Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting)
Thursday 20th March 2025
(2 days, 23 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesInstitute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 March 2025 - (20 Mar 2025)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 11 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 1.
Clause 12 stand part.
Government amendment 2.
Clause 14 stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
Government amendment 1 lets the Secretary of State make regulations that determine the date, or dates, when clauses 1 to 8 and schedules 1 to 3 come into force. The other provisions of the Bill in clauses 9 to 14 come into force on the day on which the Bill is passed.
This amendment seeks to overturn the amendment passed in the other place that places a 12-month delay between the creation of Skills England and commencement of key parts of the Bill, including the clauses that transfer functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to be exercised by Skills England. It was hugely disappointing that, despite broad support for the urgent need for reform, peers in the other place voted for that delay. Reform is exactly what the Bill and Skills England will deliver. After 14 long years of complacency and neglect, this Government are driving high standards, and we have a plan for change. A delay will benefit no one.
Skills England is already operating in shadow form and, once the Bill is passed, it stands ready to become a fully operational arm’s length body. The leadership is already in place, with the chair, the vice-chair, the chief executive officer, the deputy CEO and a full team of senior civil servants already working as one. The work is well under way; Skills England reported on skill gaps in September last year. It is connecting decision making across regional and national Government, as well as working closely with training providers, trade unions and employers. It is collaborating with businesses to develop sector plans for the forthcoming industrial strategy.
Skills England is working with closely with the Migration Advisory Committee to access skills needs to identify shortages in occupations. That will help to identify and grow our domestic skills pipeline over time, which will reduce our reliance on overseas workers. We need to build our own skilled workforce, and Skills England is moving ahead. The Bill gives it some of its key tools, but there is no case for delay, and I commend Government amendment 1 to the Committee.
Government amendment 2 would remove clause 14(2) of the Bill. It is normal procedure for Bills originating in the House of Lords to require the insertion of a standard privilege amendment such as subsection (2). This formally recognises the privilege of this House to control charges on people and public funds. Therefore, in accordance with normal procedure, we now remove the privilege amendment so that any such charge is imposed by this House, rather than the House of Lords. I commend Government amendment 2 to the Committee.
Clause 11 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions contained within the Bill. This is a standard clause for all legislation. Clauses 1 to 7, clause 9 and schedule 2 extend to England and Wales. Clause 8 extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Clauses 10 to 14 and schedules 1 and 3 extend to England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I have already touched upon clause 12 as part of Government amendment 1, which states when the provisions of the Bill will come into effect. Clause 12 should stand part of the Bill, as amended by Government amendment 1. Furthermore, as is standard practice, clause 14 gives the Bill a short title by which it may be known once it becomes an Act. The short title given is the
“Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025.”
I commend clauses 11, 12 and 14 to the Committee.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Clause 11 talks about the geographical extent of the Bill, which it says is England and Wales. This is a very small point, but it is worth noting that the Bill and decisions under it will actually affect other parts of the UK as well, not least because they affect degree apprenticeships and higher education. For example, the University of Strathclyde is a leading provider of graduate apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships across Scotland and England; I will return to that overlap later on.
On a more substantive note, Government amendment 1 seeks to overturn the one-year pause inserted in the House of Lords. Why did peers insert that? Why was there so much debate, and such wariness about this Bill? First, because there were good reasons that standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. We heard from all parts of the House of Lords that this Bill is a centralisation and, alongside other changes the Government are making, it will risk directly damaging the status of these qualifications.
Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprenticeships, starting with the Budget. Rather than fixing those problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years. It is abolishing IfATE, which was created only seven years ago—yet more reorganisation, rather than a focus on the real issues.
Thirdly, peers had—and we have—real concerns that the reorganisation of the machinery of Government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues we face. Those concerns are borne out by the Government’s impact assessment, which states that there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while IfATE’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State. It says:
“The transfer of function from IfATE to the DfE 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 resulting from the Bill…This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways for career advancement.”
Fourthly, peers inserted the delay because of concerns about what will happen as DFE tries to absorb all the staff of IfATE. Lord Blunkett, who was one of the most interesting speakers in the Lords, said:
“My fear…is that given the number of people currently transferable from IfATE, full- and part-time, which nudges 200…there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.
When two years ago I led on the learning and skills document that was a precursor to Skills England…we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards.”
He continued:
“A Skills England that has no legislative backing and no parliamentary references but is down merely to the changing face of ministerial and departmental appointments is in danger of losing its birthright before it has got off the ground.” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]
That argument is somewhat different from the others. His argument, as somebody sympathetic to the creation of a body like Skills England, albeit outside the Department, is that it needs time to establish its own culture and balance, and to grow and develop some roots, before the IfATE elephant steps into the Skills England rowing boat.
Since we last met as a Committee, we have received further written evidence from the Skills Federation, which brings together 18 employer-led sector skills bodies, representing more than 150,000 employers. They add their voices to the concerns. The organisation warns:
“Transfer of IfATE functions risks disruption and a focus on operational rather than strategic priorities…The movement of functions and the people that carry them out will always be challenging. It is important that the transfer is planned effectively, and the time taken to think through the implications for IfATE staff, but also the impact on the system. Compromises will no doubt have to be made to balance the need for pace with the requirement to retain operational continuity.
However, 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.”
That is a direct reinforcement of the argument that Lord Blunkett made in the Lords. It is very sensible advice to take our time.
In contrast to employers’ groups, Ministers say there is no time to wait. In truth, there is no great obstacle to the Department doing all the things it might want to do, and establishing Skills England a little bit more before that big transfer of staff, but Ministers want to take this one-year pause out of the Bill with their Government amendment 1. They would be wiser to listen to the grey-haired people in their own party, such as Lord Blunkett, but it seems they are not minded to do that.
This group also includes Government amendment 2 to remove the Lords’ privilege amendment. For the benefit of those following the proceedings, as the Minister said, the Lords automatically insert these amendments when there is legislation starting in the Lords that involves levies and taxpayers’ money, to avoid formal infringement of the Commons’ privileges over those things.
There is nothing unusual about that, but the privilege amendment is put in as a deliberate reminder that the Bill has a significant impact on spending of both levy and taxpayers’ money. The sums involved here are non-trivial—it is billions of pounds of spending, governed by IfATE today and by the Department for Education in future. The ongoing chronic uncertainty about the Government’s plans to allow employers to take money out of apprenticeships is not just damaging for business—it is damaging on a significant scale.
In the last Bill Committee sitting, the Minister promised to write to me to set out the Government’s position on the 50% flexibility. I hope she will tell me today when that letter is likely to appear, because businesses are starting to raise the alarm ever louder.
Since the Committee last met, even more businesses have come out with criticisms. Jane Gratton, the deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce has said that the lack of clarity about the future of the growth and skills levy was creating “fresh uncertainty among businesses.” She said that some employers had told the BCC that they had put training plans on hold until they heard what alternatives would be funded in future. She called on the Government to lay out a clear timeline for reform and said that threats to cut the levy before it had even been established are “worrying and destabilising”.
Likewise, Simon Ashworth, the deputy chief executive and director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said:
“there’s little room for manoeuvre—scrapping level 7 apprenticeships won’t yield savings for years…Until the programme budget more closely matches the levy take, it’s imperative funding priorities are aimed at maintaining the sustainability of apprenticeship standards, rather than introducing further non-apprenticeship flexibilities.”
That is a very important warning.
