It will take around a decade to introduce the baccalaureate-style education programme announced by Rishi Sunak in his conference speech, Downing Street has admitted.
In his address to the Tory Party conference in Manchester, the prime minister announced the creation of a new school-leaver qualification called the “Advanced British Standard” in England to “bring together A-levels and T-levels into a new, single qualification”.
It will see students study English and maths to age 18 – an announcement that has previously been made public.
Mr Sunak said the new system will “finally deliver on the promise of parity of esteem between academic and technical education” because “all students will sit the Advanced British Standard”.
He also said it would help “raise the floor ensuring that our children leave school literate and numerate”.
However, education unions have warned that the plans are “pie in the sky” and “are likely to prove a pipe dream” due to teacher shortages.
Asked how long it would take for the prime minister to bring in the new system, Mr Sunak’s press secretary said: “I believe it will take about 10 years for the advanced British standard to replace A-levels.
“This is a big change to the education system, we will have to work with education experts to work it through.”
His spokesperson confirmed the policy will be limited to England as education is a devolved matter, but added: “If the devolved administrations want to use the same standard then they can, and that would be a good thing.”
Elsewhere in his speech, the prime minister announced that sixth-form students will study five subjects rather than three and that the number of taught hours for all post-16 students will rise to at least 1,475 over two years – an extra 195 hours for most students.
Mr Sunak also repeated his plans to crack down on what he called “rip off degrees”, saying he would stop universities from “enrolling students on courses that doing nothing for their life choices”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:59
What you missed from Sunak’s speech
Turning his fire on Labour, Mr Sunak said the party had created an assumption that the “only route to success” was through university and that was “one of the great mistakes of the last 30 years”.
He pointed to Gillian Keegan, the education secretary, saying she is the first ever apprentice to fulfil that post.
Mr Sunak announced an initial investment of £600m over two years to lay the groundwork for delivering the Advanced British Standard – which will include funding for tax-free bonuses of up to £30,000 over the first five years of the careers of teachers in key shortage subjects.
A consultation on how to implement the qualification will open this autumn.
‘Completely out of touch with reality’
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL), said that while the “principles of these proposals are good, the practicalities are daunting because of the severity of the teacher recruitment and retention crisis”.
“We’re not convinced that the prime minister’s plan for an early career bonus payment for teachers in key shortage subjects in schools and colleges will be anywhere near enough,” he added.
“Teacher shortages are widespread and very problematic in many subjects. This problem requires a much broader strategy to improve pay, conditions and education funding.
“Without this commitment, the prime minister’s plans for an Advanced British Standard are likely to prove a pipe dream.”
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of school leaders’ union the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT), said the announcement “raises so many questions”, while Daniel Kebede, the general secretary of the National Education Union (NEU), said Mr Sunak was “completely out of touch with reality”.
“There is no magic wand to create English and maths teachers in sufficient numbers to educate 11 to 16-year-olds, let alone at A-level too,” he added.
The proposals were described as “ambitious” by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), which also warned that “policy churn” in recent years has had “its own costs, making it more difficult for schools, young people and employers to understand the value of qualifications and to navigate the system”.
Prosecutors appealed the sentences given to HashFlare founders Sergei Potapenko and Ivan Turõgin, after arguing the pair should get 10 years in prison.
Nigel Farage has said he would take the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) if Reform win the next election.
The party’s leader also reaffirmed his pledge to repeal the Human Rights Act and disapply three other international treaties acting as “roadblocks” to deporting anyone entering the UK illegally.
In a speech about tackling illegal migration, he said a Reform government would detain and deport any migrants arriving illegally, including women and children, and they would “never, ever be allowed to stay”.
Sky News looks at what the ECHR is, how the UK could leave, and what could happen to human rights protections if it does.
What is the ECHR?
On 4 November 1950, the 12 member states of the newly formed Council of Europe (different to the EU) signed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms – otherwise known as the ECHR.
It came into force on 3 September 1953 and has since been signed by an additional 34 Council of Europe members who have joined, bringing the total to 46 signatories.
The treaty was drafted in the aftermath of the Second World War and the Holocaust to protect people from the most serious human rights violations. It was also in response to the growth of Stalinism in central and Eastern Europe to protect members from communist subversion.
The treaty was the first time fundamental human rights were guaranteed in law.
