.” There is significant concern that the broader strategic purpose of Skills England could be lost in the rush to transfer operational functions. That concern was echoed by Lord Blunkett, who suggested that “there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c.”
“There are different options, and I will come to this issue later. Given the scale of cross-departmental working required, having Skills England sit outside a single Government Department is probably more effective. Moreover, such bodies can be held accountable effectively by Parliament, as we have seen with some other quangos. Indeed, I believe the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council will be set up as a statutory independent body when time allows, and I suggest that Skills England is of the same order of magnitude. Beyond the concerns about accountability and cross-Government authority, there are practical, operational risks to the approach laid out in the Bill.”
“T7. In the light of the recently announced 50% staffing reductions across integrated care boards, has the Secretary of State made any assessment of how those cuts to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB will delay the delivery of essential new primary care services for my rapidly growing constituency, particularly in Northstowe, Cambourne and St Neots, where thousands of constituents are already facing unacceptable difficulties in accessing care?”
“I want to stress that the new clause is not about preventing the creation of Skills England; it is about ensuring it is established with the proper scrutiny and accountability that an organisation of such importance deserves. If the Government truly believe in Skills England as the vehicle to address our skills challenges, they should welcome the provisions for proper accountability in new clause 1.”
“But the governance framework described in that letter is largely discretionary. The framework document that the Minister references in that letter, which has still not formally been published, will be finalised by agreement between the Department and Skills England, with no formal parliamentary input at all. We are being asked to approve a fundamental restructuring of the skills system without proper guarantees about how the body will operate or be held accountable. The skills system is simply too critical to proceed just on faith. I think Members on the Government Benches would be making the same arguments if they were in our position.”
“The most recent evidence provided to the Committee reinforces those concerns, particularly the evidence from the Skills Federation, as was highlighted by the shadow Minister. New clause 1 remedies that by requiring comprehensive proposals for Skills England to be laid before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval. It would ensure that both Houses have a meaningful say in how the organisation is structured and operates. It would establish ongoing accountability through annual statements to Parliament and formal evaluation of its governance structure within the first year. The Government have positioned Skills England as transformative, and the Minister’s letter to peers, which was also shared with the Committee early this week, outlines hugely impressive ambitions for Skills England. I welcome those, as I think we all do.”
“I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I rise to move new clause 1, which addresses fundamental concerns about the governance and accountability of Skills England. While the Bill as amended in the Lords does now make reference to Skills England, which the original Bill presented to the Lords did not, it still does not establish it properly as an organisation, define its powers, or provide robust mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny of its work. The Bill, as we know, simply abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers its functions directly to the Secretary of State, with only limited reporting requirements.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. In the interests of time—and lunch—I will not go into detail. I wish to press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.”
“Without those safeguards, there is a risk that over time the standards and assessment plans could become disconnected from workplace realities, and that would undermine the value of apprenticeships and technical qualifications for both employers and learners. There really should not be a problem with maintaining that link, and that is why we support the amendments.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I would like to express Liberal Democrat support for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. They address a critical weakness of the Bill, namely the lack of any concrete requirement for the Secretary of State to engage meaningfully with employers or industry bodies when preparing standards or apprenticeship assessment plans. Although the current system is far from perfect, one strength of that system lies in its connection to industry needs. Employers understand better than anyone else the skills required for their sectors, and their involvement is essential to maintain the credibility and relevance of standards and assessment plans.”
“Given that uncertainty, ensuring robust parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations that will shape its operation is not unreasonable. The six-month period suggested in the amendment strikes a sensible balance and does not permanently encumber the regulatory process. However, it ensures that those critical early decisions about how the functions will operate receive proper scrutiny from both Houses. The amendments are about good governance. If the Government are confident of their approach to Skills England, they should welcome and not resist scrutiny. I think we all agree that the skills system is important for our future. It would be disappointing if such fundamental changes were made without proper parliamentary oversight.”
“The Committee should be concerned about this, because the Bill already centralises considerable power in the hands of Ministers, as we have discussed many times today. We know that the Government’s intention is for Skills England to be an Executive agency of the Department for Education, but without the safeguards that the amendments provide, Parliament would have limited oversight of the implementation of the transfer of IfATE’s functions to Skills England. That matters most during the transition period, which stakeholders as well the Government’s own analysis highlighted as being fraught with risk. We have been given little detail about the governance structures of Skills England, its operational independence or its accountability mechanisms.”
“Amendments 8 and 9 address a fundamental concern that we have with the Bill, which is the lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny. As drafted, clause 10 gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to make consequential provisions through regulations. While statutory instruments containing regulations that amend primary legislation would require the affirmative procedure, all other regulations would be subject merely to the negative procedure. Amendments 8 and 9 together would ensure that, for the critical first six months after the Act passes—the period when the most significant consequential regulations are likely to be introduced—all such regulations would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament, regardless of whether they amend primary legislation.”
“I thank the Minister for her response. I am afraid I am not satisfied that that is sufficient and would like to push the amendment to a vote. Question put , That the amendment be made.”
“Last week the Department announced that colleges would receive only two thirds of the funding that they were promised for the 35,000 additional 16 to 18-year-old students enrolled last autumn, a decision that could lead to thousands of prospective students being turned away this September. That follows a cut in the adult skills funding. Can the Secretary of State explain how cutting promised funds will help to address skills shortages in the economy and help to deliver the Government’s growth mission?”
“Q5. On Monday, the Prime Minister talked about creating defence jobs across the country as we rebuild our defence industrial capacity. Will he and the Government bring forward an urgent plan for skills in the defence sector, and does he agree with his Education Secretary that the strategy for defence skills should sit purely under the Department for Education, and not an under-powered Executive agency?”
“In her words, support consisted of someone “who read from a screen, then said they will transfer me to someone who can help but really just put me back in the queue.” She has spent years feeling that she is going around in circles, without receiving all the payment that she should have received for the care of her child. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that the Minister agrees that this falls well short of what vulnerable families deserve.”
“In all that time, her ex-partner has made consistent payments for just six months. After courageously leaving an abusive relationship, she had turned to the CMS for support. Instead, she encountered a system powerless to act when her ex-partner began gaming the system. He claimed to be unemployed while there was evidence that he was working. Missed payments would coincide with birthdays and Christmas, depriving her of the means to make those occasions special for her child. He refused to engage unless she contacted him directly, knowing full well how traumatic that would be given the history of abuse. Her mental health, understandably, deteriorated. Yet in all her desperate calls to the CMS, rarely did she speak to the same person twice—someone familiar with her case and invested in its resolution.”
“That changed almost immediately upon my taking office, as constituents came to me with accounts of their experiences with the CMS, and appeals for help. These were not isolated incidents or minor inconveniences; they revealed systemic failures, enforcement mechanisms that seem to exist in name only, loopholes exploited by those seeking to evade their responsibilities, inadequate protections for survivors of domestic abuse, and an impersonal bureaucracy that overwhelms those it should be there to help. Failures to correct even basic errors grind down those unfortunate enough to be let down by the system. I want to share one constituent’s story that exemplifies those failings. For nearly two decades, dating back to the days of the old Child Support Agency, she has fought for what her child should have been entitled to.”