Industrial Training Levy (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2017

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Grand Committee

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to this order, which I think it fair to say is not particularly controversial and need not detain us for too long.

Preparing for this took me back some time. In a previous guise, I was the full-time official of a trade union in the engineering sector, and I well remember dealing with many industry training boards on a number of different issues. When the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills published its final report in December 2015 on the combined triennial review of the industry training boards, it mentioned the background to the industrial training levy itself, which was introduced as part of the Industrial Training Act 1964. That is of course where the industry training boards can be traced back to as well.

It is to be regretted that there are now only three industry training boards left. I certainly remember that there were more than 20 in the 1980s, and they were significantly reduced by the Industrial Training Act 1982. Apart from the film sector, only the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board are still in place today, both of which are of course accountable to Parliament. They raise most of their funds through training levies and various commercial activities. In 2016, the ECITB raised £32 million in levy and returned £28 million to the industry. It is interesting that the ECITB itself made the proposal to reduce the industrial training levy rate for employers, which appears to be a direct result of the impending introduction of the apprenticeship levy. That is reasonable and I understand the thinking behind it.

I made notes but if I read them out I would largely repeat what the noble Viscount said in his introduction, and I see little purpose in doing that. However, the listed exemptions seem reasonable and are set at reasonable levels with regard to the overall pay bill of establishments. I was interested to hear the noble Viscount say that a total of 275 establishments would qualify for the levy, with 120 exemptions. I will not mention the details of the exemptions, but they meet the needs of the industry. It is instructive that the consultation carried out by the ECITB found that 78% of levy payers were in favour of the proposals, and together they will pay a total of 87% of the value of the forecast levy. There is fairly broad support, therefore; I certainly have not been made aware of any opposition.

As the noble Viscount himself pointed out, and I thank him for doing so, less than 10% of the engineering workforce is female. Again, going back to my days as a trade union negotiator, I remember the attempts that were made to get more women into the union, particularly the predominantly engineering-based union that I looked after. It was very difficult, and I pay tribute to WISE—Women into Science and Engineering, which is backed by my union, Unite. We want as many women as possible to come forward and fill jobs in the manufacturing sector, particularly in engineering.

This issue goes back to the requirement for qualifications, particularly STEM qualifications, and will impact on what I am going to say about the next set of regulations for consideration. The pressure on schools to find enough teachers to make sure they can deliver teaching in these subjects cannot be ignored. A lot more work has to be done on that, because they provide the building blocks to get the initial qualifications to get women into university, or through the technical routes into engineering. It is important that the Minister highlighted that, and it is to be welcomed.

The order is not controversial and is to be welcomed. It has been welcomed in the industry, and on that basis I can only hope it will achieve what it sets out to achieve and assists the development of the industry.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Watson, for his comments and for his contribution today. I was particularly interested to hear of his background, which I did not know about. I appreciate his general support for the order.

Before I make some very brief concluding remarks, I shall pick up on his very important point about the need to encourage more females into engineering. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Nash is in Committee today because I am sure he agrees with me that this is a very important part of what the Department for Education is doing. It is starting from the very early years to encourage more women to study STEM subjects and then, through proper career guidance, to encourage them to take roles in science and engineering. It is one of the major priorities and major thrusts—the noble Lord is right about that.

Noble Lords will be aware from previous debates that the ECITB exists because of the support it receives from employers and employer interest groups in the sector. There is a firm belief that without this levy, there would be a serious deterioration in the quality and quantity of training in the engineering construction industry, leading to a deficiency in skill levels. It continues to be the collective view of employers in the engineering construction industry that training should be funded through the statutory levy system in order to secure a sufficient pool of skilled labour. I commend this order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Immigration Skills Charge Regulations 2017

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 21st March 2017 Grand Committee

Thousands of doctors and nurses come to the UK every year to work in the NHS and care services, which would be utterly devastated without them. The Government are being immensely short-sighted by imposing this tax. The NHS is not a business that can absorb extra taxes by reducing profits. I call on the Government to introduce exemptions from this charge for health and care workers. If they do not do so, they will be adding to the already unsustainable funding situation of our health and care services and to the £20 billion black hole in the health budget and the £6 billion black hole in the care budget by 2020.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Labour Force Survey showed that by 2014 the number of workers participating in training courses away from their own workplace has collapsed since 1992. I will not repeat the figures that the Minister gave, but this feeds into a pattern. In general, UK employers underinvest in training relative to comparable countries. It is therefore understandable that the Government should decide to incentivise employers to invest in training so as to maximise the number of jobs available to the domestic workforce. In that aim, we support what the Government are attempting to achieve through these regulations.

However, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was critical of the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum laid with the instrument said nothing about the opposition to the proposals voiced by most of those consulted by the Migration Advisory Committee. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee was also critical of the fact that the Explanatory Memorandum provided little or no detail about the impact of the charge on those employers likely to be affected. That led the committee to conclude that the process of policy formulation for the proposals was not complete and that the Government were not in a position to supply Parliament with sufficient information about the implementation and impact of the proposed charge. If that is not the source of some embarrassment to the Minister and his officials, then it ought to be.

As far back as May 2015, the then Prime Minister announced the intention to introduce the charge, and in March 2016 the scope of the charge was set out. Why then was the DfE not ready when the regulations came to be submitted? Given the array of staff in the department, there is surely no excuse for this. I hope that the Minister will apologise and give an assurance that in future his officials will be better prepared.

Since the charge was first proposed almost two years ago, we can discount any suggestion that it had its roots in what I regret to say is the increasingly anti-immigrant rhetoric that since last year’s referendum has characterised some government policy. The Government’s generally hostile approach towards migration—and the definition of it, as evidenced by their attitude on the Higher Education and Research Bill in relation to international students—risks further fuelling discrimination and social tension.

Changes to migration policies should be developed through consultation with employers and trade unions and, once agreed, should be introduced with adequate lead-in time to allow employers and employees to plan accordingly. That allows short-term gaps in the labour market to be filled while other measures are taken to address long-term training needs in the domestic labour market. It is to be hoped that that is what this charge will achieve.

Last week, during the briefing session on the charge, the Minister for Skills, Mr Halfon, explained that it will be used to address skills gaps in the workforce. In terms of the resources available to do so, and to some extent reflecting what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has said, the Minister said he anticipated an annual surplus of around £100 million once the Home Office had deducted the costs involved in collecting the charge.

Identifying those skills gaps is at the heart of these regulations. The UK Commission for Employment and Skills’ Employer Skills Survey 2015 shows that, while overall employer investment in training, in kind and cash, increased between 2011 and 2015, per employee expenditure flatlined at £1,600, despite a period of economic recovery and business growth. That was the last survey to be published, and I regret to say that it will remain the last survey to be published because earlier this year the Government closed the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. We no longer have a national overview. Perhaps the Minister will explain the rationale behind what appears to be an extraordinary step. What will replace it?

The Employer Skills Survey 2015 highlighted what it termed skill-shortage vacancies by sector and listed 13. The top five were: construction; manufacturing; electricity, gas and water; transport and communications; and agriculture. Interestingly, health and social work were only in seventh place, despite the regular reports of difficulty in filling vacancies. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, has stolen a bit of my thunder here, so I will not repeat the thrust of her argument. Certainly, the proportion of NHS staff who are not UK nationals is high, although already in decline following last year’s referendum. It seems questionable, at the very least, that the list of exempted occupations listed in the regulations does not include doctors or nurses at a time when the NHS is under real pressure in filling posts in these areas. I acknowledge that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said that it goes wider than doctors and nurses. Enforcing the levy would effectively penalise the NHS for recruiting workers from outside the EEA to fill gaps in an already stretched workforce in an essential public service. I accept that to some extent the NHS has over the years gone for the easier option of hiring from outwith the UK, but the pressures currently being experienced there will be as nothing two years hence. I urge the Minister to consider what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said and what the pressures on the NHS will be if the charge is applied across the board for that sector.

Science, technology, engineering and mathematics are also areas where there are skills gaps, not least in schools, where recruitment also remains a problem. I shall not repeat the comments I made in respect of the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board in a previous debate. Few teachers will earn above the £30,000 cut-off for the charge, and so non-EEA nationals will be unable to be used to help fill these gaps. From memory, Mr Halfon—or perhaps it was officials—said that there are only about 150 non-EEA nationals in that bracket. I accept that that is not a big number, but none the less these gaps need to be filled. With maths and ICT demonstrating digital skills shortages for the jobs of tomorrow, there could have been a case for relaxing the charge in these areas.

One suggestion I shall make concerns the follow-through on the charge, which we all hope will meet its aims. Could employers not be eligible for some sort of rebate on the charge for employing a non-EEA worker? There is an element of double-charging. If an employer has identified a gap for a group of employees, so that he or she has to take on workers from outwith the UK and, I assume in this case, from outwith the EEA, while doing that, the employer is meeting the aims of this charge by bringing through young, or perhaps not so young, people to train them up to the necessary level. So he is paying the charge for them to be employed and to be trained, and he is also paying a surcharge for those outwith the EEA who he is using temporarily. So in a sense he is training people for the long-term good of the business and of the UK economy, and there does seem to be an element of double-charging, particularly when the £1,000 rises over the years to a maximum of £5,000—leaving aside the charitable sector—when the employer is in fact doing what the Government want him or her to do: training employees.

