Technical and Further Education Bill (Fifth sitting)
David Evennett ExcerptsTuesday 29th November 2016
(8 years ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 View all Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 29 November 2016 - (29 Nov 2016)
Gordon Marsden
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I express our thanks for the latitude given with regard to the amendments tabled on Friday, which is very welcome.
The commonality in these amendments is that they are designed to ensure that those who are involved in setting the standards for routes in technical and further education have relevant experience and that, where possible, students are included in the process. Amendment 13 would require the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to publish information about its reasons for convening or choosing not to convene a group of persons to prepare a standard for an occupation.
The skills plan consistently talks about the institute being employer-led, with college-based learning being decided by employer groups. That is precisely why further education colleges, other training providers and learners are an essential component of the roll-out and delivery of standards and assessments. I cannot emphasise enough how essential it is for the groups formed to set standards for the routes in technical and further education to have wide-ranging representation, including all key components of apprenticeship creation and delivery. The Minister will no doubt have heard several times—if he has not, I am sure he will in future—the term “co-creation” or “co-production”, which has come from many of the people in those groups.
Our vision for apprenticeships, which I hope the Government share, requires input from further education providers and colleges, and especially universities, given the crucial role of higher skills and degree apprenticeships. I will not labour the point that I made previously about how important it is, particularly in the context of higher skills and degree apprenticeships, that there is good read-across and co-operation between the office for students and the new institute, as well as the relevant trade unions, which have key experience, to ensure a broad outlook on new frameworks and accreditations. We believe that including apprentices and learners in that process is vital.
A representative of the National Society of Apprentices, which Members will know is associated with the National Union of Students, was scheduled to give evidence to the Committee last Tuesday, but unfortunately she was unable to attend because of illness. However, the National Society of Apprentices has said:
“At the moment, apprentices have no real opportunities to improve their education. Although most students going through the ‘traditional’ education system at college or university are able to give feedback through their class representative system, similar structures do not exist for apprentices.”
There is also the Industry Apprentice Council—I referred to it in a previous sitting—which is strongly supported by EAL and the Science, Engineering, Manufacturing and Technologies Alliance. Of course, there are other groups, such as the valuable group that Lindsay McCurdy and her colleagues convene, particularly around Apprenticeship Week, which involves a large number of different sorts of apprentices. Apprentices should be able to influence the way in which their training is developed and carried out. After all, they know from the frontline what has been helpful and successful for them and what has not. I hope that the Minister, who has been very passionate in his support of both apprenticeships and apprentices, appreciates that point.
It is also quite unclear what role there will be in the institute for workforce representatives and trade unions. I think it is appropriate to talk about that on a day when the Government, and particularly the Prime Minister, have again signalled their strong interest in making sure that, in some shape or form—the details will obviously have to be hammered out—there should be more workforce representatives involved in companies.
The TUC has said that it is crucial that
“Trade unions must be given a central role in setting and monitoring quality standards”
for technical education. After all, that is common practice in leading European economies with high-quality skill systems in place. Those systems are largely based on a social partnership model, which involves employers and unions agreeing standards and best practice at both national and sectoral level. Social partnerships have been key to the success of high-quality vocational routes in other countries, so I suggest that we would do well to take that lesson into account for our reforms of technical education. With particular regard to amendment 12, we might make a start in considering the composition of the groups formed to set standards for the routes. That is why I think it is important to give some form of direction to the new institute and its board of directors on that matter.
All the issues involved in getting the right sort of broad-based input are extremely important, because we have to get the routes right. We welcome the detailed and thoughtful proposals of the Sainsbury group. The Government are now, after some dithering, taking a new approach to the wilderness that has so far characterised aspects of skills policy, particularly in the technical and vocational areas. However, the devil is in the detail, and a number of stakeholders believe that the skills plan is not without fault. I mentioned in a previous sitting that the Opposition share the concerns of groups such as the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, and various others that we have quoted, about the potentially limited scope of the routes. I also spoke about the crucial role of the service sector, which will potentially provide huge numbers of apprentices with jobs and make sure that they are not left out of the process.
The Sainsbury review was clear that only jobs with technical aspects will be included within the 15 routes. I do not know whether the Minister was present at the recent Association of Colleges conference, as I was—I was not actually there when Lord Sainsbury spoke, but I read his remarks. I think there was some concern that he was—dismissive is perhaps the wrong word—too light on the importance of a significant number of jobs that are non-technical occupations, which currently lie outside the scope of these routes. I want to make it clear that we are not criticising the initial number of 15, and we are not necessarily arguing for the creation of lots more routes, but we are saying that, as this process develops, it is important that the Government generally, and the new institute in particular, pay attention to those jobs and to that training. We have to consider carefully the impact of workforce development in those sectors.
