Access to Further Education

[Relevant documents: Sixth Report of the Education Committee of Session 2024-26, Further Education and Skills, HC 666, and the Government response, HC 1555.]

I beg to move, That this House has considered access to further education.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee and all the Members who supported bringing this important debate to Parliament today. I want to raise an issue that goes to the heart of opportunity, aspiration and economic productivity in my constituency of Runcorn and Helsby: post-16 education. Too often, we speak about equality of opportunity as though it can be achieved through slogans, White Papers or ministerial announcements. For a young person leaving school at 16, opportunity is far more practical than that. It is about whether there is a good college course nearby; it is about whether they can afford to enrol on an apprenticeship without spending hours getting there, and how they find the money for travel; it is about whether they can see a clear route from the classroom into a skilled, well paid job; and it is about whether they believe they can build a successful life in the town where they grew up.

For too many young people in Runcorn, those routes are not clear enough. The existing provision is limited. Riverside college in Widnes does important work across Halton, but it is on the other side of the Mersey. For young people in Runcorn, that means a daily bridge crossing to access courses and facilities. Crossing the bridge into Widnes means paying the toll and facing additional travel time and cost. The sole local sixth form in Runcorn is at the Ormiston Bolingbroke academy. It has only 350 places, which is enough for less than 20% of the more than 2,000 16 to 18-year olds in Runcorn. Provision is fragmented, options are limited and too many still face the prospect of travelling elsewhere for the courses, specialist facilities or technical opportunities they need. That is not good enough for a town with the industrial strength, scientific expertise and economic potential of Runcorn.

Runcorn is home to major manufacturing, logistics, pharmaceutical and life sciences employers. We have DHL, Ineos Inovyn, Encirc, Essar and Cemex, to name but a few. At the Sci Tech Daresbury park, there are opportunities in engineering, software, laboratory science, project management, advanced manufacturing and technology. These are not theoretical jobs of the future; they are real opportunities on our doorstep, yet too many young people do not see a direct bridge between their school and those careers.

That is why I believe that Runcorn needs a dedicated post-16 skills and apprenticeship hub—a serious local offer, built around the needs of local employers and the ambitions of local young people. This should not simply be another institution, with another layer of bureaucracy, offering courses that do not lead to good jobs or which simply rack up student debt; it should be a practical partnership between Riverside college, local schools, Halton borough council, major employers and the Government. It could provide specialist technical education in engineering, construction, health and social care, digital skills, laboratory science, logistics and advanced manufacturing. It could offer high quality T levels, apprenticeships, traineeships and routes into higher education. It could give young people access to work placements, mentoring and guaranteed interviews with local employers. It could also give businesses a strong local pipeline of skilled young people who are ready to work, ready to learn and ready to contribute.

Having spoken directly to many local employers, I know there is a strong appetite to support that kind of initiative, and to play an active role in shaping and delivering it. That is how we should think about post-16 education: not as a separate part of the education system, but as completing the education journey, which should not finish until 18. We do not need to import talent while overlooking the talent growing up in our own communities. Indeed, local talent should be our priority.

Halton faces serious challenges. Too many children grow up in low income households, too many pupils face disadvantage, and too many young adults leave education without the qualifications that would have opened up doors for them. In a constituency where many families have seen opportunities disappear over generations, post-16 education must be part of rebuilding hope, and that includes confronting difficult truths. The evidence shows that disadvantaged white British pupils, particularly boys, continue to experience poor educational outcomes in many parts of the country. In communities such as mine, where the population is overwhelmingly white and deprivation is entrenched, that cannot be treated as an awkward subject to be avoided. Neither should we ignore a generation of working class children who feel that the education system does not understand them, does not speak to them and does not offer them a route to a secure future.

When a young person cannot see the point of school, cannot see a realistic job at the end of it and cannot access training close to home, disengagement becomes more likely. The consequences are severe: fewer qualifications, weaker employment prospects, lower wages and a greater risk of being left behind, with nothing to show for years at school and no prospect of employment. That is bad for young people, bad for their families and bad for the community. Towns like Runcorn cannot thrive, grow or prosper without a high standard of education and decent job prospects for their young people. The answer is not to lower expectations, but to give young people something real to aspire to.