This is all happening against a backdrop where other types of technical education covered by IfATE are shrinking too. I am old enough to remember when Labour MPs spent years saying that adult skills spending was not generous enough—yet yesterday we learned that the DFE is to cut adult skills budgets by 6%. Amazingly, that came out at the same time as the welfare reform Green Paper, which overshadowed it and mentioned training 18 times. In the Chamber the other day, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made an argument—a good argument—that it is better to get people into training rather than parking them on benefits; yet elsewhere, at the very same moment, DFE Ministers were cutting the training budget.
Skills England was supposed to bring a joined-up approach to policymaking. There is not much sign of that here. Instead, it will reinforce the concerns of those who want technical education to be more independent and employer-led.
I ask the Minister a specific question on the funding that IfATE regulates. Yesterday, we got an announcement on schools funding. The Association of School and College Leaders and the Confederation of School Trusts are warning that the funding only covers part of the costs of the national insurance increase and is leaving schools with a funding gap ranging from 10% to 35%—but at least schools are getting the funding announcement before the start of the financial year, albeit only days before.
Technical education is not so lucky. Colleges and 16-19 institutions will have to wait. They will be told their allocations this May and will be paid in September, even though they will have to start making the increased tax payments from the start of the new financial year in just a few days’ time. As James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association points out:
“16 to 19 funding is uncertain at the best of times, but this year colleges are also waiting for their post-16 budget grant allocations (scheduled for May) and a decision on the 10 per cent T-level uplift…This is all very late in the day”.
He is right. Once again, technical education is being treated as the poor relation.
We already know that independent training providers and specialist colleges will not get any compensation, and it is unclear how much of next month’s national insurance rise will be covered by the grant. Can the Minister stand up and reassure the sector today that all the additional costs, including those for indirectly employed staff, will be covered by the grant? Or will they, like schools, find that they have been short-changed?
I will not labour the point, but many people, including employer groups and very experienced people on the Labour side, have warned about the rush to bring these powers and functions into the Department and the effect that that will have on the Government’s own plans for Skills England. Ministers would be sensible to listen.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Furniss, for these proceedings today. I rise to speak against Government amendment 1 and, by extension, in defence of clause 12 as it came out of the other place.
To be clear, we want Skills England to succeed, and clause 12 as drafted will help Skills England to succeed. It is a breathing space clause, allowing Skills England to operate for a year before it has to absorb IfATE’s functions. The Minister just described it as disappointing that this clause was inserted by the other place. I do not think it is disappointing at all. It is a very good thing. It is not anti-Skills England. It is a pro-Skills England clause to give the new body its best chance of success.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and I did not confer in preparing our notes for this morning, but I, like him, was very struck by what another former Sheffield MP, the noble Lord Blunkett, said in the other place. He noted that with the transfer of functions, close to 200 people would transfer from IfATE over to Skills England and, in his words,
“there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]
Skills England has a really important function to perform. Were it to be hampered in that because of operational complexities and difficulties, that would be deeply regrettable. To understand why this is significant, it is important to note that Skills England and IfATE have different shapes—as an analogy, think about different depths and breadths. Skills England will, at least initially, prioritise 10 sectors: the eight sectors identified as growth-driving sectors in the industrial strategy. Added to those we have construction and health and care, which are also essential to some of the Government’s other missions—so eight plus two makes 10. It will develop skills needs assessments for each of those 10 priority sectors to feed into the industrial strategy planning process.
In the noble Baroness Smith’s very helpful letter to peers on 18 March, she says that work is under way on the eight growth-driving sectors identified in the industrial strategy. That begs the question: what about the other two? They are also identified as being crucial to Government missions. Another question: what about the other volume sectors of employment in the economy? I worked in hospitality for almost 20 years before coming to this place. Hospitality is a fundamental part of our economy; hospitality and retail along with care form the biggest employers in our country. There is sometimes a danger with being mission-led that, if something falls slightly outside the scope of the mission, it gets slightly overlooked. I know that many in those sectors would be keen to hear more about that.
On top of the three big volume sectors of hospitality, retail and care, we could also add admin and support—four sectors that collectively historically have accounted for about a quarter of gross value added in this country, but account for about three quarters of the people in the country who are low paid. For many social justice and equality reasons, those sectors need to have proper focus.
That is what Skills England is currently planning to do. IfATE does something rather different and is on a different scale. That goes back to what I was saying about the difference between depth and breadth. IfATE creates and maintains over 600 occupational standards for apprenticeships, T-levels and higher technical qualifications. It works with employers to develop, approve and review occupational standards. It creates and maintains the occupational maps, which group together occupations into 15 routes. It approves, reviews and ensures the quality of approved technical qualifications and their alignment with the occupational standards, and it develops, reviews and approves apprenticeship standards.
Skills England is initially looking at a narrower set of sectors, but with a much broader remit for those sectors; that is what I mean about the difference between breadth and depth. It does more than IfATE, and each of the additional things will, in its own right, take a lot of work to properly establish. That is why I say that clause 12 as currently drafted is a pro-Skills England clause: it seeks to give Skills England the best opportunity to achieve those ends.
Each of the three elements of Skills England’s remit is big. It will, first, identify where skills gaps exist and, secondly, work with the Industrial Strategy Council and the Migration Advisory Committee to address them. Those are the two bodies that have typically been mentioned in the Government documentation, although recently Ministers have also started mentioning, importantly—it should not be overlooked—the Labour Market Advisory Board, which the noble Baroness Smith spoke about in the House of Lords recently. Thirdly, Skills England is to identify the training that is accessible via the growth and skills levy. Each of those is a very large undertaking that will take time to establish.
Let us take them in turn. First, Skills England will identify skills gaps. On the face of it, that might sound straightforward, but it is not. The first question is: what constitutes a skills gap, and what level of detail are we talking about? Are these individual job roles, groups of job roles or industries? It is also necessary to distinguish between skills that need to be provided systemically, in our education and training system, and skills that firms themselves should be able to train for.
We all know that filling vacancies can be difficult. In my constituency, which has had very low levels of unemployment over the past 10 years or so, it is the No. 1 thing that businesses talk about. It is obviously related to skills gaps, but it is not necessarily the same thing as skills being absent. The Minister talked about the need to home-grow our labour, but a key question for firms that are importing labour—this is relevant to some of the sectors I mentioned—is whether they can be persuaded to make the investment and take on, in some cases, the risks involved in not bringing in labour from abroad. That is a question for individual firms. It is also a question for some whole sectors or sub-sectors.
A real example is social care. Most people would say that it is perfectly possible to train people up to work in social care, but for a potentially complex set of reasons—I do not intend to go into it today, and we do not have time for it—people do not want to go into social care. When business leaders complain to us about the lack of skills, they are typically not talking about the sorts of things that can be certificated. They do not say, “Not enough people have grade C or above GCSE maths,” and they do not say that not enough people have a BTec in such and such or an apprenticeship in something else. They mostly talk about soft skills, or what are called soft skills—some soft skills really are soft skills, but some of them are what in business terms are more properly called behaviours: self-discipline, turning up to work on time and so on. It is not clear to me how that set of soft skills—in my experience, the No. 1 thing that businesses talk about—relates to the work of Skills England.
To come back to the specific questions about the skills required for particular sectors or individual job roles, there is also the question of how far into the future Skills England is looking. Is it talking about how we fill the skills gaps we have today, or about the future effect of artificial intelligence on the labour market, and what we should be planning for 10 or 15 years hence?
There is also a question about the level of ambition. There is a certain set of skills required—craft skills and so on—to fill the vacancies we have today, as jobs exist today. But it is also true that this country has a productivity gap against the United States, Germany, France and others. By the way, that has been true every year since I have been alive—I think I said that last Thursday as well. I am 55 today—I do not mean it is my birthday today, but I am 55 now—so that is quite a long time. If we were being really ambitious, we would not ask what skills we need to fill the jobs that we have today, but what we need to do to make up that skills gap, and what skills are needed to fulfil that.
