Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Aberdare and Baroness Barran

Report stage
Wednesday 5th February 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 I will speak also to Amendments 2, 4 and 5 standing in my name. Amendments 1 and 4 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mirror the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in Committee, which I also put my name to. They seek to bring the expertise of sector representative bodies to the preparation of standards and assessment plans and distribute the workload so that Skills England is not drowned in the preparation and updating of standards.

I note that there is a reference to employer representative bodies in the section of the draft framework document that covers the purposes of Skills England, although it is used merely as an example. Can the Minister articulate what the block is to the Government committing to work with employer representative bodies? The Government stress the breadth of their ambition for their industrial strategy and for Skills England’s part in delivering this, so why not bring in the wider expertise capacity of employer representative bodies, both in more traditional and more modern sectors?

I turn to Amendments 2 and 5, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has also given his support. These amendments seek to give the Government one last chance to be absolutely explicit in their commitment to employers and to those undertaking training. The text of the amendment comes from the original IfATE legislation and so has been thoroughly tested not just in debate in both Houses but also in real life.

I am told by those who have been involved in the governance of IfATE that the duty to

“have regard to the reasonable requirements of … industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and … persons who …. wish to undertake education and training”

has been a very serious duty in relation to the approval of a standard under new subsections (3) or (6).

The Minister will understand very well the influence that government policy has on employers. Recently, the Government announced that level 7 apprenticeships would no longer be eligible for the levy and there are question marks over the funding of some level 6 apprenticeships. This policy had been trailed for some time. If we look at the impact on recent apprenticeship starts, levels 6 and 7 saw starts rise by 10.9% as employers scramble to lock in funding ahead of the proposed changes. However, starts at levels 2 and 3 and the absolute level of under-19s participating in apprenticeships declined. So, while the Secretary of State celebrated the overall increase in apprenticeship starts of 1.3%, the building blocks of this rise are exactly the ones that the Government are removing. There is a real risk that the changes they propose, with the move to a growth and skills levy, will result in a drop in the number of people undertaking these qualifications, as funding for existing high-quality qualifications is removed and newer ones are perhaps not made the immediate priority for employers, particularly given the likely impact of employers’ national insurance contribution increases on recruitment into lower-paid roles.

All of this matters because the framework document is, at best, vague and, at worst, silent on the involvement of employers. There are some statements in the section on aims, saying that employers will be engaged in the preparation of occupational standards, but it does not say how. The rest of the document, particularly the section on the responsibilities of the chief executive, does not refer to this. It focuses rather on their role as accounting officer in relation to the board and the department, with no mention of employers.

There are broad references in the section on the purposes of the new agency and the reference I mentioned earlier in brackets to employer representative bodies but, if I were an employer, I would be concerned and would want an explicit reassurance from the Minister about my role going forward. I urge the Minister either to explain why employers are so much less visible in the framework document or to agree that this amendment would fit best within the Bill or, at the very least, in the next draft of the framework document. I hope that she can commit to that today. If I may, I will speak to her Amendments 3 and 6 after she has spoken to them. I beg to move.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 1 and 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Before speaking to them, I thank the Minister for her very positive engagement with those of us involved with the Bill. That includes several meetings and her letter last week describing the three amendments that she has tabled—all of which represent welcome improvements, even if they do not go quite as far as I might like—and including a draft of the proposed framework document for Skills England. Having said that, I remain concerned about what impact the transfer of IfATE into the DfE will have on the vital engagement of employers in standards and assessment processes, and about the proposed status of Skills England as an executive agency, albeit an arm’s-length body within the DfE.

Amendments 1 and 2 relate to the organisations which should be involved or taken into account by the Secretary of State when preparing apprenticeship standards. Amendment 1 requires that a group of persons preparing such standards should include a person from the representative body for the relevant sector; it would be even better to spell out that this should be the representative skills body. Many industry sector skills bodies have played a crucial and leading role in working with IfATE to prepare standards and assessment plans for their sectors. It will be important to continue this under the new regime, not least because of the positive effect it could have in leveraging valuable support for Skills England from such bodies.

Recognised sector skills bodies, such as Energy & Utility Skills for the energy and utilities sector, already work closely with employers in their sectors to identify needs and translate them into standards and training pathways in England and across the devolved Administrations, ensuring UK-wide consistency. Through their links with employers, they can respond with speed and agility to the developing skills needs of their sectors, while ensuring consistency with existing qualifications and apprenticeships across the whole UK. They work closely and effectively with IfATE, thereby ensuring that employer views are properly represented in standards and assessment plans approved by IfATE while minimising its workload.

I also support Amendment 2, which broadens the range of bodies to whose interests the Secretary of State must have regard. Both amendments seek to ensure that the central role of employers and other relevant bodies is properly and fully reflected in the Bill.

Amendment 3 in the Minister’s name—I will speak to it briefly now rather than standing up again later—addresses the issue that I and others raised in Committee about spelling out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might herself prepare a standard, rather than a group of persons. The amendment requires the publication only of matters to be taken into account in deciding whether to make such a decision rather than specific criteria, but I welcome it as far as it goes.

Amendments 4 to 6 raise essentially—almost exactly—the same issues as the previous three but in relation to the preparation of apprenticeship assessment plans rather than occupational standards. All I will say is: ditto. Again, I support all three of them, particularly Amendment 4, which requires a person from the representative skills body for a sector to be included in the group of persons developing a standard for that sector, for the same reasons as I have given for Amendments 1 to 3.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Aberdare and Baroness Barran

Committee stage
Thursday 21st November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3, 4 and 7 in my name, and to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—who I am delighted to see is well enough to join us today—and to which I have added my support.