That brings me to amendment 13, which would
“require the Institute to publish information about its reasons for convening, or choosing not to convene, a group of persons to prepare a standard”.
The amendment’s underlying principle is transparency, because it is important to be able to monitor who is preparing the standards, in order to ensure that those standards will meet all of the requirements. However, it is also important as a signal of confidence to the broad range of stakeholders, who will not necessarily be directly involved in preparing the standards. The setting up of the new institute will be a busy period. With so many organisations involved in the process, transparency is crucial to provide students with the best available standards and to keep the rest of the stakeholders well informed.
I must again raise the vexed issue of capacity: the capacity of employers to put what they need to into the process, but also the capacity of the institute for oversight of quality assessment. We will move on to that when considering another aspect of the Bill. I just observe for the moment that the phraseology used in the guidance to the Green Paper is that there will be other options available, including Ofqual, professional bodies and others, and that some or all of those bodies may charge for doing it—or presumably not charge.
With those variables and parameters, there is inevitably some doubt about capacity, elasticity and the unpredictability of delivery from the new institute, certainly in the first couple of years, because other providers and options might have been taken up in the process of preparing standards. That inevitably raises concerns about whether the numbers for the new institute, as provisionally set out by Peter Lauener and confirmed by the Minister, will be adequate or what process there will be for boosting them if this somewhat variable geometry about who might take up the institute, as opposed to Ofqual and others, comes to pass.
Those are important issues and, again, a number of different agencies have commented on them. I draw the Minister’s attention to the written evidence submitted by the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which states:
“Through its proposed funding mechanisms, the Government is encouraging employers and providers to move from Apprenticeship frameworks to standards by reducing the prices payable for frameworks, even though many standards are not yet in place. This makes it very difficult for providers to judge and therefore plan whether future provision will be viable. As has been reported in the sector press, apprentices have also started on Apprenticeships under a new standard without an EPA being in place, which means they have no means to complete it.”
That is the AELP’s view. I am not necessarily saying that I share it; I am just saying that this is one of the issues out there. It continues:
“The situation is exacerbated by the Government’s insistence that employers can negotiate with providers on the price of training and assessment.”
I would not necessarily agree with the AELP on that point—not in every detail—but the essence of what it says is this:
“Reform proposals may not currently be giving sufficient weight to the input of stakeholders and the concerns of and about learners, which must be rectified by the inclusion of stakeholder representatives on the Board of the Institute. We are therefore supportive in principle of the amendments to Schedule 1 of the Bill which have been tabled jointly by Gordon Marsden MP and Mike Kane MP.”
The AELP makes the strong point that the number of standards being developed, and the investment in time and resource required to develop them, could be leading to
“‘employer fatigue’ and a drop in employer engagement.”
We have also had written evidence from the Centre for Vocational Education Research. I know that the Government Whip is deeply interested in the bona fides of people who submit evidence to Committees.
Gordon Marsden
We had a lively exchange on the issue when the Higher Education and Research Bill was in Committee. For the sake of the Whip, and indeed the whole Committee, let me explain that this evidence was prepared by the Centre for Vocational Education Research, whose people are stuffed full of qualifications from the London School of Economics. Even better—we cannot get much better than this—the Centre for Vocational Education Research is funded by the Department for Education and was launched in 2015. It states in its written evidence:
“An employer-led body as proposed by the Bill, in particular in the more competitive labour market of the UK, which does not engage with all relevant stakeholders, will not be able to achieve similar outcomes”
as they do in
“coordinated market economies…in Scandinavian and Western European countries”.
It states that the institute needs to
“bring together all relevant actors beyond the Department for Education and employers.”
It references unions,
“because of their role in life-long learning in the workplace”.
It also states:
“Associations of colleges and learning providers need a clear role in the Institute, and student associations and associations concerned with the interests of particular groups”—
I will not dwell on this now, Ms Dorries, because this will come up with one of our later amendments—
“also need to be involved from the start.”
It suggests that:
“Careers advice and…employment services…essential to balance short and long-term supply and demand in the labour market, need to be similarly engaged.”