In identifying where skills gaps exist, Skills England will also have to deal with localities, because jobs exist in certain places. It will have to work with devolved Administrations and with mayors, and mayors will have their own views about the skills gaps in their areas. Will there be a hierarchy of analysis? At what level is Skills England going to identify gaps, and to what extent will that fall to the local area? I will come back to that later. It is also true—I have experienced this myself when talking about the adult education budget, for example, with mayors and local authorities—that, quite rightly and understandably, local governance structures and leaders often want more power to be devolved to their local area. Skills England will have to find its place in what can be a tense area.
There is also the question of LSIPs—local skills improvement plans and local skills improvement partnerships. In the debate on this subject in the other place, Lord Lucas said:
“The word I hear is that LSIPs have been a real success, as they are effective and flexible. It takes a couple of years for the DfE to evolve a qualification but LSIPs can do it in weeks, because they are so focused on the actual local employer need and work closely with a provider.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC125.]
The Liberal Democrat, Baroness Garden, said:
“I think it is important that the Secretary of State must set the priorities for LSIPs and review them regularly to ensure that their priorities are reflected in national strategies for the creation of standards”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC106.]
The Minister herself, Baroness Smith, said:
“LSIPs and the employer representative bodies that develop them will also provide important intelligence to Skills England to inform its assessment of national and regional skills, both now and in future. They will work with Skills England to resolve skills gaps.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC128.]
However, in her letter to peers two days ago, she wrote that Skills England is now—already—responsible for oversight of LSIPs and relationship management for all 38 of the designated employer representative bodies, but also that LSIPs will be a joint responsibility between mayoral authorities and those employer representative bodies.
Devolution is increasing, so the other part of the background is the English Devolution White Paper. At the same time as we are creating Skills England to be the uber skills authority in the land, the foreword to the White Paper, in the hand of none other than the Deputy Prime Minister herself, says:
“We will give Mayors strong new powers over...skills, employment support and more”.
The White Paper states:
“The majority of the Adult Skills Fund is devolved…but we need to go further”,
continuing:
“Strategic Authorities will take on joint ownership of the Local Skills Improvement Plan model, alongside Employer Representative Bodies, which set out the strategic direction for skills provision in an area.”
The question for Skills England, therefore, is how that will work in practice. Clearly, it will take a lot of time and work to make the new structures operational, at a time when the structures themselves are changing in so many areas, with the devolution White Paper being implemented. This is complicated architecture anyway, but potentially something is still missing: ultimately, how we match up demand and supply.
The Chair
Order. The right hon. Gentleman is slightly out of scope. I would be very grateful if he would just stick to the different clauses that we are debating today.
Damian Hinds
I am very grateful for your guidance, Ms Furniss, and of course I will ensure I do. In my defence —obviously I am not arguing with your judgment— I am trying to illustrate the large number of things that this new body will have to figure out. As Lord Blunkett said, if, at the same time, it is taking on the enormous existing role of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, with 200 people coming on board, that makes it harder to figure all these things out, with which I think we all wish the new body and its leadership the very best. But of course I take your judgment.
The Chair
Order. I am sure the right hon. Member wishes to hear the Minister fairly soon in response to his comments.
Damian Hinds
Of course I do, Ms Furniss. The different parts of Government that the new body will deal with include the Migration Advisory Committee, which is a well-established part of the machinery of Government but takes its commissions from the Home Secretary. This is a quote from gov.uk:
“The MAC bases all recommendations on what it sees as being in the interests of the resident population, taking account that migration has different effects on different groups.”
There will be conflicts between that aim and the aims of Skills England, and who will resolve those conflicts?
The new body will also work with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council, which is an expert committee reporting to the Business Secretary and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; it is made up of experts, as the name suggests. Interestingly—we will perhaps come on to this in relation to some of the new clauses—the Government will legislate to establish that body
“in statute when Parliamentary time allows”,
which raises the question of why they will do so for that one and not Skills England. It suggests that there is perhaps a hierarchy of these bodies.
There is also the Labour Market Advisory Board. It reports to the DWP’s Secretary of State and its aim is to support the DWP
“to better understand the current state of the labour market, to help design policies and strategies to address key challenges”.
I will not go through all the things that it is supposed to do—[Interruption.] The Government Whip encourages me, but I would not risk your wrath, Ms Furniss, despite her best efforts.
Suffice it to say that there is again a cut-across, because of course, in terms of getting people back into work, which the DWP is focused on, there is some tension. Will Skills England be able to ask, for example, for changes in the conditionality regime operated by the DWP and the jobcentre network, to improve skill matching? Will there be better join-up between DWP work coaches and the National Careers Service?
Finally, the third thing the new body is to be responsible for is potentially the biggest and most controversial of all. In the rubric that the Government put forward, they said the new body would “identify the training” that is accessible via the growth and skills levy. I do not think they actually mean “identify”; I think they mean it will specify what is available to be paid for through the growth and skills levy. I will not go through all the arguments about the levy, but the new body will have to, and the 12 months envisaged under clause 12 would be a good time to do that. It will have to think about the levy’s real purpose and the distinction between firm-specific skills and training, sector-specific skills and training, and generic transferable skills and training. The levy’s purpose was to increase the total amount of investment in human capital in this country, to help our productivity gap and fill job vacancies, and the new body will need carry on with that purpose.
I hope I have given us a flavour—there is more—of the enormous strategic challenges and the enormous job of work for these very good people. There are some very encouraging signs in the appointments the Secretary of State has made, but what these people have to take on is enormous, and we want and need them to succeed in this endeavour. It would be far better to stage the approach, so that Skills England is established first, then takes on the great strategic roles working across Government and throughout the economy, and then, 12 months later, subsumes IfATE.
Janet Daby
The right hon. Member speaks of the enormous challenges; might I point out that the enormous challenges were left by the previous Government, which he was part of? The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston were both previously in the Government, so it is only right that I set the context of the failings of the previous Government before I attempt to respond to the many, many points, views, opinions and ideas that were offered.
To put it into context, the previous Government had 14 years to deal with the skills problems and the crisis we are facing today. UK employers reported that more than a third of UK vacancies in 2022 were due to skills shortages. Would Members from the previous Government like to respond?
Damian Hinds
That is not really the way we do it in Parliament. You respond for the Government.
Neil O’Brien
We ask you a bunch of questions. I do not know whether you have noticed, but you are the Minister.
Janet Daby
Across the UK, almost one in 10 of more than 2.5 million roles in critical demand—
Janet Daby
More than 90% of those roles require periods of work-related training or education.
Janet Daby
The point I am making is that the last Government did not solve the skills shortages. The last Government held back growth and opportunity. This Government are moving forward. We want to boost skills through Skills England. The last Government prolonged uncertainty.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister encouraged us to intervene. One of the things Labour complained about a lot in opposition was what happened to the adult skills budget. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have just announced a 6% cut in the adult skills budget? Can she explain how that fits with the Government’s constant rhetoric—as in the welfare cuts debate just the other day—about getting people out of unemployment and into training? How will a 6% cut help to move people from welfare into training?
Janet Daby
Ms Furniss, I fear we are straying far away from the purpose of the Bill and what needs to be achieved.
Janet Daby
I will continue to respond. Skills will power this mission-driven Government.
Janet Daby
This mission-driven Government have a plan for change. The need to boost Britain’s skill is crucial. We need skills to drive growth, to build homes, to deliver energy security and to build an NHS fit for the future. We want to move forward and make sure—
Janet Daby
I am sorry, Ms Furniss. This is very flustering.