As we have already heard, the Bill moves the powers from IfATE and transfers them to the Secretary of State while removing the requirement for external stakeholders to be consulted in all circumstances. The effect of this is to reduce independence regarding both the powers transferred and the examination processes—perhaps I should say “scrutiny processes” for the avoidance of doubt—as well as removing the requirement to work with those outside stakeholders which best understand the needs of their respective areas.

As also noted earlier in the debate, the Bill does not specify who will be consulted in reference to a group of persons. This lack of detail is concerning, and my amendments seek to rectify that. Amendment 3 in my name would include a list of relevant stakeholders which must be consulted before the creation of standards, which includes employers, mayoral combined authorities and sector representative bodies.

The spirit of the amendment is to retain the focus that IfATE had on employers and those with a strategic interest in technical education, whether that be regionally or by sector. They are all important to provide knowledge across a range of issues. Employers employ and train those who are undertaking apprenticeships and other qualifications and so can provide a perspective as to what business and the economy are in need of in relation to these qualifications. Mayoral combined authorities will be able to provide information as to what skills a particular region is lacking and advocate for a change in qualifications when necessary, and the local skills improvement partnerships will be able to provide their data as to what current, future and priority skills are in certain areas and expertise in how to increase collaboration between employers and regional authorities.

As noted by the Association of Colleges, there is a real opportunity here to bring together local plans, which sometimes exist in a vacuum, and a national plan, to encourage alignment and avoid duplication or gaps. Given that the Minister explicitly referred to this point at Second Reading, I hope that she will see the merit of my amendments.

The sector representative bodies will be able to provide knowledge on what skills and qualifications are relevant to the sector, both now and in the future, to ensure that these qualifications remain up to date and relevant to their economic needs. One of the central pillars of IfATE was its focus on employer and business needs to create and maintain suitable qualifications to equip people for the world of work. As such, we want to recognise the importance of keeping that focus to ensure that businesses can still trust the qualifications so that they continue to invest in the future generation of employees.

As mentioned at Second Reading, the Bill gives wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State without maintaining those clear external links and the accountability that they help to provide. This is potentially damaging to the status of these qualifications. When in government, we delivered an increase in the value of skills-based qualifications, with a relentless focus on quality and developing a range of apprenticeships in particular that aim to reflect the breadth of our economy.

As such, we on these Benches want an effective approach to developing our apprenticeship and technical education system—I am sure that sentiment is echoed across the Committee—but I am concerned that the reduction in accountability and scrutiny in the creation of standards will not do that. That is why my Amendment 4 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s power to act alone when creating standards. If the Government do not accept my Amendment 4, my Amendment 7 at least seeks to increase the transparency about when and how these powers will be used.

At Second Reading, the Minister was careful to set out some of the circumstances in which these powers to act alone would be used. She talked about making “small and fast adjustments” and allowing

“greater flexibility in scenarios where preparation by a group can be unnecessary or restrictive”.—[Official Report, 22/10/24; col. 581.]

Although it is unnecessary to have these powers, if the Government are so clear about these circumstances then surely it would be responsible to put them in the Bill so that the power of any future Government is constrained by the same things. I hope that, when she responds, the Minister will give the Committee some encouragement on this point. I also hope that she will reiterate the Government’s commitment to publishing standards in draft for stakeholder comment before they are finalised, and how the Government will respond if stakeholders have concerns.

As we heard, Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to which I added my name, also seeks to bring the perspective of, and give greater responsibility to, sector representative bodies in the development of standards in future. This has much in common with my Amendment 3. The Minister will have views on the relative merits of “must” and “may”, but the spirit of the amendments is similar and aims to link the Government’s decisions as closely as possible to the real world. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, put it so eloquently, it aims to ensure that we do not lose that focus on delivery.

We recognise the merits of Amendments 2, 5, 6 and 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. All of them drive broadly in the same direction—namely, to urge the Secretary of State to bring as much clarity as possible to the people she chooses to include in the group of persons referred to in Clauses 4 and 5, and to the circumstances in which she would exercise her powers in new subsection (3A) in Clause 4. The noble Lord’s Amendment 6 would give the Secretary of State more time to do so than my Amendment 7, but the aim of the amendments is similar.

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, which the noble Baroness kindly just introduced for me. Most of them are based on concerns expressed by employers that they should remain genuinely at the heart of the new system and that it will continue to meet their real needs. I have heard concerns from employers in the construction industry, CITB, the engineering services sector and the energy and utilities sector, for example, that the changes will possibly lead to less engagement of employers. To succeed in its aims, Skills England will need to foster close collaboration with employers of all types and sizes across all key sectors, including the eight growth-driving sectors identified in the industrial strategy.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

My Lords, I have Amendments 9, 12, 13 and 15 in this group and have added my name to Amendments 10, 11 and 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with the same reservations about Amendment 10 as I expressed about Amendment 3. Your Lordships will be glad to know that I have failed to think of additional points that I have not already made in speaking to identical amendments to Clause 4, so I will content myself with saying that I beg to move Amendment 9, on the same grounds as set out previously.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, that is quite a challenge to follow, and it is tempting to take the same approach—I think my popularity with the Committee might improve—but, in all seriousness, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, my Amendments 10, 11 and 14 are based on a very similar argument to that debated in the previous group about the concerning lack of detail regarding what we mean by “a group of persons” and the potential dilution of employer focus. With that, I commend the amendments.