My other question for the Minister is: when will the charge be reviewed? I do not know whether there is any significance in the fact that the assumption in the regulations is that it covers only non-EEA employees for up to five years. I am not clear whether that is to be a maximum. But there may be a case for, in effect, a sunset clause so that after five years the regulations could be reviewed and some assessment made of the charge’s success. As I said earlier, all of us in this debate, whatever our views and however critical we have been, want to see the outcome that the Government intend. I would be interested in the Minister’s views on that point. I do not expect him to respond just now. I do not expect his officials to give him a response just now. If it is more convenient, I am more than happy to receive something in writing.

Overall, I certainly want to see this charge introduced effectively and fairly, leading to a situation where there are more UK workers able to fill the gaps that are evident now and likely to be even more evident in the post-EU years ahead of us. To that extent, I do not do this often but I wish the Government well because I think their intentions are good, but there are certainly some rough edges in this charge which could perhaps be smoothed down to make it more palatable and perhaps even more effective.

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for a really interesting debate. We welcome this feedback. I come back to my opening remarks: the investment in skills is crucial to a productive, strong UK economy—an economy which gives people from all backgrounds the opportunity to fill today’s skilled roles as well as those in the future. Migration has a role to play in supporting the development and supply of expertise and skills and we want to continue to attract the brightest and the best, but through the immigration skills charge we want to incentivise employers to invest in training. I am grateful for the support that has been expressed today for our desire to upskill our workforce. I am afraid that I will not cover all the points that have been raised but I will write to all noble Lords present today.

The noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Hamwee, asked why this impacts particularly on the health service. The MAC was clear in its view that the charge should apply to the public sector. It is not sustainable to rely on recruiting overseas staff and the Government are committed to building home-grown skills. All employers need to look at how they meet their longer-term skills needs, and the long-term strategy must be to train and retain our own nurses and doctors in the UK. Steps are being taken to address the shortage of nurses, including continued investment in training, retention strategies, and a return to practice campaign. We are introducing a new nursing degree apprenticeship. Health Education England has increased nurse training places by 50% over the past two years and is forecasting that more than 40,000 additional nurses will be available by 2020. Similarly, Health Education England is forecasting that more than 11,000 additional doctors will be available by 2020. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, asked about the number of nurses impacted by the charge: 2,600 certificates of sponsorship were used for nurses in the year ending August 2015.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about the delay in publishing the impact assessment. As the charge is classified as a tax, we have not been required to carry out a formal impact assessment. It is also difficult to do so because it is difficult to anticipate how employers will respond to the charge and to wider changes to tier 2. In addition, the charge does not sit as an isolated measure—it is part of a wider skills programme to develop a strong, productive economy. On the noble Lord’s point about how we will assess and evaluate the impact of the policy and whether the charge will be reviewed, we will monitor the operation of the charge and will undertake a review of the policy after one year, as covered in the Explanatory Memorandum.

--- Later in debate ---

There has been broad agreement about the need to invest and give people from all backgrounds the opportunity to develop and learn and be part of a highly skilled, competitive and successful economy. That is why we are introducing this charge. I will write to noble Lords to cover other points.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

Before the Minister finishes, I mentioned the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, and that apparently it has been disbanded. Perhaps the Minister can give me a commitment that he will also write to me about that. I am happy to leave it at that just now.

[Lord Nash]

I will certainly cover that.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Report: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 8th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 62 to 66, 88 and 93, tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and Amendment 72, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to all of which I have added my name. I declare my usual interest as a full-time professor at King’s College London, but also note that I am a founding editor and editorial board member of Assessment in Education, a leading international academic journal in the field.

I have listened with interest to all the remarks made by other noble Lords and have agreed with the overwhelming majority of them. I just want to comment on an issue that is at the heart of the amendments to which I have added my name. It concerns the profound difference between using a single composite measure and having a wide variety of measures that are reported separately.

One of the prime rules of assessment—indeed, of measurement—is that you do not throw away information if you can avoid it. The Government have, rightly and repeatedly, emphasised their commitment to transparency and to giving students better information about teaching quality and other aspects of the higher education courses to which they might or do subscribe. But the trouble is that a composite measure is the opposite of transparent. It is also a problem that it is seductively simple: three stars, four stars—how can one resist it? We believe it is somehow objective because that is how we respond to a single number. In modern societies, we love rankings. But if we add up measures of different things and produce a single number, we are not being transparent and we are not being objective. What we are presenting to people, first, throws away large amounts of information and, secondly, imposes our value judgment on those different measures. When we use different indicators, add them up and create a single rank or score, we are denying other people the chance to see how it was done. It is irrelevant whether you gave equal weight to each measure or decided to do all sorts of clever things and weighted one thing at threefold and another at a half; the point is that by doing that, you have imposed your judgment. The students for whom these are designed—the students we want to help—may have different interests from you, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, has pointed out.

That is why I support the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, that a scheme to assess quality must report individual measures individually. It is also why I completely agree with the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, that the last thing we want to do is impose on Governments, quite possibly for the next 30 years, the obligation to create rankings.

In this case, we are not even adding apples and oranges, which at least are both pieces of fruit. We are adding up things that are completely different. If the numbers are measuring or representing different things—and doing so with varying degrees of error, as is always the case—adding them up will compound the error. Obviously it would be nice to have a wonderful single measure, but the fact that we would all like one does not mean that it is better to have an unreliable one, rather than not have one at all. On the contrary, it is worse.

We know why most universities have signed up to this. On Monday, the Minister pointed out that if they do not agree to link TEF scores to fees they will,

“lose £16 billion over the course of the next 10 years”.—[Official Report, 6/3/17; col. 1140.]

Universities are in a corner and over a barrel—as we have heard, that is exactly how you would feel if you were the vice-chancellor of Warwick.

It seems to me that this is all quite unnecessary. The Conservative manifesto did not commit to rankings, to a single measure or to labelling people as gold, silver or bronze. It said that students would be informed of where there is high-quality teaching. That is something to which everybody in this House would sign up. I very much hope that the Government will continue to listen and will move away from a current commitment that can only be harmful, for all the reasons that people in this House have talked about so eloquently this afternoon.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been a passionate debate, which reflects accurately that this is the most contentious part of the Bill—certainly the email traffic that all of us have experienced would bear that out.

As we have heard from many noble Lords, the metrics proposed for the TEF are flawed, and confidence in their effectiveness remains extremely low among academic staff, students and more than a few vice-chancellors. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, referred to the University of Warwick. I have to say that that is more reflective of the general view than that sent out in the rather unconvincing letter from Universities UK and GuildHE a few days ago.

We on these Benches have consistently said that we are of course in favour of a mechanism that enhances the quality of teaching and of the general student experience. But, due to the differentiation of tuition fee levels, the TEF as it stands—even with the improvements made thus far—is not fit for purpose. In view of these uncertainties, and because the reputation of UK higher education institutions needs to be handled with particular care in the context of the upheaval that will result from our impending departure from the EU, it would be inadvisable to base any form of material judgment on TEF outcomes until the system has bedded down.

That is why Amendments 67 and 68 in the names of my noble friend Lord Lipsey and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, calling for delays in the implementation of the TEF and the linkage of any fee increases to it, are sensible. As we on these Benches have argued consistently, we do not believe that there should be such linkage. In many ways, using student feedback as part of a framework that leads to fee increases, while at the same time purporting to represent and embody the interests of students, is contradictory. My noble friend Lord Blunkett has outlined why it is appropriate for the Secretary of State and not the Office for Students to bring forward a scheme to assess the quality of teaching.

In Committee, we tabled an amendment which sought to ensure that any rating scheme had only two categories: “meets expectations” and “fails to meet expectations”. So we welcome the fact that that principle is incorporated in my noble friend’s amendment. The amendment has the benefit of being straightforward without a confusing system of three categories, all of which would be deemed by the OfS to have met expectations—to different extents, of course. However, as many noble Lords have said, that is not how it would appear either to potential students, to those awarding research grants or to the world at large.

Amendment 72 also highlights the need for consistent and reliable information about the quality of education and teaching at institutions. The fact that what is proposed in the Bill would guarantee neither is a major reason why so many have opposed the TEF in its current form. The requirement to have the data and metrics on which the TEF is based subject to evaluation by the Office for National Statistics was advocated in Committee, but it merits reconsideration today. Without a firm base on which to establish the TEF, it is unlikely to gain the confidence not just of institutions but of staff and students, on whose futures it will have great bearing.

The future standing of higher education in the UK will depend on the Government rethinking their approach to these issues. It has to be said that not one noble Lord in the debate this afternoon has spoken in favour of the TEF as proposed. I ask the Minister and his colleague Minister Johnson to give that fact due weight of consideration.