A young person in Runcorn should be able to leave school knowing that they can train for a career in engineering, become a laboratory technician, enter digital work, learn a skilled trade, join a manufacturer or progress towards university. I therefore ask the Minister to work with local education providers, Halton borough council and employers to examine how a dedicated post-16 skills and apprenticeship hub for Runcorn can be delivered. That work should include a proper assessment of the local skills gap, the courses that employers need, the facilities required, and the opportunities for a satellite campus or specialist centre in Runcorn itself. It should also include a clear expectation that major local employers play their part through apprenticeships, placements, career advice, and direct partnerships with schools and providers.

Runcorn has the businesses, it has the people and it has the potential. What it needs is a more ambitious local settlement between education, industry and Government. The young people of Runcorn, Frodsham and Helsby are every bit as capable, ambitious and hard working as young people anywhere in Britain. They do not need pity; they need opportunity. They deserve the chance to gain the skills, qualifications and confidence to build successful lives in the communities they call home. For Runcorn, for our local economy and for the next generation, we must do better.

Order. This debate has to conclude at 5 pm. For me to accommodate all Back Benchers, there will be a speaking limit of two minutes.

Investment in our colleges is essential to this country’s future and to our manufacturing sector, our house building targets and our NHS. In Stafford, it is clear that we have no shortage of ambitious young people—I know this, as I meet them weekly—but we must invest in their futures. We must invest in our colleges to make sure that their futures are all they can be. I am proud of what this Government’s investment has delivered so far. Our advanced manufacturing tech is going to change the landscape in Stafford, and that work, done in combination with our local employers—hand in glove—shows exactly what can be achieved by an ambitious Labour Government.

I want to take this opportunity to raise something put to me directly by my local college and by Make UK, because it gets to the heart of the problem of how we fund our manufacturing and technical education. Right now, the payment per pupil is the same regardless of whatever course is being delivered, so an A level student doing three A levels in a classroom attracts the same funding as a student on a technical engineering apprenticeship, despite the fact that the equipment, the facilities, the staffing and the delivery costs are so different. At a place like Stafford college, which genuinely excels in exactly this kind of high cost, high value technical provision, that is really unfair and a direct disincentive to deliver the courses that matter most. If we are serious about making technical education genuinely world class, we have to fund it as though we mean it.

That is why I am so pleased and it is such an honour— I talk about it all the time—to have the best college in the country in my constituency. [Interruption.] It is widely accepted to be the best college in the country! I am also very pleased that the Government have taken substantial steps to invest in further education and vocational courses, so I would like to ask the Minister: what further investment is planned in our college estate, and how can the course funding imbalance be addressed to ensure that we have the best facilities and the best staff, and that we create the best possible opportunities?

Too often, the voices of people who come through routes like apprenticeships, working people or tradespeople are missing from these debates, but I am really proud of my education and of my route through as an apprentice.

On apprenticeships, at the moment we are asking too many small and medium sized businesses to carry the responsibility of training up the next generations of people without the funding and recognition that they deserve. I have met with small businesses across my constituency that want to take on apprentices, but tell me it is too expensive and too complicated; and it is not a lack of lack of willingness—it is a lack of support. We have to make it easier for small businesses to recruit apprentices by simplifying levy transfers, reducing administrative burdens wherever possible, and providing long term funding certainty for their rising costs.

Apprenticeships need to be made easier for young people and families to understand and access, and to be recognised and respected as the meaningful route into essential skilled work that they are, with support for apprenticeship wages that better reflect local labour markets and the removal of unfair practical barriers. We want free bus fares for under-22s so that no young person is held back from getting to their apprenticeship. We want equal access to funded childcare and the scrapping of disincentives such as those within the benefit system.

Finally, we need economic policy that focuses on spreading opportunity and investment more fairly across the country, so that young people in places like Gorton and Denton are no longer left behind. In places like Gorton, Denton, Abbey Hey, Burnage, Longsight—all the places in my constituency—our young people have never lacked talent or drive, but we must stop wasting it, give them a chance and properly back further education and apprenticeships as the national assets that they are.

I want to raise awareness of the transformative role of further education in remote coastal communities, like mine in Camborne, Redruth and Hayle in Cornwall. Despite the talent, ambition and resilience of our young people, parts of my constituency continue to experience persistent deprivation. Nine neighbourhoods rank among the most deprived in the entire country. But amidst that deprivation, our local further education sector is helping to change lives and create opportunity. Cornwall college, which is rated outstanding by Ofsted, is a shining example. It is a vital cog driving our economic engine, equipping young people with the skills that they need to succeed, and providing employers with the workforce required to unleash the Cornish Celtic tiger.