As I said, we have had 14 years of complacency and neglect from the previous Government. Following the reforms they introduced, including the apprenticeship levy, apprenticeship starts have fallen by more than 30%. It is concerning that fewer young people are benefiting from apprenticeships. Apprenticeship starts for those under 25 are down by almost 40%. That is why, since the Prime Minister announced it in July 2024, Skills England has been operating in shadow form in preparation for full establishment.
The teams responsible for Skills England’s broader strategic functions are already operational and are establishing links with their counterparts in IfATE. By combining the analytical and regional functions, it is already delivering in shadow form. Detailed transitional planning has taken place to ensure that the functions moving to Skills England from IfATE will transition smoothly with no break in service. The planned continuity in staffing and team structures will ensure that occupational standards, apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications will continue to be approved, and T-level contracts will continue to be delivered, supported and monitored.
This approach will also ensure that Skills England maintains the vital links with employers and other partners that IfATE teams have previously established. The Minister for Skills in the other place recently met many peers and went through many of the processes and functions under the Bill. He has outlined that in a letter that is available for the Committee.
The Government are focused on establishing a coherent skills system with more flexible training options to support employers to fill skills gaps while driving growth and spreading opportunity. Businesses are backing the Government’s mission to grow the economy by breaking down barriers to opportunity for young people through our planned reforms.
Neil O’Brien
Speaking of gaps, I wonder whether the Minister will answer my question. Will she stand up and reassure the sector that all the additional costs, including those for indirectly employed staff, will be covered by the forthcoming national insurance contributions grant?
Janet Daby
I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow me to proceed further, because there is so much to say.
We have announced £300 million of additional revenue for further education, with £50 million available to sixth-form and further education colleges from April, to help to respond to priorities including workforce, recruitment and retention. We are offering up to £6,000 annually through the targeted retention incentive to attract and retain new teachers in critical subjects. We continue to support recruitment and retention through teacher training bursaries worth up to £31,000, tax free, in certain key subject areas. We are providing support for industry professionals to enter the FE teaching workforce through our Taking Teaching Further programme.
On Skills England’s relationship with the devolved Governments in the UK, its territorial scope is England only. The devolved authorities will be essential partners for it to ensure that our skill systems meet the skills needs of the whole UK labour market. It will be vital for us to work together openly and collaboratively. The Department for Education and shadow Skills England have engaged with the devolved Governments and the territorial offices, and there will be regular meetings.
In devolved areas, strategic authorities will play a stronger role in local skills improvement plans, working with a designated employer representative body. We are currently in the process of reviewing the geographies of LSIPs to ensure that, where possible, they align with the boundaries of devolved areas.
Damian Hinds
The Minister may be about to come to this, but what will be the relationship between LSIPs, and whatever strategies they draw up, and Skills England?
Janet Daby
As I have already said, the devolved areas will work on LSIPs with ERBs and maintain a close and strong relationship with Skills England.
LSIPs provide ongoing mechanisms through which local employers, strategic authorities, providers and other stakeholders come together to identify and address skills needs and issues. This supports Skills England’s aim to have the skilled workforce the economy needs at a national, regional and local level.
In response to the question about the impact of national insurance costs on skills and education, the Government have agreed that public sector employers will receive support in recognition of the increase in their national insurance contributions from April 2025. We are also providing £155 million for post-16 schools, academies and further education colleges. That is an increase of over £1 billion in the financial year 2025-26 for the education sector.
Neil O’Brien
Will the Minister promise to publish the methodology of how the figure of £155 million was arrived at? Can she reassure the sector that that sum is enough to cover all the costs of the national insurance increase, including the costs for indirectly employed staff?
Janet Daby
I hear what the shadow Minister is saying and will endeavour to get more information to him on those points. He asked about the flexibility of apprenticeships and levies. I wrote to the Chairs of the Committee yesterday addressing his question, but I understand that that was only yesterday.
Janet Daby
Government amendment 1 is crucial to ensure that Skills England is not unnecessarily held back. Transformation is under way—businesses and employers cannot afford to wait. Government amendment 2 is a normal procedure for Bills originating in the House of Lords. I urge the Committee to support the Government amendments and clauses 11, 12 and 14.
Neil O’Brien
I meant no disrespect, Ms Furniss, but the Minister promised in the previous sitting that she would write to me. She may say that the letter has been sent, but it has not arrived. It is telling that the things we are debating will be written into law and I have still not—
The Chair
Order. My point was that you were talking from a sedentary position. You had sat down and should have asked to intervene again.
Neil O’Brien
I take your point, Ms Furniss. We are keen to move on to a vote on Government amendment 1, which we think is a big mistake. We have already explained why—I will not recapitulate that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Commencement
Amendment proposed: 1, in clause 12, page 5, line 6, leave out from “force” to end of line 7 and insert
“on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”. —(Janet Daby.)
This amendment provides for the substantive provisions of the Bill to be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State.
Janet Daby
Clause 13 contains provisions to ensure continuity and consistency of functions that are transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State. This will allow functions already performed by IfATE to be treated as having been done by the Secretary of State. It includes a provision enabling the Secretary of State to continue things that are in the process of being done in relation to IfATE, immediately before the function was transferred. These will also ensure smooth commencement of the new legislation and transition from existing legislation. These functions may only become clear closer to when the functions are transferred.
Therefore, clause 13 includes a power to address this by way of regulations. Without this clause, there will be no statutory way of ensuring the smooth transition of the functions carried out by IfATE under the current legislation, to the Secretary of State under the new legislation.
Neil O’Brien
This clause is just a reminder that we are trying to make major changes to the engine of our skills system, while the engine is still running. I have already quoted from the Government impact assessment, pointing out that the impact of transition will be to slow down apprenticeship approval numbers—I will not recapitulate that. I will come back later to the challenges these changes to the engine while the engine is still running will cause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Short title
Amendment made: 2, in clause 14, page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (2).—(Janet Daby.)
This amendment removes the Lords’ privilege amendment.
Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Draft proposals for establishing new executive agency
“(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must produce a report containing draft proposals for the establishment of a new executive agency, to be known as “Skills England”, responsible for the powers transferred under this Act.
(2) A copy of this Report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.
(3) Within forty days of a Report under subsection (1) being laid, the Secretary of State must ensure resolutions are tabled, and moved, in both Houses of Parliament to approve the Government’s draft proposals.
(4) If the draft proposals are rejected by either House of Parliament, the Secretary of State must, within a period of six months, lay a report containing revised proposals before Parliament, and, within a period of forty days after laying the revised proposals, table a motion before each House of Parliament to approve the revised proposals.
(5) The Secretary of State may not establish an executive agency to carry out the functions transferred under this Act until it has secured, through a motion under subsection (3) or (4), the consent of both Houses of Parliament.
(6) If a motion under subsection (3) or (4) is approved by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make an annual statement in each House of Parliament on the work of the agency.
(7) Within twelve months of a motion under subsection (3) or (4) being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report evaluating the effectiveness of the “Skills England” governance structure in delivering on the organisation's aims and objectives.”—(Ian Sollom.)
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for the executive agency, to be known as Skills England, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
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. 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. 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. 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.
Neil O’Brien
I rise only to support the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. I shall speak to new clauses 2 and 3 later, but I do not want the hon. Member to feel that that is because I do not support new clause 1. I absolutely do. I think it is entirely sensible, and if the Government had sense then they would listen to him and include the new clause in the Bill.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for tabling new clause 1, which would require the Secretary of State to lay draft proposals for a new executive agency, to be known as Skills England, before Parliament within six months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent.