That is the view of the Centre for Vocational Education Research, which touches on the three amendments.
I again underline a point made in the evidence submitted by the TUC, which specifically referred to the important role of the union learning fund. This year is the 10th anniversary of the official establishment of the union learning fund. The TUC commissioned an evaluation by academics at Leeds University Business School and the University of Exeter, based on surveys of employees engaged in training through the ULF and their employers. I will refer to two or three of the key findings. Over two thirds of learners with no previous qualification attained their first qualification as a result of engaging in union-led training. Four in five employees said that they had developed skills that they could transfer to a new job. And two in three said that those made them more effective in their current job.
Equally importantly, half of the employers said that
“their staff were more committed as a result of unions facilitating training and development opportunities.”
Separate analysis showed:
“Union-led training delivers an estimated net contribution to the economy of more than £1.4 billion as a result of a boost to jobs, wages and productivity.”
Those are also cogent points for broadening representation.
Finally, amendment 28 asked for the institute to show
“due regard for broad representation and diversity amongst the group of persons preparing each standard, including—
(a) gender and
(b) the representation of both large and small employers.”
For both your information, Ms Dorries, and the information of the Minister, this is a probing amendment, so we did not intend to include a list of all the potential groups that might be included; that would not have been appropriate at this stage. The reasons why we have highlighted those two are fairly obvious, I hope. First, the gender issue has already bulked large in our conversations in Committee. Secondly, because of the key role of large and, in particular, small employers—the Minister will know about the discussions on the delivery of the apprenticeship levy—it is crucial that those groups are involved.
The Minister sang the praises of the Apprenticeship Delivery Board the other day. It may be a fine body, but it was actually made up of members drawn from a relatively narrow section of business and, incidentally, had only one woman among its number. There was no role for others, such as further education providers, universities, trade unions and local authorities. There has been some progress with the number of women on the ADB—it has increased to three—but it is important that those lessons are taken on to a broad representation and diversity being found among the group of persons preparing each standard.
Robert Halfon
I will provide one, but I am always against very formulaic structures; things need to be flexible. The fact is that we give the opportunity for the apprentice to feed back at every step of the way, and the agreement has to be signed by the employer and the apprentice when the latter starts.
On the representation of small businesses, the hon. Gentleman will know that the trailblazer groups—there are roughly 10 employer organisations altogether—have to have a minimum of two businesses with fewer than 50 employers. We envisage that the employer panels will be the same. I am happy to reflect on that being included in the remit letter for the institute. We are also investing taxpayers’ money in huge incentives to encourage small businesses to hire apprentices and to encourage providers to take people on. We are doing everything possible to use taxpayer investment to ensure that small businesses hire apprentices and that providers do provide.
I would like as much as possible to be done by FE colleges, and I would be delighted if they took on more apprenticeship training. That is happening slowly, but I think they would be very willing. I have seen it happening in my own constituency of Harlow: whenever there is an issue to do with a company wanting an apprentice, Harlow College will be there, ready to advise the employer on what should be done and to offer training if it is required.
On the wider issue of the technical routes, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I shall set out the context of the problems we face. I have been quite open in admitting that we have a huge skills deficit in this country. The OECD said in 2012 that 20% of young people lacked basic skills. By 2020, the UK is set to be 28th out of 33 OECD countries for intermediate and technical skills. We are way behind.
The whole purpose of the reforms and the legislation—this is why Lord Sainsbury has supported them—is to ensure that we have state-of-the-art technical education for young people that transforms our skills deficit. People who do not want to do one of those 15 state-of-the-art routes, for technical and professional education, will have different options through other applied general qualifications and the academic route. The reforms focus on occupations that require the acquisition of a substantial body of technical knowledge and a set of practical skills that are valued by industry and that address employers’ needs and our huge skills deficit. I am glad that the hon. Member for Blackpool South quoted the Centre for Vocational Education Research, which my Whip guarantees is a blue-chip organisation.
Robert Halfon
Indeed. The centre says:
“We welcome the Report…led by Lord Sainsbury…the subsequent Post-16 Skills Plan”—
by the Government—
“and the measures contained in this Bill. The recommendations are consistent with our findings”.
It continues, and this is the whole point of the argument:
“Part of the problem is undoubtedly the confusing array of options, with uncertain pathways, that are on offer for young people after age 16. There must be a system that students, teachers, parents and employers…understand. Otherwise it is difficult for young people to be matched up with courses that are suitable for them and for employers to understand what qualifications actually mean.”