Careers Advice and Guidance

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

My noble friend makes an extremely good point. I know that my ministerial colleague Jo Johnson is very focused on this. I remember Andreas Schleicher telling me that we are the worst country in Europe for aligning courses at universities with the jobs available. We believe that our plans under the Higher Education and Research Bill will make students much more focused on what are worthwhile occupations.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, a few moments ago the Minister referred to the Technical and Further Education Bill, which is in Committee, and that he had accepted a cross-party amendment which means that from September this year all state-funded schools in England must provide access to a range of education and training providers. That was very much welcomed by all those in Committee, but in that debate the Minister said:

“Our careers strategy will not be effective unless schools and colleges are held to account for the quality of their careers provision. Ofsted has an important role to play in this regard”.—[Official Report, 22/2/17; col. GC 70.]


With schools that were previously reluctant to have their pupils advised about routes other than those that lead to university now being obliged to do so, does the Minister accept that when this comes into effect Ofsted should give an overall “good” or “outstanding” rating to a school or college only if it considers that the careers advice provided by them is of a good or outstanding standard?

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Report: 1st sitting: House of Lords
Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bakewell (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. We need to have a status of title that puts universities and higher education in an elevated place in our society. We know that “students” comes trailing clouds of all sorts of other implications that may not be appropriate. Education and universities are serious, hard-core activities on which this country depends, and they deserve respect.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Viscount will ask that the amendment be withdrawn, and I can understand why from his point of view—but it does not stand up to scrutiny to maintain that the name of the body should be the Office for Students. In response to my noble friend Lord Lipsey’s amendment in Committee, the noble Viscount said:

“This Bill sets out a series of higher education reforms which will improve quality and choice for students, encourage competition and allow for consistent and fair oversight of the sector”.


Many noble Lords may have doubts about anything other than the second of those objectives, but the noble Viscount was correct to point out that, in introducing the Bill, the Government had those three distinct objectives—so why were they unable to come up with a title that encompassed more than one of them?

The Minister also said in Committee that it was the Government’s intention,

“to put the student interest at the heart of our regulatory approach to higher education”—[Official Report, 9/1/17; cols 1840-41.]—

hence the name. That claim does not withstand close scrutiny. If that had been the case, why did the Bill not contain provision for at least one student on the board of the OfS? Why did it require vigorous argument by the Opposition in Committee in the other place before the Government came up with a rather weak amendment to Schedule 2 providing for the OfS board merely to,

“have regard to the desirability of”,

someone with,

“experience of representing or promoting the interests of individual students”.

It does not provide for such representation; it just says that it is desirable.

In that context, the name “Office for Students” is not without some irony. It is certainly inappropriate because it is a misnomer. If the Minister wants the amendment to be withdrawn, it is incumbent on him and his Government to come up with a name that more accurately reflects the duties that the body is about to assume.

[Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)]

My Lords, I appreciate having a further short debate on this matter, but I find it a little ironic how in Committee many noble Lords sought to omit “standards” from the Bill, but now this amendment would add “standards” to it. I would argue that the name relates to the OfS’s core functions and purpose. In response to concerns that the mission of the Office for Students is not sufficiently focused on the interests of students to merit its name, let me assure noble Lords that the Bill places a clear duty on the OfS to consider the interests of students in every aspect of its operations.

The OfS has duties to have regard to the need to promote greater choice and opportunities for students and to encourage competition between higher education providers where this is in the interests of students and employers. It is therefore entirely appropriate that the body should be called the Office for Students—dreary or not—and that its title should signal the fundamental refocusing of the regulatory system towards the student interest which the reforms are intended to bring about.

Higher Education and Research Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 6th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I come to the campus of this Bill as a fresher, in the footsteps of my noble friend who, by contrast, is competing a postgraduate course. But I have had some taster sessions, listening to the Bill from the Front Bench, and I have read the exchanges in Hansard and in Committee.

It has always been our intention that the Bill will lead to greater diversity, choice and flexibility for students. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, proposed an amendment in Committee requiring the OfS to waive the fee limit condition in respect of accelerated courses. I have read his speech, which was highly persuasive. The Government, therefore, are introducing these amendments to support the growth of accelerated courses by enabling Parliament to remove a key barrier to them.

Amendments 46 and 202 create a clear definition of an “accelerated course” and allow Parliament to introduce a higher cap for these courses. Separately, the remaining amendments clarify that, when setting fee limits for any type of course under Schedule 2, whether accelerated or not, the Secretary of State may establish different higher, basic and sub-levels for different types of teaching provision—for example, sandwich and part-time courses. That reflects the approach taken under current legislation whereby, for example, the higher amount set for part-time courses is fixed at a lower level than for full-time courses.

Accelerated courses offer students the opportunity to study their course over a condensed period—for example, completing a three-year degree course over two years. We know that accelerated courses appeal to students who may not otherwise choose to pursue a degree. That includes mature students who want to retrain and enter the workplace faster than a traditional full-time three-year degree would permit, and those from non-traditional backgrounds.

An accelerated course must meet the same quality expectations and achieve the same outcomes as a comparable, traditional course. However, accelerated courses typically involve tuition through the summer period, requiring the same resources as a traditional course over a shorter period. Evidence from independent research and our call for evidence tells us that a number of English providers are interested in providing more accelerated courses. However, many providers are unable to grow or introduce accelerated courses because of the existing annual tuition fee cap; they simply cannot afford to offer accelerated courses. Therefore, these amendments will enable Parliament to set a higher annual fee cap for accelerated courses—and accelerated courses only—compared to the annual fee cap for standard degree courses. They also serve to provide flexibility with regard to other types of provision.

Let me be very clear: our clear intention is that accelerated degrees that are subject to fee limits under the Bill will cost students less than an equivalent degree, not least because students will claim less overall in maintenance loans. Students undertaking an accelerated course borrow less money over a shorter period and forgo less earnings, as they are able to enter the workplace sooner.

We are creating a new definition for accelerated courses, and we intend to consult with the HE sector on where to set the fee cap and how to grow further accelerated course provision. Any higher fee cap for accelerated courses will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny via the affirmative resolution procedure. We will seek to stimulate the market for accelerated courses by agreeing a fee cap that provides adequate funding for providers while ensuring the student and the taxpayer get a good deal. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, we welcome the fact that, as in respect of other parts of the Bill, the Government have listened to what has been said during the progress through both Houses. My noble friend Lord Stevenson moved an amendment in Committee that sought to allow funding flexibility and aimed to incentivise the provision of accelerated degrees. He made it clear at that time that it was a probing amendment and, in withdrawing it, invited the noble Viscount the Minister to come forward with one of his own to achieve something similar. So it is natural that we welcome this group of amendments, which should insist on ending the present rigid structure of the type of undergraduate courses on offer.

It is fair to say that we have had some concerns about the kind of new so-called challenger institutions that will appear as a result of the Bill. Our main concern is what might drive them—that is, the profit motive, rather than the education motive. It will not be the case with all but it could be the case with some. However, it is only fair to confess that I was particularly concerned until I met people from the Greenwich School of Management and spoke at length with them about what they offer. I now see that body as engaged in widening participation; it attracts students from backgrounds that have not traditionally engaged in numbers with higher education, which, whatever the situation, has to be welcomed. The university itself cannot validate its own degrees—that is done by Plymouth University—but that is an issue for a separate day.

I have to say that the Greenwich School of Management surprised me. My only knowledge of it prior to my meeting was that the hedge fund or venture capital company with which the noble Lord, Lord Nash, was involved had established it. That might explain to noble Lords opposite why I was somewhat doubtful as to the motives—but none the less I have to say that it is an example of a new university serving its community.

We accept that there is a need for courses that offer students the opportunity to complete full degree programmes in two years of intensive study, enabling them to enter or return to work as quickly as possible. That is key, particularly for those students from less well-off families, who simply cannot afford the time to be out of full-time work for longer than two years. That is a message that the Government appear to have accepted. We hope that the financial penalties that have prevented students from enrolling in two-year courses up to now will be brought to an end, paving the way for their increased and increasingly diverse participation.

Amendment 20 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I join those who warmly congratulate universities that have made arrangements, and express considerable disappointment about those that have not so done. It surely is simply unacceptable in an electoral system to have some universities where this has been done and some where it has not. That is not a fair and open approach to electoral matters. I believe it is impossible to do other than support the amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, the amendment moved so ably by my noble friend Lady Royall proposes to make it mandatory for all higher education institutions to offer students who are enrolling or re-registering the opportunity to be put on the electoral roll. The question surely is: why not? As we have heard, some universities already encourage their students to do that and it would be logical for all of them to do so. The reason given by the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie—as alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden—was, I think, that such a measure would be a bureaucratic burden on institutions, whether that was cost-based or not. How any activity that increases the number of people who participate in our democracy can be dismissed as a burden I fail to see, and I do not think that is in any sense the appropriate way to look at it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, also listed a number of universities in addition to the University of Sheffield, whose pilot the Government part funded, and a number of other institutions which are already implementing the system voluntarily. That is all well and good but there seemed to be a complete lack of urgency on her part on behalf of the Government, given that she said that the Government had committed to write to other HE and FE providers later this year, as if that were something they might or might not get round to. It is absolutely inappropriate for there to be any delay. Democracy does not take sabbaticals. We will have elections very soon and they have a habit of keeping on happening—by-elections or whatever. It is inappropriate that people who have the right to vote for whatever reason—I do not in any way discount personal responsibility—should be prevented from doing so.