Complexity and fragmentation within the skills systems are contributing to critical skill gaps in our economy. We need to urgently reform the delivery of skills and technical education without delay—I cannot stress that enough. After 14 years of inaction, we really need to get on with the job and build back the foundations. We plan to establish Skills England as an executive agency requiring a robust and rigorous process. That process applies across Government for all executive agencies. As with all new executive agencies, the approval of the creation of Skills England will be announced to Parliament in a written ministerial statement to both Houses. In line with other executive agencies, Skills England will be required to have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability, including to Parliament. Ministers, the principal accounting officer and the chief executive will all be accountable to Parliament, and could appear before Select Committees if invited.
The broader governance and accountability framework in which Skills England will operate will be set out in the framework document. All arm’s length bodies have such a core constitutional document, which must be approved by the Treasury. The framework document will detail how Skills England will regularly report on its functions and performance, including by publishing a corporate plan and annual report.
There is a high level of interest among Skills England’s stakeholders, such as the Association of Colleges, which has expressed strong support for the plans to establish Skills England, recognising the critical role it will play in the Government’s broader post-16 education and skills agenda. We have listened to and acted on the contributions of peers in the other place, which is why we have provided even greater transparency about what Skills England will do. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to report within six months of IfATE’s closure. The report will detail which functions are being exercised by Skills England and the impact on apprenticeships and technical education in England. The new clause is therefore not necessary.
We need to address the urgent skills challenges in our economy. There is already a robust approach to establishing and running an executive agency, and the Government have included in the Bill a legislative commitment to a report on Skills England’s functions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to reconsider.
Ian Sollom
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.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 20th March 2025
(2 days, 23 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesInstitute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL] 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 20 March 2025 - (20 Mar 2025)
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 3—Framework for Skills England—
“The Secretary of State must—
(a) ensure that in performing its functions, Skills England has regard to—
(i) the need to ensure that education and training is of an appropriate quality;
(ii) the need to ensure that education and training within the remit of Skills England represents good value in relation to financial resources provided out of public funds;
(b) ensure that Skills England performs its functions efficiently and effectively;
(c) give notice in writing to Skills England when setting out other matters to which it must have regard when performing its functions;
(d) publish, in such a manner as they think fit, any notice under paragraph (c), and lay a copy of it before both Houses of Parliament;
(e) require Skills England to prepare, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, an annual report which includes—
(i) a description of what Skills England has done during the year, including a description of what Skills England has done as a result of any notice given by the Secretary of State under paragraph (c);
(ii) such other provision as the Secretary of State may direct;
(f) lay a copy of the annual report under paragraph (e) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Neil O’Brien
Clearly, the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has had precisely the same thought that we have, and indeed as many other educators, peers and businesses have had, namely that we should make the Bill actually do what the Government try to pretend that it does: set up Skills England.
As I said in the last sitting, the Bill, as introduced, did not even mention Skills England, the reason for which is that it is part of the Department for Education—in fact, its chief executive officer is a pair of DFE civil servants. Ministers have made their case for this in-sourcing, as they think it will make things faster, and we have made our case for using independents, but so have lots of others. For example, as the Labour peer Baroness Blower pointed out,
“the appropriate move from where we are would be to a statutory body”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC90.]
That is the effect of new clause 2; the powers that would be transferred to the Secretary of State would instead be vested in Skills England. The Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out:
“The problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels like the second half is missing. The second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC87.]
That is effectively what new clause 3 would do.
In the previous sitting, I quoted from various industry bodies that are making the case for independence, including the Institute of the Motor Industry and the Construction Industry Training Board. Since then, further evidence has been submitted to the Committee by those on the education side. The University of Winchester, in its submission to the Committee, highlights “four core concerns”, one of which is about independence. It says:
“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. We believe that the integration within the Department for Education (DfE) is a significant risk, with the current regulatory body being completely independent of external leverage. The current IfATE structure includes a regulatory board which is independent from the DfE, ensuring that outside influence is minimised within the decision-making process. We are, therefore, recommending that Skills England is structured to ensure and protect their regulatory independence from Government and other agencies”.
That is the spirit of our new clauses.
The University of Winchester also worries that in IfATE, at present,
“employers and academics come together to ensure that the standard is industry relevant, current, and academically rigorous. Within the current proposed bill, we believe this breadth will be at risk given the transfer of power from IfATE to an individual in the Secretary of State for Education. This transfer has the potential to lead to situations where ministers can create and/or change standards and assessment plans without consultation with the relevant stakeholders, resulting in apprenticeships which are not fit for purpose or academically appropriate.”
It also notes:
“Currently, IfATE as a regulatory body highlights the importance of technical education, through both its name and its work. The proposed legislation will effectively remove the prominence of this important aspect of industry, undermining its activities and relegating it to the background.”
The university is completely right. Setting up an institute was a core part of the drive to create greater prestige and esteem for technical education, and our new clauses aim to restore that degree of independence from the Secretary of State.
New clause 3(c) and (e)(i) also try to highlight, via an annual report, how the Secretary of State is steering Skills England, and how the body is responding to that. I mentioned earlier the Skills Federation’s submission to the Committee, which brings together 18 employer-led skills bodies and 150,000 employers. Its submission notes:
“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…Too much centralisation leads to a lack of focus on sector needs.”
Surely that is right, which is why we propose a degree of decentralisation with these new clauses.
In a previous sitting, the Minister made the argument that the Secretary of State might need to write standards directly without external input from a group of people in fast-moving and technology sectors. We argued, in contrast, that those are precisely the kind of exciting sectors where industry input, rather than just ministerial enthusiasm, is most needed. That same argument was made to the Committee by the International Information System Security Certification Consortium—the international professional body for cybersecurity—which wrote:
“While ISC2 understands that Government is seeking to introduce flexibility and agility in the way apprenticeship standards are developed, we contend that without industry involvement in the development of standards, there is a risk that apprenticeships may not adequately reflect the evolving needs of certain sectors. This is especially true for cybersecurity where a changing threat landscape and dramatic shifts brought about by emerging technologies means that apprenticeship standards must stay relevant. It is essential that the voice of professionals and industry, as well as those directly involved in delivering educational provision, be heard whenever the Secretary of State exercises these new powers. Any decision to intervene and directly develop or approve apprenticeship standards or assessment plans should take into account the perspectives of those with hands-on expertise in the sector.”
That is surely right.
We have already voted on a very similar new clause to this—new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire—so we will not press this to a vote. But I want to log the concerns that are being raised by professionals and those in industry about the lack of independence, and I do hope—even though I suspect that the Government will not change their mind about bringing this into the Department—that they can at least find ways in its operating procedures and the way it evolves to try to create that sense of independence, and reassure all those who are worried about the idea of the Secretary of State taking the powers in this Bill to go it alone and write things without the input of those who are actually working in the sector.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I rise to speak in favour of the new clause in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister. He is right; of course, we have just voted on something quite similar, and that vote was lost by the classic 11 to four margin, with which we have become familiar. But that does not mean the Government cannot do this, and indeed there have been some signs and indications that they might make Skills England a fully independent body on a statutory footing. Most people talk about Skills England in their speeches, but that is not what the Bill, as introduced, does; it abolishes something without actually creating something else, and hands the powers to the Secretary of State, in whose gift it is to hand on.
There was also the question that came up last Thursday about Ofqual, and what the Bill does to that, which I do not think we were 100% clear about. I think the Minister was going to write, but I do not think I have seen that letter—that is not to say it has not come, or been sent, but I am wondering if when the Minister comes to speak, if she could confirm whether that letter has come.