There is another further education college in Cornwall: Truro and Penwith college. Does my hon. Friend agree that transport, and getting children in rural and coastal areas to colleges and work placements, is a major issue?

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point. In Cornwall, we have had significant issues with bus services to our colleges. We really need the Government to help with that.

Cornwall is on its way to an industrial renaissance as a strategically significant economic frontier. We are seeing exciting developments in critical minerals, including tin, lithium and tungsten, as well as in geothermal energy and offshore wind. Those sectors are creating good jobs that are vital to the national interest, and will help us to transition away from a fossil fuel based economy.

With that in mind, I warmly welcome the launch this September of the new Engineering Mining Academy. This is a partnership between Cornwall college and Cornish Metals. It brings together two of Cornwall’s crown jewels to train the next generation of engineers and mining professionals, and will ensure that young people can benefit directly from the return of the mining industry to Cornwall. This is exactly the kind of collaboration we need if we are to seize the opportunity to deliver growth in every corner of the country.

However, we cannot let staffing challenges, or cuts to dedicated student bus services, which my hon. Friend just mentioned, threaten those opportunities. Recruitment and retention are especially difficult in remote coastal areas, where there are profound housing and transport pressures. Unless we address workforce shortages, we risk undermining the FE institutions that are providing the skills on which our future economy depends. Cornwall’s FE colleges are playing their part, but we need the Government to step up and provide the funding settlement that our FE colleges deserve.

Quite often when I come to this place, it is to moan and groan, and gripe about something that has gone wrong, but today I want to highlight a really positive story. One of the first campaigns I ran after the general election was to secure an extension to the FE capital transformation fund for the rebuilding of Harrogate college. That is really exciting. I have been to Harrogate college a number of times, and I have seen the fantastic work that it does with people from across the local area. The new building will have some really exciting features, such as a replica hospital wing and renewable engineering kit. It is a really good success story about how we can upskill future generations to meet the skills gap.

I visited Harrogate college earlier this year for Colleges Week, when the theme was “Skills for All”. I press the Minister on what more we are doing to ensure diversity, and to get people from all backgrounds into apprenticeships and FE colleges. I used to be on the board of governors at Selby college, where I did my A levels. A great thing there were the partnerships with industries and experts; they really supported FE colleges, and went above and beyond when it came to kit in the classrooms.

When I meet the principal of Harrogate college, he tells me that the real terms cut to the devolved adult skills fund is placing pressure on the college. I gently ask the Minister whether that could be looked at, going forward, so that we can build effective pathways that allow adult learners to progress into areas where we see skill shortages. Harrogate college is well placed to help address the “not in education, employment or training” issue.

I would like to press the Minister on the funding cliff edge. There is also an issue relating to children with special educational needs and disabilities, and home school transport issues. The principal of Harrogate college has told me repeatedly that he has seen an increase of children with SEND going to Harrogate college, but transport to get them there is a massive issue, and a barrier. What will the Minister do to ensure that people can get to FE colleges in the first instance?

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a governor at the City of Stoke on Trent sixth form college and the Abbey Hill special college, and chair of the all party parliamentary group on sixth form education. I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this genuinely important debate, and my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for rightly pointing out that the best college in the country is in my county. Where she was wrong is that it is actually 10 miles north, in my constituency, not hers, but that is a different matter.

I will push the Minister on two or three things. First is the introduction of the V levels. I am grateful that the Government recognised that the scrapping of BTECs would leave a gap in the market for young people who wanted to go to college to study qualifications. The first three V levels are due to be rolled out in September 2027, but the qualification guidelines are not going to be released until spring 2027, meaning that many colleges will be unable to work out what they will have to teach to ensure that young people get the qualification. Those prospectuses are being printed now, and knowing what the guidelines are would be a big help. Is there any chance the Minister could bring forward that announcement? I know colleges would be grateful.

There is also the issue of stand alone sixth form colleges, which fall between the cracks of FE and sixth forms in multi academy trusts when it comes to capital funding. They do not qualify for the school condition allocation fund, as those in MATs do, or the FE capital transformation fund. That is a genuine problem, because in the types of places that Members have mentioned, those stand alone sixth form colleges are a real engine for social mobility. They do not have the ability to borrow—it was taken away from them—and they are funded at 29% less than schools, so accessing capital becomes a real issue for the growing number of young people who want to go there.