Another figure from our earlier debate that stuck in my mind was that given in response to my noble friend Lord Stevenson, I think. The noble Baroness said that 60% of students register at home rather than where they attend university. That is fine but it leaves 40% who do not. As we have heard, that amounts to almost a quarter of a million students at any one time who will not be able to vote. That is far too many. Action needs to be taken urgently. That is why my noble friend’s amendment is necessary, and is necessary now.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and have set out the reasons why we should increase the franchisement of students. The Government entirely share that aim of increasing the number of students and young people registered to vote. As part of our drive to create a democracy that works for everyone we are taking a number of steps which I will touch on in a moment, such as funding the National Union of Students to the tune of £380,000 in 2015 to increase student electoral registration.

We listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords when the amendment was debated during Committee. While we agree with the objective of this amendment and understand the intention behind it, we firmly believe that this Bill is the wrong vehicle to achieve greater student electoral registration, and that the scheme as proposed in the amendment has serious drawbacks. The Government have an alternative plan to address student registration which we believe will be more appropriate and effective; again, I will come on to that in a moment, the Government having considered it in the light of the debate in Committee a few weeks ago.

Both Universities UK and the Association of Electoral Administrators have told us that a one-size-fits-all approach to electoral registration, which this amendment would be, is not necessarily the best solution. The AEA does not want further unnecessary prescription introduced into the electoral registration process. Some universities have also signalled that they do not support the system that this amendment seeks to mandate. Seeking to achieve this objective in this way is unnecessary and risks complicating the Government’s relationship with electoral registration officers, as it contradicts our stated objective to give them greater autonomy in how they choose to conduct their statutory duty of maintaining the completeness and accuracy of the electoral registers. Choice is the key point here. It is for HE providers and the electoral service teams, who are the acknowledged experts in registration, rather than Parliament—whether through the Bill or other means—or the OfS to determine what the right approach is for their local area.

Furthermore, this system simply will not work for electoral registration officers in London and other large cities since many students have a term-time address in a different registration area from their university or HE provider. For that reason alone, the amendment simply will not work. This is a significant issue given the numbers of students in London, where approximately 376,000 students could be living across all 33 London boroughs. Only the borough in which both the university and the student are located would have the necessary data required to complete an application. Students can participate in the democratic process by actively choosing to register to vote at either their university or home address. As the noble Lord has just said, research has suggested that 60% of students may do so.

We have a commitment to increase student electoral registration. To date we have undertaken a range of steps to encourage it, most recently ahead of the EU referendum. In addition to those steps, I can commit today that the Government will, in their first guidance letter, ask the OfS to encourage institutions to offer their students an opportunity to register to vote by providing a link to the online registration page so that students can apply to register quickly and easily. I think that this is a user-friendly solution that avoids some of the problems in the amendment which I have touched on. I understand that in Committee the noble Baroness, Lady Brown, stated that this was successfully applied at Aston University, and other providers have done so too.

However, we have also heard the calls for urgency, repeated by the noble Lord from the Opposition Bench, and we do not want to wait until the OfS is in place. That is why I can confirm that the Minister for Universities, Science, Research and Innovation, Jo Johnson, will write to HEFCE before Third Reading to ask it to work with the sector to encourage best practice and to actively promote student electoral registration.

To inform our activity, the Minister for the Constitution hosted a student round table in January at which he heard about the barriers to registration that students face. Since then, we have embarked on a plan to further our aim of maximising student electoral registration and we will continue to do so ahead of the local elections this May and beyond. I can now confirm to noble Lords that in the forthcoming weeks we intend to meet university vice-chancellors to that end. We will also write to the higher and further education sector to promote the outcomes due to be published from the different models available, to encourage take-up and to continue to facilitate greater co-operation between providers and local electoral service teams.

For the reasons already given, I believe that this voluntary and collaborative approach is the right one. However, if the evidence is that it is not working, it will be open to the Government and the OfS to consider other options in future, including, perhaps, the use of appropriate and proportionate registration conditions, requiring providers to comply with any such condition or explain why they cannot comply. The Government will also work with sector partners, such as Universities UK, to promote different options and encourage take-up.

The Government have already committed to publishing and promoting the outcomes of the University of Sheffield pilot, which we part funded, as well as other models, all of which are currently being evaluated, and we will publish the results at the earliest opportunity. As I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, an indicative assessment shows that this project had successful outcomes. However, ICT software costs are a prohibitor, and some universities have already told us that they will not implement this model for that reason.

In addition, the amendment rests on the provider informing “eligible students” of their registration rights and local authorities providing various details regarding those students. An “eligible student” is defined as someone entitled to vote as an elector at a parliamentary election, but it is not clear who determines eligibility. Given that the amendments suggest that it is the provider who has to take specified actions, it looks as though it has to be that same provider who determines eligibility—something it surely is not, and indeed should not be, resourced to do. For all those reasons, we are confident that a voluntary approach is the best option and we are confident that more of these agreements can be reached in this way.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, previously stated, many other institutions are already taking steps to encourage young people to ensure that they are on the register. In fact, numerous HE providers have, of their own volition, already implemented a model similar to that used by the University of Sheffield, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, the University of Bath. Nor should we lose sight of the fact that students can choose where they are registered, and some students might not wish to have their data shared.

We are also committed to increasing registration among all underregistered groups, of which students form only a part. This will be part of our democratic engagement strategy, which will be published in spring 2017.

Therefore, I say to the noble Baroness who moved the amendment that the Government have genuinely thought about the arguments put forward in Committee. We have come forward with a new set of proposals, which we think meet the objectives that we all share. Against that background, I ask her to consider withdrawing her amendment.

Technical and Further Education Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 1st March 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

56: Clause 28, page 13, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) Sums guaranteed under subsection (1) shall include statutory pension obligations payable to staff employed by a further education body subject to an education administration order.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 56 would ensure that staff employed by an FE college continued to accrue statutory teachers’ pension scheme and local government pension scheme pension obligations during an education administration. The first of those is self-explanatory, and FE colleges are legally obliged to offer either that or LGPS membership to their staff. The latter is the scheme for the large number of so-called support staff, from learning support assistants, caretakers and catering staff to administrators, cleaners and IT technicians. It would be completely unacceptable if, as a result of an insolvency, staff pension rights or their potential pension rights were to be adversely affected.

When this amendment was considered on Report in another place, the Minister, Mr Halfon, said:

“As with any administration, once the administrator has adopted the employment contracts of the staff they decide to keep on, they are personally liable for the costs of those ?individuals, such as their salary and their pension contributions. They would take on the appointment only if they were confident that sufficient funds were available to meet the costs. Some pension contributions will continue to be made and benefits accrue”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/1/17; col. 115.]


Although that sounds like a firm commitment, it has not assuaged those with staff directly involved in colleges—namely, the Association of Colleges and the University and College Union. If that is what the Government understand the position to be, I suggest they can have no objection to placing it in the Bill. The Minister in the other place did not provide a reason why that could not be undertaken, and I hope the Minister today will state the case one way or the other.

There are wider issues regarding pensions relating to the Bill. There is concern within the FE sector that the insolvency regime outlined in the Bill is already discouraging partnership and investment by making banks hesitant to lend to colleges. Some colleges are facing issues with proposed mergers arising from area reviews because of difficulties with bank lending linked to local government pension scheme liabilities, which now have to be shown on colleges’ balance sheets.

The area reviews under way are aimed at rationalising the FE sector. That process has been more problematic than it might have been, but at least no colleges have been closed thus far. A number have been merged and often that has worked well, with both partners approaching the future with greater confidence. However, that has not always been the case. For various reasons some projected mergers have not been completed, and one such example is currently the subject of some controversy. Other than to say that they are based in the same city, I will not identify the colleges because that might serve to exacerbate an already difficult situation, but the major stumbling block in that case is the pension scheme, more so at one college than the other. The local LGPS has changed the colleges’ deficit repayment terms from a 22-year plan with no interest to a 10-year plan with an interest rate of 4.3%. As a result, banks are refusing to advance the necessary funds to allow the mergers to go ahead. Essentially the increasing potential for colleges to become insolvent and the proposals within the Bill mean that colleges are now being viewed as high-risk employers, making both pension schemes and banks look on them less favourably and undermining area review outcomes where these have otherwise been agreed.

I have already mentioned the two schemes that apply. When incorporation began some 25 years ago and colleges were removed from local authority control, part of the deal was that by regulation they were obliged to offer one of the schemes as appropriate to existing staff. For new staff, colleges have often held contracts of employment with a wholly owned subsidiary company that may or may not be part of either the teachers’ pay pension scheme or the local government pension scheme—more often, for obvious reasons, it has been “may not”. So, provided that a college keeps paying for current staff, pension costs in respect of new staff will slowly be reduced as they are put on significantly worse pension schemes.

The college area review process has caused problems because often the local fund of the local government pension scheme requires the scheme’s debts to be met by the new entity. This becomes more complicated where mergers cross local authority borders, involving different strands of the LGPS. Differing LGPS regions have significantly different policies on past service deficits, and impose differing contribution rates. They might even insist upon any deficits being paid off in full.