There have always been two fundamental questions about the Bill and the creation of Skills England: the first is about independence, and the second is about who should set the expectations and standards for various occupations—should it be the employers in those organisations or somebody else? There is also a third point, which is relevant to independence, about the heft of this body, putting skills right at the heart of cross-departmental work, and what statutory independence would do to the status of this body.
Particularly in education and training, one of the reasons that we have independent bodies is so that everybody knows that the standards are robust, they cannot be subject to political pressure, and there cannot be a temptation to make it a bit easier to get over a hurdle to make the numbers look better. We have had that system of independence for a very long time, and do to this day, and still will in the future for academic qualifications. As I said the other day, I think independence of this body is important to underpinning parity of esteem. IfATE is legally established as a non-departmental public body, whereas Skills England will be, as things stand, an executive agency. As a non-departmental public body, IfATE does therefore have some independence from the Department for Education because its functions and responsibilities are set out in legislation approved by this Parliament, whereas Skills England, as things stand, will simply be an integral part or unit within DFE.
When Skills England was first talked about in the King’s Speech, it seemed that it would be established as an independent body. As well as my question on Ofqual, the first of my other questions to the Minister is, what has changed? If that was the intent—perhaps we have all just misread the text—what is different now, that it should not be? Finally, if it is right for the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council to be put on a statutory footing, why is it not for Skills England?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)
New clause 2 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to establish Skills England as a statutory body with a separate legal identity. It would transfer the functions the Secretary of State takes on under the Bill to a new body within 12 months.
The new clause would undo significant progress already made by the Government to establish Skills England. It has been operating in shadow form since July of last year. It is ready to take on the functions conferred by the Bill. I reassure Members that we considered different options for the model of arm’s length body for Skills England. It being an executive agency allows us to move fast, much faster than the previous Government did for 14 years. Skills England can take immediate action to plug the skills gaps that this Government have inherited, and we are focused on economic growth. An executive agency balances the independent Skills England’s need to deliver its functions at arm’s length from the Department with being close enough to inform decisions on skills, policy and delivery. That is good practice for all new arm’s length bodies.
The Department for Education will undertake a review of Skills England. The review will take place about 18 to 24 months after it is fully established, and that will align with the requirements of any future Cabinet Office review programme. It will consider how far Skills England is delivering its functions in the way intended; whether its mix of functions is still aligned to Government priorities; and whether there are alternative ways to deliver the Government’s objectives, including a different model of arm’s length body.
Delay, however, is not an option. We need to respond urgently to critical issues in the skills system to drive growth and spread opportunity. To encourage this Committee, in the first set of apprenticeship statistics under the new Labour Government, we saw an increase in starts, participation and achievements compared with the same period under the Tories in 2023. We remain an ambitious Labour Government. We do not dither or delay, and we urgently need reform to deliver the skills and technical education that is needed. That is what the Bill and Skills England will enable us to do.
New clause 3 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report setting out Skills England’s activities in the preceding year. It would also require Skills England to have regard to matters such as the quality of training and education, and value for money when performing its duties.
Well-established requirements are already placed on executive agencies for a high level of transparency and accountability in how they operate. That includes the publication of a framework document which, as I have mentioned, is a core constitutional document. It will be agreed between the Department for Education and Skills England in accordance with HM Treasury’s handbook “Managing public money”. Once finalised, it will be published online and a copy deposited in both Houses.
The Secretary of State, and Skills England acting on their behalf, is already obliged under general public law to take into account all relevant matters when exercising their functions. Those relevant matters are likely to include the ones in new clause 3. While the Bill was scrutinised in the other place, as I have said, my right hon. Friend the Baroness Smith of Malvern, shared a draft copy of the Skills England framework document with peers. She committed to include references to the need for Skills England to deliver its functions efficiently and effectively, and to ensure that training is high quality and provides good value for money.
In response to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire on Ofqual, the letter concerning Ofqual has been sent to the Chair of the Committee, and also addresses other issues raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston last Thursday.
I am happy to repeat the commitments that I have already mentioned, but finally, I would like to say there is precedent for non-departmental public bodies being closed and their functions being reassigned to newly formed executive bodies. For example, under the previous Government in 2011, the Standards and Testing Agency was established as an executive agency taking on functions from the Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency, a non-departmental public body, which was later closed.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Report on the impact on T levels
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on T-Levels.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the involvement of Skills England in the administration of T Levels, including the curriculum and assessment methods;
(b) an assessment of the independence of the accreditation of T-Levels, specifically whether there has been any involvement of the Secretary of State in this process; and
(c) an assessment of the extent to which T-Levels are meeting local demand for skills.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”—(Neil O’Brien.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Report on the impact on Higher Education—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on the higher education sector in England.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
Neil O’Brien
New clause 4 would require a report on the impact of the Bill on T-levels. We talked before about the measure in clause 8 to bring Ofqual into the regulation of technical qualifications, and the implication that that is focused on T-levels. I was going to say this anyway, but let me pause for a moment on that point about clause 8 and Ofqual—I have not seen from the Clerks to this Committee the letter that the Minister just referred to. I do not know whether you are about to guide us, Ms Furniss, about whether that letter has been made available to Committee members, but I may simply have missed it.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister said that the letter has been sent to the Chair, but the Chair says that she has not seen it.
Janet Daby
The letter addressing the issues that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire have raised has been sent to Sir Christopher, your co-Chair, Ms Furniss, and I am sure it will be shared in due course.
Neil O’Brien
It is a shame, as this is the last day of this Bill Committee. I do not know whether the letter could be produced before we finish today, but otherwise, those questions will effectively go unanswered because they have not made their way to Committee members. But this was a minor point about the interaction with clause 8 and the decision to bring Ofqual in potentially for T-levels, so I will turn squarely to T-levels now.
I was encouraged by the positive words about T-levels in the curriculum review, but it is very difficult to get a new qualification going, never mind a whole new system, which is what T-levels were intended to be in their initiation by Lord Sainsbury. After the big long debate on BTecs, Ministers in the end decided to add T-levels into the existing alphabet soup of qualifications rather than use them to replace and rationalise that system, which was the original goal of Lord Sainsbury’s project. I should declare an interest in so far as I worked on T-levels back when they were still known as Sainsbury routes. None the less it would still, despite the Ministers’ decision, be possible for them to grow and become a leading part of the system, but that would require a huge push from Ministers. It is difficult to get a new qualification going, never mind a whole new system, and it is much more likely that in the absence of a big push from Ministers that they will stagnate as an interesting, well-regarded and quality niche, but ultimately a small part of the system, which was really not what was intended.
For several years, the DFE has provided a 10% uplift to the funding rates for T-levels as a new qualification, but a couple of weeks ago the Government implied that they would stop doing that this year. They have not made a decision, and providers are now desperate for certainty on that issue. I ask the Minister directly to respond to this: will the 10% uplift be continued or not after this academic year? The sector is now making decisions about this, and urgently needs certainty. The Minister keeps saying that she wants to move fast: the providers, and I am asking her to move fast to give them the certainty on what the funding rate will be, and whether the 10% will continue, because if not, my strong sense is that many providers will conclude that it is not really a priority any more, and not worth the investment of time and resources, which are significant to get these things going. I hope the Minister can address that point, and I give her a bit of notice: will the 10% continue or not—yes or no?
The Government are notionally in a one-year “pause” on the move to replace BTecs, which should give the Government time at least to make up their mind on how they see the future of T-levels. If they want to preserve the option to be ambitious for T-levels, however, they need to keep supporting them now. Those of us who worked on their development and who still support them are not blind to the challenges. Although drop-out rates fell sharply in the last year, they are still high. Even though T-levels are meant to be a demanding qualification, we want young people to get to the end of them.