Higher Education and Research Bill
David Evennett ExcerptsTuesday 19th July 2016
(8 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Higher Education and Research Act 2017 View all Higher Education and Research Act 2017 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Marsden
Lord Mandelson and I are at one on that; I welcome a range of universities, but I want to make sure—I am sure most Members would agree—that they do what they say on the tin and can be trusted in the first place. That is the whole point of what we are saying. [Interruption.] I know, from a previous incarnation, that the Whips are trained to say things like that, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.
Mr Marsden
I will indeed wait and see.
The Government should take into consideration proposals in the new report that has been prepared for the all-party parliamentary group for adult education, “Too important to be left to chance”. They should study the Fabian Society’s new proposals: it recommends gradually doing away with loans via national insurance and education learning accounts. The Open University, City and Guilds, the TUC, the Institute For Public Policy Research, Unionlearn and several other organisations have produced ideas to facilitate both credit transfer and personal careers accounts, and I have added my own thoughts. They build on the magisterial 2009 NIACE report “Learning Through Life”, co-authored by Tom Schuller and the late lamented Professor David Watson.
Knowledge is power, as shop stewards and industrial injury lawyers know only too well. Today we have an opportunity, but also a duty, to extend that power through learning to millions of workers across Britain. Lifelong learning should not be “siloed”. It contributes to social cohesion, so it is an issue for the Department for Communities and Local Government; it helps people to live longer, so it is an issue for the Department of Health; it helps to return offenders to society, so it is an issue for the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice; and it contributes to preparing economically inactive people to enter the world of work, if that is appropriate. I have laboured those points because I realise that, given the smaller budgets that the Education Ministers may have, they may have to go to some of the other Departments with the begging bowl if we are to see any progress in this regard.
Knowledge is not merely power, but the key to empowerment. We should be bold in the world of lifelong learning that we offer our citizens for 2020: we should offer practical skills along with pure knowledge. Instead, however, the Government have been content to make welcome but incremental changes, while the capacity of adult learning is unravelling further. As was pointed out earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), the Bill contains little reference to the part that devo-max can play in expanding new providers, or to the productivity and job needs of the 21st century. That fear is echoed in the alternative White Paper, which states:
“'A private, for-profit university would have neither an interest in meeting a broader public remit nor the interests of the local economy in which it is located—its primary responsibility will be to its owners, investors and shareholders.”
Instead of looking at urgently needed and constructive ways of reducing the financial fees burden on our students, the Government have produced mechanisms which dodge Parliament’s ability to judge and regulate them. Instead of strengthening and shoring up our universities and higher and further education at a most critical time, they risk seriously undermining them by obsessively pursuing a market ideology. Instead of presenting analysis in the wake of Brexit, offering relief, assurances and strategies to safeguard both research excellence in our traditional and modern universities and the involvement of higher education in the local communities and economies that they serve, the Government have presented no answers to the urgent threats, such as brain drains, that are emerging post-23 June. Instead of strengthening our UK HE brand in the uncertain world in which we must negotiate post- Brexit, they have produced what many regard as a hotchpotch of structures in research and science, with unresolved tensions between new structures for England and the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They have continually ducked the suggestions made to them about pre-legislative scrutiny to try to iron out some of these issues, although, thank goodness, my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool has initiated an inquiry.
Given the result of the Brexit referendum and the collapse of the Cameron Government, we see how wise it would have been for the Government to reflect and take time. Instead, they are going hell for leather with a Bill that is obsessed with a toxic combination of market and competition-driven ideology. The small measures of progress and relief that they have offered in respect of social mobility could have provided an opportunity for them to paint a bold new picture of a system that would encourage social cohesion, but instead they have undermined their own social mobility agenda in the ways that I have described.
We could have had a Bill which addressed those issues, and which would have commanded wide support across the House and among the institutions that that supply HE and research, but instead, after a week in which the very structures of the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills have been turned upside down, we are pressing on as if nothing had happened. Maynard Keynes famously said:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
This is not the Bill that this Parliament needs. It is not the Bill that universities and HE institutions needed. It is not the Bill that our country needs—that our countries need. It is a Bill that is currently not fit for purpose. Especially post-Brexit, we need a Bill that will provide direction and structure, and tackle and settle the needs of a crucial part of our national life for the next generation. That is why we cannot support this Bill’s Second Reading tonight.