An example of this has been brought to my attention by Sandwell College in West Bromwich. The West Midlands local government pension fund has notified all colleges in its region that, because of its interpretation of the Bill, it intends to increase the risk banding of all colleges. Sandwell College has been rated financially outstanding by both the DfE and the SFA and, in the area review, the further education commissioner decided that it should remain a viable independent institution. Despite all that, the West Midlands pension fund still believes that, because of the insolvency regime that forms the bulk of the Bill, Sandwell College is now at high risk, when it is palpably is not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this important debate and will do my very best to reply and, I hope, reassure—notwithstanding that I think that noble Lords accept that some of the important issues raised go beyond the scope of the amendment.

I recognise the well-intentioned purpose of the amendment, which is to ensure that those staff employed by a further education body in education administration continue to accrue their pension entitlements. I hope to reassure the Committee that pension rights will be protected in the unlikely event that the further education body becomes insolvent and is placed in education administration.

In developing the special administration regime, the Committee will see that we have sought to mirror many of the provisions that exist in the ordinary administration regime that applies in the event of a company insolvency. As noble Lords will know, in an ordinary company administration, the administrator has 14 days to decide whether to adopt staff contracts. Those who continue to be employed by the company will continue to be paid in accordance with the contract, including payment by the company of any pension contributions that fall due. These payments are an expense of the administration and continue until the staff are transferred to a new employer, if the business is sold to a new owner, as is often the case, or until their contract is terminated. We propose to adopt similar provisions for an education administration.

We have been clear that, for the education administration to be successful—for the special objective to be achieved—it will be necessary for the Government to provide funding to achieve the special objective: for example, to allow the college to continue to operate while the education administrator prepares his proposals for the college’s future. The Bill provides at Clause 25 powers for the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers to provide that funding, where necessary, whether through loans or grants. In addition, the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers may choose, where they consider it appropriate, to give indemnities under Clause 26, or guarantees under Clause 28, during the education administration.

Any funding provided under Clause 25 can be used to meet the cost of the education administration, including ongoing staff salaries and associated contributions, such as employer pension contributions. For as long as pension contributions are being made in accordance with staff contracts, pension entitlements will continue to accrue. The education administration changes nothing in this regard. However, once contributions cease, so too will the accrual of benefits. This would happen where staff were made redundant during the education administration. As with any employer pension scheme, once an individual’s employment ends they can no longer continue to pay into that scheme, but that does not mean that the benefits individuals have accrued in the scheme at that point are lost. Although they can no longer be added to, the benefits accrued will remain in the scheme and increase, as provided for by the terms of the scheme. Individuals will be able to access these benefits as and when the terms permit.

I believe that the way in which the regime will operate in practice means that the amendment is unnecessary. The Secretary of State may not provide a guarantee during an education administration, whereas it is almost inevitable that the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers will provide funding through a loan or grant during an education administration. This funding will enable the continued operation of the further education body, and this in turn will mean that pension contributions continue to be made for all staff, whether teachers, caretakers, cleaners or support staff. I hope that that gives some reassurance.

I turn to some of the wider issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen. Further education colleges report that they are seeing a marked increase in the risks attached to their LGPS pension deficits. The question is: what are we going to do to counteract that? Further education bodies underwent the triennial revaluation of their LGPS pension deficit positions last year, and are still in the process of receiving and reviewing their results. We are aware of the outcome of a few, but not the majority, of the positions of colleges across England. The picture we have is mixed, with some coming out with results better than anticipated, and a minority even seeing their deficit repayment cost reduced for the forthcoming period. Others are seeing their costs increased. In some cases, that may be because they did not increase substantially in the previous revaluation period. There is residual adjustment being made in this period.

The assessment of repayment obligations is a function of many factors, including fund performance, the size of the deficit and fund managers’ overall analysis of the financial position of the relevant college. Reports from colleges received so far suggest that in only a few cases has a pension fund’s assessment of the risk of further education insolvency specifically contributed to revaluations with significantly increased repayment costs. Further education bodies have freedoms and flexibilities in law to be financially and operationally independent of government and are therefore classified by the ONS as private sector. Pension revaluations are a matter for negotiation between individual FE colleges and their pension fund, and final revaluations are normally based on a variety of factors as assessed by actuaries.

The noble Lord, Lord Watson, mentioned Sandwell, and I shall reference that and West Midlands. Only two of the 91 LGPS pension funds expressed in response to our consultation that the special objective in the insolvency regime was inappropriately formulated, one—which was actually West Midlands—suggesting that creditor protection should be placed on a par with learner protection and the other suggesting that creditor protection should be prioritised over learners. The others that responded to the consultation supported the premise of learner protection or were silent on the point.

As was set out in our response to the consultation, it is right that learner protection is prioritised and that approach is widely supported, even by other creditors. That is the point of the special objective. A few pension funds also questioned not limiting the length of the time for a SAR. We are clear that this is so as to not constrain the education administrator. In reality, an education administration may well last a similar length of time to an ordinary administration. Ordinary company administrations often last at least 12 months and then are often extended for a further 12 months or so, so an education administration lasting this length of time would not be unusual for insolvency proceedings. Several pension funds, as well as other creditors, sought greater certainty on how a SAR would be funded, and the Government responded by providing additional flexibility in the funding power set out in the Bill, removing the requirement that loans from government be made on a basis of priority to other creditors. So the Government can choose, in each individual case, to pay for the costs of the SAR up front by a loan and to not require that loan to be repaid unless any funds remained after other creditors had been paid out, meaning that the assets normally available to creditors remain available to creditors in the usual priority. This will be a matter to be decided case by case, but it does not appear that all pension funds have taken this change from the stricter position in normal insolvency into account in their assessment of the risk.

With regard to the wider issues, which go beyond the scope of the amendment, I hope that I have been able to reassure noble Lords. If there are issues outstanding, I shall write to noble Lords and place a copy in the Library for the benefit of all. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the noble Baroness for that comprehensive response. On the first part of the response relating to the amendment, to a significant extent she repeated the words of Mr Halfon in another place but, equally, she repeated his failure to give a reason why this should not be in the Bill. She said that the Government propose to adopt similar provisions—

[Baroness Buscombe]

I may not be able to reassure the noble Lord, but we simply do not feel that it is necessary to have this in the Bill.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

Yes, but that is not giving a reason. The proposal is very important, and it fits in with the provisions in Clauses 25 to 28. No harm can be done in having it in the Bill; if it gives reassurance to those working within the sector, I would suggest that, in the absence of any reason not to do it, that should be sufficient reason for it to be included.

I accept that the other points that I raised were beyond the scope of the amendment, and I thank the Minister for indulging me in her response. I praise the perspicacity of the officials sitting behind her, who obviously had an answer pretty much prepared, without knowing that I was going to raise these issues. Maybe it just came off the top of their heads—but either way it was impressive and very detailed.

I will want to take some time to consider what the Minister said. There may well be a case for seeking a report from the Government Actuary on funds that have acted strangely because, if I heard her correctly, she said that two out of 91 funds have suggested that they foresee problems as a result of the provisions of the Bill. I had not realised that it was that narrow. There is still the potential for other funds to adopt a similar position. Perhaps they are holding fire until the Bill becomes law. Can the matter be referred to the Government Actuary for a report on the potential outcome as well as the actual outcomes? At the moment, it seems that problems are being created for some colleges. If they are mainly in the West Midlands, so be it, but the point is that it could happen elsewhere. Will she look at that possibility? On the basis of what she has said to me, we will decide whether to revisit this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 56 withdrawn.

Secondary Schools: Funding

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 27th February 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Nash]

The IFS pointed out that over the 20 years from 2000 to 2020, schools will have a 50% per pupil increase in real terms. As I said, we believe that there is considerable scope for savings in schools’ efficiency. We are already on course to save £250 million in academies by next year alone with our RPA scheme substituting insurance costs. We believe that our buying strategy can save £1 billion out of £10 billion a year of non-staff spending.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, quoted a head teacher and I would like to do the same. Last week, the head teacher of the Forest School in Winnersh, Berkshire, resigned her post because of the increasing amount of cuts facing her school. In a letter to parents, pupils and staff, she said:

“The situation with regard to schools funding, both nationally and locally, is bleak: in common with other headteachers, I did not enter the teaching profession to make cuts that narrow the curriculum, or to reduce the number of teachers and increase class sizes, yet my hand has been forced and I see no immediate easing of the situation. Consequently”—


this impacts directly upon the question—

“I feel unable to deliver the quality of education the boys at The Forest so clearly deserve”.

The National Association of Head Teachers says that that is increasingly becoming the situation across England. That is not surprising, as the National Audit Office has reported that there will have to be an 8% real cut in the schools budget up to 2020—this, it should be said, by a party that in its 2015 election manifesto pledged to protect the schools budget. The Government say that the new funding formula—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I am not surprised that Members opposite are unhappy about this, because it is unpalatable. The Government say that the new funding formula is about fairness. How can the funding be fair when it is not sufficient?