Although the huge element of work experience is a key advantage and attraction of T-levels to learners, it is expensive and hard to deliver, particularly in a way that is slick and gives clarity to students up front, rather than gives stress. I do not say this every day, but Gordon Brown was right to press the Government to be more ambitious here—
Neil O’Brien
We do not always cheer Gordon Brown on the Conservative Benches, but on that occasion he was absolutely right. Lord Sainsbury, too, is right to want to be ambitious. A huge amount of thought went into T-levels over a long period and on a cross-party basis. They have great potential to rationalise the system and to do what politicians have said for decades they want to do, which is to create a prestigious and clear alternative to the academic A-level route. At the moment, however, T-levels are still a fledgling qualification. They have great potential, but they are in need of a lot of care and attention.
My worry is that, amid all the commotion and disruption caused by the transfer of IfATE staff into the Department, that attention will be lost at the critical moment in the development of T-levels. The looming withdrawal of the 10% compounds my worries that attention will be lost at this critical moment. Our new clause therefore aims to ensure that the spotlight stays on T-levels, so that they do not get lost in all the reorganisation, that we preserve at least the option for them to become a widespread and leading qualification on the technical side, and that we achieve Lord Sainsbury’s vision of a more prestigious and higher-funded set of qualifications, more intelligible to employers, and with simpler routes and much more work experience. There is so much potential in T-levels that it would be a tragedy if they got lost in this reorganisation. That is why we are moving the new clause: to ensure that we continue to closely monitor everything going on with them.
New clause 5 concerns higher education. The Government talk about Skills England bringing everything together, but as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire has pointed out, we can never quite do that—there are always other bodies and overlaps. In this case, for starters, we will have two continuing levy training bodies, the Construction Industry Training Board, or CITB, and the Engineering Industry Training Board, or EITB, as well as the many other bodies that my right hon. Friend mentioned—I am thinking about those involved in skills and supply, which includes the Migration Advisory Committee, as well as the workforce strategies of other Departments, such as the NHS long-term workforce plan, which spans technical education, higher education and apprenticeships.
The other big case in point, of course, is the overlap between the work of IfATE and the future Skills England, and the regulators of higher education. In our previous sitting, we talked about the welcome growth of higher apprenticeships and the Government’s imminent plans to axe them, which we are concerned about, particularly after so much work has gone into them. That is why new clause 5 would require a report on the impact of the Bill on higher education.
The Bill is about apprenticeships and technical education rather than higher education, but the two have become increasingly overlapping. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went up from a little over 3,000 in 2010 to 273,000 last year—a huge increase. For some universities, providing degree apprenticeships has become a very important part of their work.
I will not recapitulate the things I talked about in the previous sitting, but level 7 apprenticeships are a powerful tool to enable people to earn while they learn, and to allow employers the freedom to shape higher education to their needs. Employers are choosing—with their own money—to invest in level 7 skills. It would be false to assume that a reduction in funding here would lead to an increase in the lower levels. Contrary to the claims that are sometimes made, level 7 apprenticeships do not cater primarily to major corporations. Less than 10% of level 7 apprentices are in FTSE 350 companies. Level 7 apprenticeships in health and care are a hugely important part of the NHS workforce pipeline. In a previous sitting, I talked about how axing those apprenticeships would blow a hole in the NHS plan over the long term, equivalent to 11,000 senior nursing posts, but that would start right now, as there were 2,040 level 7 apprenticeships starts in health, public services and care in 2023-24.
The creation of the apprenticeship levy had two purposes: to stop employers that do the right thing and invest in their people from being exploited by employers that do not, and instead just wait to poach their staff once they are trained; and to make sure that employers drove and owned the system. Now that they do drive and own the system, we see that their revealed preference is to spend their money on higher and degree apprenticeships.
The growth has been spectacular. Between 2018-19 and 2023-24, higher and degree apprenticeship starts grew by 63%, while the growth in level 7 apprenticeship starts was even higher, at 105%. That growth was even faster in some critical sectors. Level 7 apprenticeships in health, public services and care grew 716%. Significant extensions occurred in construction, planning and environment, where they went up by more than 700%, and in digital technology, where they went up nearly 600%. Both are key skills areas for our economy and both are supposed to be key parts of the Government’s industrial strategy.
The Bill changes the balance between the voices of employers and the voices of Ministers. Degree and level 7 apprenticeships are a good example of how ministerial priorities can be very different from employer priorities. I will not repeat the criticisms from lots of employers that I read out in a previous sitting—I quoted the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the Chartered Management Institute, several solicitors’ firms and those providing higher apprenticeships into local government and the NHS. In this sitting, I want to look at the other side of the ledger and consider the impact on universities, which is the purpose of new clause 5.
I have said before that we would never accept the lack of independence for the academic side that the Bill proposes for technical education. We would not have Ministers setting the curriculums, specifications and exams for GCSEs and then taking on the role of Ofqual and marking their own homework. We would not allow the same for higher education either, in general, but there is a growing overlap between IfATE, which is to be centralised into the DFE, and higher education, which has all kinds of implications.
The context for higher education is a challenging one. The Government have increased fees, but wiped out the gains from that by increasing national insurance, meaning a real-terms cut in resources for universities this year. With widespread industrial action in the sector looming, the Government have also chosen this moment to dramatically lower the threshold for strike action with the Employment Rights Bill. To now axe level 7 apprenticeships, and potentially also level 6, would be very destabilising for universities and could whack institutions that have tried to do the right thing for their community and for those who do not traditionally go to university.
Sixty-six universities now deliver level 7 apprenticeship standards, and some have got really into it. Prestigious institutions such as Cranfield, a postgrad-only institution with deep industry links, will be hugely exposed if the Government wield the axe in the way they are planning—I suspect that level 7 accounts for a very large part of Cranfield’s UK students. Likewise, York St John University has something in the order of 100 level 7 apprenticeships. Other institutions that are heavily involved include the Open University, Manchester Metropolitan and the University of West London. Given the challenging context for higher education, which is partly a result of Ministers’ own decisions, axing these apprenticeships, which have become quite a big part of their work, could be very damaging.
Given that their action on fees, national insurance and strike action has been a connoisseur-level example of un-joined-up Government, I am not reassured that Ministers have thought through the implications of axing level 7 for higher education.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
It is my understanding that the Bill, as unamended, does not preclude the continuation of level 6 and 7 degree apprenticeships. I speak as somebody who worked in the higher education sector before coming here and sees the value of them. It is my understanding that nothing in the Bill rules them out at this point.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Lady is completely correct; this is not the Bill that abolishes level 7 apprenticeships. However, according to Ministers, the Government are planning to abolish those apprenticeships, which I think is a shame. I think I detected a note of regret in the hon. Lady’s intervention, which I certainly share.
New clause 5 would require a report on the impact of the Bill and the actions of Ministers, through their centralisation of power, on higher education, given that there is now this overlap. Someone might think, “They’re looking at a Bill on technical education and apprenticeships. What’s that got to do with universities?” The truth is that it has quite a lot to do with universities, for the reasons that I have just set out. I worry that the Bill’s implications have not been well thought through.
Can the Minister assure us that she has thought this through? For example, can she tell us how much income universities would lose if the level 7 levy funding really is axed, as Ministers plan to do? How much would universities lose if level 6 levy funding is also axed, an option that Ministers are keeping open? I would love answers from the Minister on those questions today. If she does not feel able to give them, I would be very happy for her to write to me. We have tabled new clause 5 to ensure transparency, so that it is at the back of Minister’s minds that, as they take greater control of everything to do with technical education and apprenticeships, they are not just thinking about those things in their own right, although they are very important.