Finally, I will push the Minister on the transport infrastructure that makes colleges accessible. Can the Department for Transport think about colleges as somewhere that bus routes ought to run to? In too many place, young people cannot rely on parents to get them there. Buses unlock opportunity for education and progression.

I thank the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) for securing this important debate. I will spare hon. Members the parts of my speech about the importance of FE—I am sure we all agree that it is very important. Instead, I will talk to the Minister about the lasting impact on further education in my constituency of his Department’s 2016 review of post-16 education in Cheshire. That review has had deeply damaging consequences across Mid Cheshire, which continue to be felt by children in Northwich, Winsford and Middlewich.

We know that there is a clear and well established link between the distance a student has to travel for further education, and their likelihood of remaining engaged and successfully completing their course. In Mid Cheshire, we have been caught in a perfect storm. Colleges around Cheshire, which have been under pressure from financial instability caused by quality concerns, have responded through mergers and the gradual withdrawal of provision in communities like mine.

Where once there was a large FE campus in Northwich and a smaller one in Winsford, there is now just the small one in Winsford, which this year has ceased offering courses for 16 to 19-year olds—it is now post-19 only. Winsford has NEET levels five percentage points higher than the borough wide average for Cheshire West and Chester. The situation is as unacceptable today as when it first emerged. Even though it all started 10 years ago, it is still repeatedly raised by my constituents as an example of a deep injustice that they feel.

I strongly urge the Minister to revisit the issue with some urgency, and to commission a fresh comprehensive review that does not just look at the current landscape but actively seeks to repair the damage that was caused. It must prioritise accessibility, local provision and fairness, ensuring that further education once again serves all communities, rather than leaving some behind.

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this important debate. Access to further education is access to opportunity. For most young people, and for a great many adults, it is the route to a job or back into learning. When that access works, it changes lives. When it does not, we fail not just an individual but their family, their local community, the economy and, over a lifetime, the public purse.

We do not make it as easy as it should be to access further education. I will focus on two barriers: funding and transport, on which the Government are not going far enough or fast enough. Last year, in the skills White Paper, the Education Secretary promised real terms increases in per pupil funding for 16 to 19 providers. Instead, per head funding this year is going up by just 0.55%. That is a real terms cut. Overall funding for 16 to 19 education now stands at around £4.7 billion, 30% below its inflation adjusted high of £6.8 billion in 2003-04.

Cambridge Regional College sits just outside my constituency of St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. Its principal, Mark Robertson, has been clear with me about the cost: there is a pay gap of around £12,500 between school and FE teachers. At a time when the college needs enough maths and English teachers to deliver resits for about 1,300 young people in each subject, those teachers could earn thousands more teaching exactly the same subject in a school down the road.

Less visible but just as damaging is the fact that colleges are funded based on the previous year’s intake. This means that when demand rises—and it is rising—colleges have to enrol and teach students now, but must wait, often a full academic year, to be funded for them. Nationally, colleges took on around 32,000 additional 16 to 19 students in ’25-26 to meet that rising demand, and were left to absorb the costs themselves. That is not a funding system that supports improving access.

I would just suggest two changes that might help. As the Minister will know, colleges, unlike schools, cannot reclaim VAT. That amounts to a tax on further education worth around £210 million per year. The Liberal Democrats would end that anomaly. We would also extend the pupil premium to post-16 learners, including those in FE, so that support for disadvantaged young people does not simply stop the day they turn 16.

Of course, funding cannot reach colleges that are not there. I will give another example from my constituency: St Neots is the largest town in Cambridgeshire, but it has no further education college of its own. Despite innovative efforts to provide some provision in the town, many of our young people must travel to reach the courses that could change their lives. Of course, St Neots is far from being the only further education cold spot in the country.

That brings me to the second barrier: transport. The law requires every young person to remain in education or training until 18, but it does not require any local authority to help them to get there. Once a young person turns 16, transport support becomes discretionary, rather than statutory—a cliff edge at exactly the point the law starts asking more of them, not less. The Association of Colleges tells us that some students face journeys of up to three hours a day to reach their course, and colleges are increasingly subsidising transport themselves out of budgets meant for teaching and learning.