[Lord Nash]

I do not think that time will permit me to respond to that speech. I can only repeat what I said: that schools that run themselves efficiently have ample resources for a broad curriculum. I invite the noble Lord to go on to the department’s website and watch a clip by Sir Mike Wilkins about the curriculum-led financial planning at Outwood Grange. Academically, this is one of the most successful and, financially, one of our most efficient multi-academy trusts.

Technical and Further Education Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee: 2nd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th February 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

12: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“International students and staff
(1) The Secretary of State has a duty to encourage international students to attend further education providers covered by this Act.(2) The Secretary of State shall ensure that no student who has received an offer to study at such a further education provider shall be treated for public policy purposes as a long term migrant to the UK, for the duration of their studies at such an establishment.(3) Persons, who are not British citizens, who receive an offer to study as a student or who receive an offer of employment as a member of academic staff at a further education provider, shall not, in respect of that course of study, or that employment, be subject to more restrictive immigration controls or conditions than were in force for a person in their position on the day on which this Act was passed.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is fair to say that the question of international students is, to put it mildly, a somewhat thorny one. I do not want to draw parallels too closely with the higher education sector, but there is no reason why the further education sector should not seek to attract more students, and indeed staff, from overseas. The debates that have taken place on the Higher Education and Research Bill suggest that the Government do not fully appreciate the value to many institutions of the contributions made by students from abroad, and I am not just talking in financial terms. The financial contribution is of course important to the further education sector, but no less so is the general contribution made by the presence of students from other countries. Despite the result of the referendum, we do not—and, I would say, must not ever allow ourselves to—live in a world of our own, unwilling to acknowledge or embrace the benefits that flow from interacting with those from other countries and cultures.

There is not a consistency of view regarding the value of those benefits. The Foreign Secretary is a man with whom, I must say, I rarely see eye to eye, but I was at one with him when he said in a recent speech that overseas students should be excluded from the immigration statistics. That is certainly the position of the Labour Party, and I know that it is shared by many others across your Lordships’ House and much further afield. Of course, Mr Johnson was not espousing government policy and he was overruled by 10 Downing Street, but on this occasion certainly he was right. It is common sense to treat international students as a benefit to, and not a burden on, this country.

Amendment 12 would place the onus on the Secretary of State to encourage international students. She could of course delegate that role, and might usefully do so, to the institute. Some further education colleges already reach out and have a presence in other countries—some more successfully than others, it must be said—so this is an area in which there is surely room for expansion. It should be made widely known, particularly when government Ministers are abroad, that applications to further education colleges by young people or by those who want to teach in FE colleges would be welcomed. Students may use this provision as a means to gain the qualifications needed to enter higher education, or teaching staff may use it to broaden their expertise, but whatever the reason, as we close the doors to the European Union, we should be opening them wide to many other countries. This amendment offers a means of doing so by highlighting what further education providers have to offer internationally, and I hope that the Minister will accept it in that light.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment and entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Watson, on the importance of signalling to international students and staff that they are welcome. Not only are they welcome, they are invaluable in providing teaching skills that we are unable to provide from UK citizens and in bolstering student places in both quality and quantity.

Through this Bill, we would hope to send out positive messages to those from other countries that we are open for business, that we shall honour any commitments to staff or students and that we shall minimise the immigration conditions for all bona fide students and staff who wish to come to our further education colleges or providers. These measures are particularly important now in respect of EU nationals, who play such a significant part in the success of our further and higher education institutions and who are feeling particularly beleaguered and undervalued at the moment, but they are important too for the much wider international community. I hope that the Minister is able to accept this amendment.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, the Committee will be aware that this issue is already being considered as part of the Higher Education and Research Bill. As a Government, we will want to consider our position across the board, and I can assure noble Lords that we are doing this. This topic is best discussed in the context of the Higher Education and Research Bill, where there will be ample opportunity to consider the issue during the forthcoming Report stage. However, I will briefly address the more specific points of the amendment.

While there are some further education colleges that have centres of expertise or offer higher level study that attract a significant number of international students, such as the one referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Knight, as a whole the number of international students in FE is much smaller than for the higher education sector. Courses are on average shorter, and delivery is more locally focused and reflects local economic priorities. Where colleges take significant numbers of international students, the issues will parallel those that have been considered through proposed amendments to the Higher Education and Research Bill.

I do not propose to repeat the arguments that my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie made during that debate. I do wish to emphasise that we have and will continue to set no limit on the number of genuine international students who can come here. The controls in place are there to prevent abuse of the system and ensure that the reputation of the UK educational sector continues to be internationally renowned. The immigration statistics are controlled independently by the Office for National Statistics. It is not up to the Government to create the statistical definitions. Our responsibility is to set the policy, which in this case places no limit on numbers of students.

As I have said, there will be an opportunity to debate these issues further as part of the Higher Education and Research Bill, which is the more appropriate forum. In those circumstances, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the two noble Lords who contributed to the debate and the Minister for his response. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, about the positive message that this sends. That is what I was trying to get across in moving this amendment.

Equally, I accept the Minister’s use of the term “abuse of the system”. No one would be tolerant of that at all. There were such situations in the past in the case particularly of language schools. Some of them had been—to use about the kindest adjective that could be applied to them—“bogus”. Very largely, these have been driven out of the system. I would not say that there is no abuse, but there is not a great deal. Opening up the further education sector does not necessarily increase the likelihood of such abuse.

I take the Minister’s point that the Higher Education and Research Bill is the place to deal with that. Fortunately for him, he will not have to do that, but I will be returning to these subjects next week. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that, hopefully, the further education sector has the opportunity to broaden its scope a bit. Whereas local provision is what it is mainly about, there is scope to expand that and I hope that the sector will take the opportunity to do so and will not be prevented from doing so through the inability to bring students in from abroad.

With those remarks, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

12A: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Apprentices as qualifying young persons for the purposes of child benefit
(1) The Child Benefit (General) Regulations 2006 are amended as follows.(2) In Regulation 3 (education and training condition)—(a) after paragraph (2)(a) insert—“(aa) is undertaking a statutory apprenticeship as defined under section A11 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 (only statutory apprenticeships to be described as apprenticeships);”;(b) in paragraph (4) after “(2)(a)” insert “, (2)(aa),”.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, this proposed new clause may not at first sight seem as if it is appropriate for this Bill or for the scope of the Department for Education. I would concede the second point, but not the first, and I hope that I can demonstrate that that is not a contradiction in terms. The new clause would enable families eligible for child benefit to receive that benefit for children aged under 20 who are undertaking apprenticeships.

The landscape of apprenticeships is changing, and from April the introduction of the levy will mean a greater focus on giving young people key skills and up-skilling current employees. Apprenticeships are receiving greater support from government than for generations, and the numbers of young people starting them are increasing exponentially. So it felt odd to read in a survey that more than 90% of 18 to 24 year- olds were not interested in starting an apprenticeship. It seems that apprenticeships still have a significant image problem. The survey results showed that not just young people but two-thirds of people aged over 55 thought that going to university would always be a much better career option. The biggest reason for this was said to be poor careers advice being given at school.

That is not the only reason why young people may be discouraged. In some cases, their parents may actually prevent them taking up apprenticeships because of the economic consequences. In one sense at least, apprentices are treated as second-class citizens, with those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds being denied thousands of pounds of financial support that is available for college and university students, according to a survey carried out by the National Union of Students. The research, which that body carried out in conjunction with the Times Educational Supplement, revealed that apprentices are also excluded from a number of means of support available to their counterparts in further education institutions.

In April, the apprentice national minimum wage will increase by a whopping 10%—I am sorry, I wish it were by that, but it is by 10p to £3.50 an hour. A college student with one child could be eligible for more than £10,000 a year in financial support and their families could receive thousands more. Apprentices, including those on the minimum wage earning as little as £7,000 a year, are not entitled to any of this. As well as being ineligible for Care to Learn childcare grants—again, unlike further education students— some apprentices also miss out on travel discounts, council tax exemptions and student bank account packages.

The reason is that apprenticeships are not classed as approved education or training by the Department for Work and Pensions. This means that, in the case of apprentices who live with their parents, their families could lose out by more than £1,000 a year in child benefit. Families receiving universal credit could lose more than £3,200 a year. Why should families suffer as we seek to train the young people desperately needed to fill the skill gaps in the economy? University students receive assistance from a range of sources, from accessing finance to discounted rates on council tax. Apprentices currently receive none of these benefits. The system must be changed so that both are treated equally and there is genuine parity of esteem between students and apprentices.

A large number of examples of apprentices being unable either to take up their apprenticeship or to complete it have been reported by further education colleges to the Association of Colleges. I would like to highlight one case involving a young man aged 16 at the time, who was enrolled in a full-time carpentry and joinery programme at New College Durham. He came from a disadvantaged area within County Durham, where he lived with his mother, a single parent, and his half-sister. From the outset of the programme, he made it clear that he was very keen to transfer to an apprenticeship and enquired weekly at the apprenticeship office about possible vacancies. Within a matter of weeks, he was offered a work trial with one of the employers with whom the college worked. The employer told the college that he was pleased with the commitment and work ethic demonstrated by the young man and offered him an apprenticeship, which was enthusiastically accepted. Soon after starting it, though, the college received a phone call from the employer saying that he would not continue to employ the young man, as his mother had been in contact to say that she would lose her housing benefit due to her son being classified as employed. Despite his disappointment, the young man continued on the full-time programme and completed his level 1 diploma but, understandably, the employer was disgruntled due to the wasted time and effort and stipulated that he would not again interview a potential apprentice from a welfare-dependent background. That really is a sad story.