Sir Winston Churchill helped establish the Council of Europe and was a driving force behind the ECHR, which came from the Charter of Human Rights that he championed and was drafted by British lawyers.
Image: Sir Winston Churchill was a driving force behind the ECHR
To be a signatory of the ECHR, a state has to be a member of the Council of Europe – and they must “respect pluralist democracy, the rule of law and human rights”.
There are 18 sections, including the most well-known: Article 1 (the right to life), Article 3 (prohibition of torture), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), Article 8 (right to private and family life) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression).
The ECHR has been used to halt the deportation of migrants in 13 out of 29 UK cases since 1980.
ECHR protections are enforced in the UK through the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporates most ECHR rights into domestic law. This means individuals can bring cases to UK courts to argue their ECHR rights have been violated, instead of having to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights.
Article 8 is the main section that has been used to stop illegal migrant deportations, but Article 3 has also been successfully used.
Image: The ECHR is interpreted by judges at this court in Strasbourg, France. File pic: AP
How is it actually used?
The ECHR is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) – you’ll have to bear with us on the confusingly similar acronyms.
The convention is interpreted under the “living instrument doctrine”, meaning it must be considered in the light of present-day conditions.
The number of full-time judges corresponds to the number of ECHR signatories, so there are currently 46 – each nominated by their state for a non-renewable nine-year term. But they are prohibited from having any institutional ties with the state they come from.
An individual, group of individuals, or one or more of the signatory states can lodge an application alleging one of the signatory states has breached their human rights. Anyone who have exhausted their human rights case in UK courts can apply to the ECtHR to have their case heard in Strasbourg.
All ECtHR hearings must be heard in public, unless there are exceptional circumstances to be heard in private, which happens most of the time following written pleadings.
The court may award damages, typically no more than £1,000 plus legal costs, but it lacks enforcement powers, so some states have ignored verdicts and continued practices judged to be human rights violations.
Image: Inside the European Court of Human Rights. File pic: AP
How could the UK leave?
A country can leave the convention by formally denouncing it, but it would likely have to also leave the Council of Europe as the two are dependent on each other.
At the international level, a state must formally notify the Council of Europe of its intention to withdraw with six months’ notice, when the UK would still have to implement any ECtHR rulings and abide by ECHR laws.
The UK government would have to seek parliament’s approval before notifying the ECtHR, and would have to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 – which would also require parliamentary approval.
Would the UK leaving breach any other agreements?
Leaving the ECHR would breach the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a deal between the British and Irish governments on how Northern Ireland should be governed, which could threaten the peace settlement.
It would also put the UK’s relationship with the EU under pressure as the Brexit deal commits both to the ECHR.
The EU has said if the UK leaves the ECHR it would terminate part of the agreement, halting the extradition of criminal suspects from the EU to face trial in the UK.
Image: Keir Starmer has previously ruled out taking Britain out of the ECHR
How would the UK’s human rights protections change?
Certain rights under the ECHR are also recognised in British common law, but the ECHR has a more extensive protection of human rights.
For example, it was the ECHR that offered redress to victims of the Hillsborough disaster and the victims of “black cab rapist” John Worboys after state investigations failed.
Before cases were taken to the ECtHR and the Human Rights Act came into force, the common law did not prevent teachers from hitting children or protect gay people from being banned from serving in the armed forces.
Repealing the ECHR would also mean people in the UK would no longer be able to take their case to the ECtHR if the UK courts do not remedy a violation of their rights.
The UK’s human rights record would then not be subject to the same scrutiny as it is under the ECHR, where states review each other’s actions.
Image: Two victims of John Worboys sued the Met Police for failing to effectively investigate his crimes using Article 3 of the ECHR. Pic: PA
How human rights in the UK would be impacted depends partly on what would replace the Human Rights Act.
Mr Farage has said he would introduce a British Bill of Rights, which would apply only to UK citizens and lawful British citizens.
He has said it would not mention “human rights” but would include “the freedom to do everything, unless there’s a law that says you can’t” – which is how common law works.
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg said this would simply confirm the rights to which people are already entitled, but would also remove rights enjoyed by people visiting the UK.
Over a quarter of Brits said they’d add crypto to their retirement portfolios, while 23% would even withdraw existing pension funds to invest in the space.