The Liberal Democrats have urged the Government to fully restore the £2 bus fare cap—a change that hit rural passengers particularly hard, in exactly the areas where too many of our young people are trying to reach college. Perhaps the Minister could also explain in this debate why a more direct measure—a concessionary bus pass for under-22s, which was recommended by the Transport Committee—was rejected by the Government as unaffordable.

To conclude, it is worth highlighting what it costs when access fails. The Milburn review puts a number on it: an average of £29,000 a year for every person who is not in education, employment or training, rising to a lifetime cost of £240,000. We spend £7,900 a year on a further education student—that is not a close call. This is a false economy on a national scale. There is a missed opportunity on our doorstep to prove that it does not have to be this way. I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government plan to address those barriers to access.

I now call the shadow Minister—I believe it is his first time. Congratulations and welcome, shadow Minister.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Sarah Pochin) on securing this debate. Whatever our political differences, I welcome the opportunity to discuss an issue that should unite Members across this House: ensuring that every young person, wherever they live, has the opportunity to develop the skills they need to succeed.

After the previous Labour Government badly neglected apprenticeships, the Conservative party prioritised them, delivering around 5.8 million apprenticeships between 2010 and 2024 and creating apprenticeship routes into 70% of occupations. The Conservatives are clear that further education is a great driver of social mobility. That is why I am proud that the previous Conservative Government introduced T levels, degree level apprenticeships and the apprenticeship levy, and put English and maths at the heart of all vocational qualifications, helping people to climb up the ladder of opportunity and fortify their careers with the in demand skills that businesses need.

Access to apprenticeships is not simply about education policy; it is about opportunity, social mobility and ensuring that the next generation can harness their unique talents to build rewarding careers, support their families and contribute to the prosperity of our country. Apprenticeships should enjoy parity of esteem with academic routes. University is the right choice for many, but it is not the only route to success. We know that higher level apprenticeships are now out earning the average degree, according to the Centre for Social Justice.

The right qualification at the right time can alter the trajectory of an entire family for generations, but we must also be honest that warm words alone will not create a single apprenticeship place, and with level 2 apprenticeship starts hitting their lowest level in four years last year, the time for action is now. Ministers wax lyrical about growth, skills and opportunity, yet employers continue to raise concerns about complexity, uncertainty and a system that is still failing too many young people.

Young people cannot build careers on announcements alone. This week, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) spoke passionately about placing technical education at the heart of economic renewal. That aspiration is welcome, but aspiration without delivery does little for young people looking for an apprenticeship today or for the small business struggling to recruit for today and tomorrow.

His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition has put forward a clear alternative through our new deal for young people, which places apprenticeships and technical education at the heart of economic opportunity. It would expand high quality apprenticeships, remove barriers that prevent employers from taking on young people and ensure that skills funding follows the needs of local economies rather than the priorities of Whitehall.

We believe that employers should find it easier, not harder, to invest in the next generation. We believe that colleges should have the flexibility to respond to local labour market demand. Above all, we believe that every young person deserves a pathway into skilled employment, whether through university, an apprenticeship or another technical route.

If the Government genuinely believe that apprenticeships are central to growth, they—and the party of the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby, which needs to see what properly considered policy looks like—should accept our fully funded new deal for young people. It would: scrap real interest rates on plan 2 student loans so that balances can no longer rise faster than inflation, saving graduates tens of thousands of pounds over the course of their careers; create 100,000 more apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year olds by lifting funding caps and supporting employers with up to £5,000 for every British apprentice they hire; and introduce a £5,000 first job bonus allowing young people to keep the first £5,000 of national insurance they would have paid by placing it into a savings account for a first home or future security.

The proposal for an apprenticeship hub in the hon. Member’s constituency deserves to be examined on its merits. If it can demonstrate value for money, genuine local demand and strong employer engagement, I hope that Ministers will engage constructively. But the debate, as we have heard in contributions from across the House, is about more than one constituency; it is about whether a young person leaving school believes that hard work and determination will be rewarded, whether employers have confidence that Britain is developing the skilled workforce that it needs and whether the Government will match their words with action.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I thank everybody for their contributions this afternoon. This should not be a political issue; it should be addressed by all parties with the interests of young people at their hearts. In places like Runcorn, we are failing young people. Although I listened with some amusement about who has the best colleges, I am very envious, because I do not have a further education college. That is exactly what I am looking for. I welcome the news of the increase in funding; I hope that a great chunk of it is directed towards Runcorn.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved, That this House has considered access to further education.