We need to bear in mind such situations when we think about the extension of apprenticeships. Barriers surely should not be put in the way of young people who genuinely want to start an apprenticeship and see it through, better themselves and help the economy in broader terms. As the National Society of Apprentices said in its submission to the Public Bill Committee in another place, “It seems inconsistent—to put it mildly—

“that apprentices are continually excluded from definitions of ‘approved’ learners, when apprenticeships are increasingly assuming their place in the government’s holistic view of education and skills (which this Bill itself represents through unifying apprenticeships with technical education)”.

To repeat, there should be genuine parity between all educational and apprenticeship routes.

The risk of losing out financially can and does deter some of the most disadvantaged young people from becoming apprentices. The Government need to act to close this loophole and, although I accept that it is not within the Minister’s gift to do so, I suggest that he might at least signify his understanding of the position in which some apprentices find themselves—many of them from the kind of backgrounds where we are trying to attract more apprentices than is currently the case. That would help to reach the Government’s target of 3 million apprentices by 2020 and to ensure that every young person attracted to starting an apprenticeship was not prevented from doing so for financial reasons. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Buscombe]

My Lords, the difficulty is that the definition of a job is a question for Parliament.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the Minister for her response and all colleagues who have spoken in the debate. I particularly welcome the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and the noble Lord, Lord Storey. One of them mentioned social mobility, which is an important point. It is within the scope of the Government’s overall objective to increase social mobility; it is mentioned often enough. I do not see how it can be outwith the scope of the Bill, as the Minister said, because we are able to discuss it today.

There is no point in repeating a lot of the points that have been made, but I certainly take the issue about an approved form of learning, which my noble friend Lord Young mentioned; it needs to be clarified. Will the Minister write to noble Lords on that point?

The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, perhaps did not fully hear my noble friend Lord Blunkett when he asked whether we could meet with the Minister separately to discuss the issue. It was not just with the Minister but with his opposite number in the Department for Work and Pensions as well to see what might be achieved on this. I accept the Minister said that more or less nothing could be achieved, but we are going to meet, so let us broaden the meeting so that we have somebody who has experience of those matters and we can go into them in greater detail.

My noble friend Lady Donaghy has a great deal of experience in these matters, as noble Lords will know. However, I am not sure that her metaphors stand close scrutiny of the very urbane Minister—leaping over barriers and banging heads together is not quite his modus operandi, and I will not go anywhere near the Superman reference. However, I think the Minister can at least open up channels for discussion on this. We would certainly need to have those discussions before Report.

At this stage, it is our intention to return to the matter because, at the end of the day, we want to increase the number of apprenticeships from all backgrounds. We need to increase the overall number, but many are being put off for reasons that will not be assuaged by the figures quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and we have to find a way round this. With those comments, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 12A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

16: Schedule 1, page 21, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) After subsection (6), insert—“(6A) In performing its functions, the Institute must make provision to ensure that those undertaking education, training or apprenticeships as specified within subsection (6) have representation within its structures, which may include but shall not be limited to establishing—(a) a panel of persons undertaking approved English apprenticeships to inform and advise the Board of the Institute; and(b) a panel of persons undertaking study towards approved technical education qualifications to inform and advise the Board of the Institute.””

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 16 and 18, which deal with the issue of representation within the structures of the institute.

Apprentices should be able to influence the way in which their training is developed and delivered. From the front line, they know what has been and is being helpful to and successful for them and, equally importantly, what is not. I hope that the Minister, who has been clear in his support of apprenticeships and apprentices, appreciates that point. 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”.


I might add that students can also give feedback through the National Student Survey.

The panels that we know are to be established for apprentices and technical education students were the subject of considerable debate in another place, in the Public Bill Committee. The Minister of State for Skills, Mr Halfon, was clear that he was in favour of them. He gave assurances related to them and the assurances were taken on board. As things stand, they will not be enshrined in the legislation.

We believe that to ensure that a future Secretary of State or Government less welcoming to the needs of those groups of young people cannot sweep away their right to a channel of communication, which is what it is, rather than representation, they are entitled to representation in some form. The rationale behind this amendment, at its most basic, is that it is better to have and not need than to need and not have. The concerns of those directly involved should have a means of being conveyed. At the moment, other than those panels—and we do not know how and when they will be established—nothing else is on offer.

Amendment 18 concerns the need to have a wide range of types of employer involved in setting the standards for the 15 occupation routes. The fear is that, because only employers with a wage bill in excess of £3 million will pay the apprenticeship levy, they will be the most prominent employers involved. Certainly, they will be spread across the sectors and the 15 occupations. That is self-evident. The question is what types of employer—not just the largest—there will be.

What about small and medium-size enterprises? They are very prominent in providing apprenticeships. Many of them feel that they have been marginalised in the current drive towards expansion. Whether that is the case, that is how many view recent developments. Whether the Government achieve their target of 3 million apprenticeship starts will ultimately depend on how many SMEs contribute to meeting that target. They are a vital part of the economy and should not be undervalued by government. If their needs are not factored in and they feel their voice is not being heard in the corridors of power, particularly when standards are being prepared, we can legitimately ask how they can be expected to play their part in this brave new world with enthusiasm. We might also say that of our other major employers—local authorities, for instance. They will be playing a significant role, I hope, in this, and they have to be borne in mind. It is about widening the base of employers involved in setting standards.

Referring to the Government’s proposals for reform of the sector, in giving evidence to the Public Bill Committee, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers stated:

“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”.


I am never quite comfortable with the word “stakeholder”, but I get the point that the association is trying to make.

I therefore supported in principle the amendment similar to this amendment that was submitted by the Opposition in another place. The arguments made then stand now, because although we are not advocating a place on the board of the institute—we would, if we thought it was achievable—we are seeking that a duty be placed on the institute to allow representation within its structures for those directly involved in delivering apprenticeships and technical education. If the institute’s foundations would be shaken by such representation, the foundations are by no means sufficiently robust. I beg to move.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth]

This is an important amendment. I very much enjoyed the exchange at Oral Questions today in which the noble Lord, Lord Prior, responded for the Government on the importance of employee engagement. I felt he really understands how important it is in the private sector and, in some ways most surprisingly, in the public sector, particularly from his comments about junior doctors. In that spirit, obviously I hope that apprentices—who, as we have discussed this afternoon, are employees—will enjoy employee engagement with their employers, even though they are apprentices. It is equally important that the institute feels that it is accountable to learners and that the accountability of the institute is not more upwards to the Government than it is to employers and learners.

As I said last week in this Committee, I have general concerns that the dynamic, rapidly changing nature of the labour market presents ongoing challenges to the institute. I was set a challenge by my noble friend Lord Hunt to come up with a solution to some of that before Report. I have been mulling on that and may have at least the beginnings of a solution, but I shall wait to surprise the Minister with it at some future date. The point remains that, if the institute does not have within its structure a way of listening acutely to the learner experience, of assessing the relevance of the qualification in the labour market for learners not only while they are going through their apprenticeship but in the months immediately after they have completed it, and of being accountable to employers of all sizes, as my noble friend pointed out, I worry that our efforts in this Committee to try to help and advise the Government in making the institute a success will be in vain because it will too quickly become out of touch and out of date.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Watson and Lord Hunt, for their two amendments relating to issues of representation for the Institute for Apprenticeships.

With regard to Amendment 16, the institute should obviously understand the views of those people undertaking this training to ensure that it is meeting their needs, because it is the organisation responsible for apprenticeships and technical education. Section ZA2 of the 2009 Act, inserted by the Enterprise Act 2016, already requires the institute to have regard to,

“the reasonable requirements of persons who may wish to undertake education and training within”,

the institute’s remit, and to other interested persons. The institute is also required to engage interested groups as part of the review of standards and assessment plans.

The institute has purposely been established as an independent organisation, with high-level responsibilities set out in legislation but with the freedom to decide how it delivers them. It is essential for the credibility of apprenticeships and the wider apprenticeship reform programme that the institute retains as much autonomy as possible. Government can provide the institute with advice and guidance about how it could carry out its functions. It has to have regard to this advice and must provide justification if it chooses not to follow it. The Government recently consulted on a draft of their guidance to the institute for 2017-18, which includes a request for the institute to establish an apprenticeship panel to advise the board. The shadow institute has already committed to doing this by the time that it is launched and good progress is being made. Members for the first apprenticeship panel have already been shortlisted and an initial meeting is planned for March.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

On that point, can the Minister say how this was done? Were applications invited?

[Lord Nash]

I will have to write to the noble Lord about that.

As well as advising the board, the first panel will decide how the panel will be run, including how future members will be recruited. The proposal is for the institute to take on responsibility for technical education from April 2018. I can confirm that it would be our intention to include a request in its guidance for 2018-19 for a panel to represent those undertaking technical education.