Damian Hinds
In encouraging the Minister to write to him about the effect of the level 6 and level 7 restrictions, will my hon. Friend also ask her to comment on the potential effect of those restrictions on schools—the sector for which the DFE is responsible—and in particular on the postgraduate teaching apprenticeship?
Neil O’Brien
My right hon. Friend is completely correct. He will remember from the last sitting that I tried to lay out the incredibly damaging direct effect on our public services that the decision to axe level 7 apprenticeships would have. The most notable effect is on the NHS, where the doctor apprenticeship has already been axed—that is tragic and has left various people who were on it stranded. It will have a particular effect on advanced nursing, which is a critical part of the NHS long-term workforce plan, as well as management throughout the public services, including local government and the town planning skills that the Government claim are desperately needed.
Exactly as my right hon. Friend said, the implications are severe right across the public services, including teaching, where the DFE is the biggest user of this apprenticeship and the biggest beneficiary in the end, which is a terrible irony. That is why we bring have tabled new clause 5, so that we at least have transparency about the effects of Ministers’ actions, and we have it in the back of Ministers’ minds that they will have to explain their decisions, including not just their direct effect on technical education and apprenticeship funding, but their effects on the wider education system.
The Chair
We have located the missing letter, which Members should all now have on their desks. I will suspend the sitting for five minutes while we try to digest it. If the shadow Minister, or anyone else, wants to come back in with something, they are free to do so.
The Chair
I am told by the Clerks that this is an unusual situation. I have to say at the moment that the letter refers to clauses that have previously been debated, so I will not be allowing a debate about it. That is for your information, which you could use on Report, if you chose, to raise the matter again. I do not want you not to have the opportunity to probe further. I call the Minister to respond.
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston for tabling new clauses 4 and 5 and his discussion of them. New clause 4 would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish a report within one year of Royal Assent, setting out the impact of the Act on T-levels. Specifically, the report would have to include information on the administration and accreditation of T-levels, and whether T-levels were meeting local demand in schools.
T-levels are indeed an excellent technical qualification for students after GCSEs; I concur with the hon. Member on that. On his question about whether the 10% uplift will be continued after this academic year, we will confirm that position in due course, and I will write to him on that point.
Thousands of T-level students have already gone on to jobs, apprenticeships and further study related to the subjects of their T-levels, and we continue to support the qualification’s growth and uptake. Indeed, three new T-levels were launched in September 2024. A new T-level in marketing will be available from September, and we will continue to support providers to deliver and upscale their T-level offers. T-levels are designed by employers based on occupational standards, and Skills England will continue the work that IfATE has been doing to set and maintain the high-quality occupational standards on which T-levels are built. Curriculum content and assessment methods are set by awarding organisations in line with these standards.
The Bill already contains a duty for the Secretary to State to publish a report setting out which of the functions being transferred are to be undertaken by Skills England and the impact on technical education and apprenticeships. The report will provide information on T-levels, given that they are an important form of technical education qualification. Ofqual is an independent regulator for technical qualifications, and is the only body with the power to accredit the qualifications. Through the Bill, we are reintroducing the potential for Ofqual to apply its accreditation power to technical qualifications, when the Secretary of State considers it to be appropriate. That will reopen the door so that the full range of regulatory options is available for technical education qualifications. That will help to ensure their quality and enhance confidence in them.
Damian Hinds
Fortuitously, Ms Furniss, we do now have an opportunity to ask about something in the letter, which the Minister is going through now. I am struggling a bit with this thing about, “If the Secretary of State deems it appropriate.” That is not because I question that judgment, but because I do not really understand what the intent is. What does the Minister believe will be the practical change that comes about as a result? For example, is it about more new qualifications coming in? Is it changing the balance between T-levels and other TVET qualifications?
Janet Daby
My understanding is that there needs to be the option for Ofqual to decide whether to inspect certain technical qualifications and whether they should be accredited. That option needs to be available. At present, it has not been happening since 2002. We continue to support the growth and uptake of T-levels, in line with identifying skill needs in the economy. Skills England will gather and publish information about local skill needs. Skills England will also assess how far available provision, including T-levels, is meeting those needs.
I turn to new clause 5, which would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to publish, within one year of Royal Assent, a report on the impact of the Act on the higher education sector in England. Higher education providers play an essential role in meeting the nation’s skill needs and supporting the growth mission. Many of the jobs and sectors that drive economic growth rely on the skills delivered by higher education providers. It is therefore vital that Skills England works closely with and supports the higher education sector as it delivers each of its three key functions. Higher education providers have a deep understanding of local skill needs and growth opportunities. That provides a rich resource for Skills England to draw on, and it builds its authoritative assessment of skills needs in the economy.
Neil O’Brien
I am hugely encouraged by the Minister’s recognition of the importance of these higher degree-level apprenticeships to the higher education sector. Will she undertake to write to me setting out what the impact on universities of ending level 7 apprenticeships would be? I mean primarily the financial impact, but also the impact on numbers of students. The information available in the public domain is somewhat patchy, so it would be incredibly helpful to have that at either the point the Government make a decision on level 7 apprenticeships or—even better—before. Will she write to me, so that we are at least on the same page about what the impact on universities of changes to level 7 would be?
Janet Daby
I think the shadow Minister is well aware, having asked similar questions many times, that more information will be coming out from the Government.
Staying on level 7 apprenticeships, we are reforming apprenticeships, tilting the system towards young people in most need of developing skills and getting a foot on the career ladder. We are cutting through the red tape by removing the 12-month requirement, to support shorter-duration apprenticeships in key sectors. That flexibility will support apprentices in areas such as the creative industries, where training does not need to take 12 months and is currently putting barriers in the way of getting apprentices into key jobs. The Prime Minister also announced the development of new foundation apprenticeships, which will align to entry-level roles in key sectors and help to bridge the gap between employees, skills, staffing shortages and young people ready to begin their careers.
Neil O’Brien
I was a bit disappointed that the Minister would not undertake to write or set out the financial impact on universities of ending level 7 apprenticeships. When I speak to people in higher education, they are extremely worried about that. For some institutions, it will be a damaging blow.
Numerous people, including those I have already quoted, have pointed out that although the Government hope that all this money will flow straight from level 7 to level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, that is very unlikely to happen; it is more likely that it will flow to level 6. It is clear from the Minister’s comments that they are keeping that in crosshairs too, and that they might axe it at some point. That would compound the damage in higher education and our skills system more broadly. I was disappointed that the Government do not want to set out that detail, but I am not surprised.
I was also disappointed that the Minister could not give us any clarity on the 10% uplift for T-levels. People in the sector who are delivering these great qualifications—the Government agree that they are great qualifications—are crying out for clarity. They are making decisions right now. The Government keep talking about how they want to move fast—“We are very dynamic and ambitious”—yet on the things on which the sector wants them to move fast, they are not moving at the pace that people on the frontline would like. That is a great shame.
Likewise, we see with the funding decisions on national insurance that technical education is once again being treated as a bit second class. Schools get a funding decision at least slightly before the start of the financial year—during which the national insurance increase will hit them—whereas those in technical education will have to wait a long way into the academic year, when they will already be paying out significant sums in increased national insurance, to find out whether there will be compensation and how much will be covered. As schools are discovering, that is often a bitter experience, because they find that they have been short-changed by the Treasury.
We will not press the new clause to a vote. We have had a good debate in Committee, and we have set out our concerns, which are pretty serious. I hope that, even if the Government do not change their mind today, we will at least have given Ministers cause to think about how Skills England will operate. If they do not listen to us, I hope that they will at least listen to some of the criticisms, which we have been reading out, from stakeholders in industry and education about the decisions that they are about to make. I hope that they will act on those concerns. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.