Amendment 18 would stipulate the make-up of the group of persons whom the institute could approve to develop a standard. In particular, it would require that the group includes a range of employers and at least one provider. I agree that it is essential that the standards that form the basis of reformed apprenticeships and new technical education qualifications are of high quality, and meet the needs of a wide range of employers and learners, but I am not convinced that this amendment is necessary. I have already explained that the institute needs to be independent from government to be able to undertake its functions with credibility. It will be well placed to make decisions about who can develop a new standard, based on a range of factors, and it is right that it should be given the flexibility to do so without the constraints that this amendment would impose.

However, in my remarks on the preceding amendment I referred to the strategic guidance providing a vehicle for government to advise the institute. The current draft of the guidance includes the recommendation on who should be able to develop standards and makes it clear that we will expect the institute to continue to ensure that standards are developed primarily by employers, but with input from others with the relevant knowledge and experience, such as professional bodies, other sector experts, providers and assessment organisations. If the institute decides not to follow the government guidance it must give reasons in its annual report, but it is crucial that, as an expert, independent organisation, it retains the ability to make decisions itself about delivery, taking into account all the relevant circumstances. We believe that our approach strikes the right balance. I hope that, on the basis of my explanation, the noble Lord will feel reassured enough to withdraw this amendment.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, for her Amendment 36A. I am sure it was prompted by concerns for publicly funded learners who may find themselves without a place to complete their course in the event that an independent provider shuts down. I share her concerns but just as with FE bodies, the likelihood of independent training providers becoming insolvent is low. The Skills Funding Agency has a robust entry process in place to ensure providers are capable of delivering a high-quality learning offer to loans learners. Once providers have met the entry criteria and are eligible to offer loans-funded provision to learners they are subject to a range of further measures and controls, including review of their financial health, audit, and assessment of their qualification achievement rates. Providers are also required to comply with robust funding and performance rules. A small handful of providers is facing difficulty, but the numbers affected by these cases represent less than 1% of providers operating in the advanced learner loans programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich]

I am happy not to press my amendment, but I would like some clarification on why a private company which is often entirely dependent on public funding should be in some sense exempt from any requirements. This does not seem to be consistent with much of what goes on elsewhere in the public sector and what it requires of people.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I think the Minister has sat down now and that the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, is very pertinent. From what has been said over the past half-hour or so, it is likely that we will return to this subject on Report. I have no doubt that the Minister and his officials will be looking at this in greater detail because the question of accountability is very important. Whether or not these are corporations, they are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, said, dealing with public money.

My noble friend Lady Cohen asked what recourse students have if they are dissatisfied. The Minister did not answer that point. Again, this comes down to accountability. People have to have some come back if they do not get what they thought they were getting. I am talking about situations that fall short of the provider collapsing into insolvency. Many people may feel that they are getting an inferior product and that has to be something that can be followed up.

I take the Minister’s point in respect of Amendments 16 and 18 about the institute being independent and having the freedom to decide how it delivers. However, he went on to say that there would be two panels: one for students and one for apprentices. That is what our Amendment 16 asks for and it goes no further, other than to say that it need not be limited to those two panels. The Minister has conceded the point, as did his colleague Robert Halfon in another place, as I said earlier. We knew that, but it would be helpful to have a commitment because—we say this in respect of many pieces of legislation—we may get a commitment from Ministers now, but what about the Ministers or Government who follow them? There is nothing to fall back on should views change. That is why it is important on occasions such as this to have it written into the legislation.

The same could be said about Amendment 18 on employers. The Minister said—I wrote it down—that there would be a range of employers. We are asking for almost the same wording,

“a number of employers who, taken together, comprise a broad range of employer types”.

We are surely talking about the same thing and I do not understand the reluctance. The Minister clearly wants to see a broad range; so do we.

I think we might want to revisit these matters because we are capable of reaching a situation where both sides are satisfied. We want to make sure that this works and works well: that the boards are representative and that the standards set are proper and reached with the full support of the sector. They have to be acceptable to employers within each of the 15 occupational groups and seen to be representative of their needs. We have a bit of common ground but there is some ground yet to be made up before we reach what either side might find a satisfactory outcome. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 16 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, we now move on to the question of certificates, which has been raised already this afternoon. There are quite a few questions to be asked about the institute’s power to issue technical education certificates. This is another significant proposal and was not canvased in the skills plan. The proposal potentially removes any continuing link between the awarding organisation and the qualification that it has produced.

The amendment seeks clarity on the relationship between the issuing of the proposed certificates and the qualification certificates issued by the awarding organisations. Will these technical education qualifications be alongside the awarding organisation certificate? The Minister said that employers would pay for this certificate. Does that mean that the submission for it would come from the employer, the training provider or the awarding body? What assessment has been made of the resources required by the institute to authenticate, print and send out the 3 million apprenticeship certificates to meet the government target? Will the institute require the addresses of all the candidates, or will they be sent to the employer or training provider to distribute?

Government issuing of certificates is not common procedure at qualification level in any other area of the education and training system and would appear to bestow unnecessary cost, duplication and complexity on the Department for Education and/or the institute. Would it not be simpler if the certificate issued by the awarding organisation also carried the logo of the institute or of the Department for Education? The amendment proposes the much simpler solution of adding the backing and status of the institute or DfE to a certificate which has already been validated, processed and issued. I beg to move.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, and the Labour Benches support the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal. She has a great deal of experience in the field of technical qualifications, so I have little meaningful to add. In earlier debates on the Bill, I have said that I hope to see a situation develop which leads to a small and relatively focused group of technical education qualifications. GCSEs and A-levels are instantly and universally recognised and accepted; I want to see something similar for technical education certificates. The current plethora of qualifications means that too few are understood, far less valued, and that diminishes the hard work that young people put into gaining them. How dispiriting it must be to emerge successfully from the end-point assessment only to find that the qualification gained is not widely recognised or transferrable to other employers.

Allowing the use of the DfE logo and consistent wording would standardise the technical education certificates issued, make it clear that they are overseen by the Department for Education and thus have a value transferrable throughout England. That measure is long overdue.

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 32. I am trying to follow up on Second Reading and make a couple of suggestions to the Government which I hope are helpful.

First, if they have got this system of issuing certificates, they should make sure that, at the same time, they get the ability to communicate with apprentices. If I were in government, I would use this as a means of making sure that quality was being delivered, by sending questionnaires out to apprentices as a means of improving the quality of apprenticeships by asking what needed to be done better, particularly by asking them a couple of years after their apprenticeship what, with the benefit of experience, might have been improved. I would also use it as a way of getting information with which to celebrate the schools that apprentices went to. Schools pay far too little attention to the apprentices they have educated, mostly because they do not know anything about them. With university it is there; it is easy; it happens immediately. Apprenticeship information is not gathered in the same way; it is not celebrated by schools or made available to them. There are lots of things that the Government could do on the back of having the ability to communicate and I encourage them to give themselves that.

Secondly—I am echoing what is being said in Amendment 31—let us give these young people something really worth having, something to which they can put their name. The point of GCSEs and A-levels is that they are recognised. If we are taking away the plethora of sometimes well-valued names that attach themselves to technical qualifications, let us create a name and be able to give young people some letters to put after their name, such as BA—I do not actually know what these letters should be, but they should be something that say that the young person has done this and have got the right to this. I am not a wordsmith to create this, but once they are not an apprentice they are nothing—they are a former apprentice; it is like being a former priest, something suspicious. We should give them something that celebrates what they have achieved, in the same way that we do for people who have followed the academic path.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Lucas]

Will the DfE be able to access this data, for instance to try to understand what history at school leads to what sort of performance in technical qualifications and apprenticeships?

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I welcome these amendments and want to say just a brief word about them, and in particular about Amendment 33.

On Report in another place Labour raised the issue of introducing the Quality Assurance Agency as a body to whom the institute can communicate information. The Minister, Mr Halfon, resisted at that time, saying that it depended on developments in the Higher Education and Research Bill. That Bill is still under way, but things have clearly moved on and the Minister has had second thoughts because we are pleased to hear that the Government now want to empower the institute to exchange information with all bodies with which it might need to do business, apparently without worrying about data protection legislation.

I would like one point of clarification on that. The amendment to Schedule 1 refers to “a relevant person” —we understand that a “person” is an organisation—and lists Ofqual, the OfS and Ofsted and then “a prescribed person”. The Quality Assurance Agency would be a prescribed person. When the Minister replies, will he specify the difference between somebody who is “relevant” and somebody who is “prescribed”? Presumably a prescribed person is not irrelevant but is not relevant.

The Minister and his colleagues are adopting the Opposition’s wider view of the role of the institute. Will he say which persons or bodies he and his colleagues have in mind to add, apart from the QAA, to which he referred? An obvious one is local government which can provide a bridge between school education and the world of work. Local government still retains various statutory duties for 16 to 18 year-olds, including duties under the Education Act 1996 in respect of ensuring education and training for persons over compulsory school age and of encouraging employers to participate in the provision of education and training for young people. The Minister may be aware that local authorities have duties in respect of young people with special educational needs and disabilities for whom the local authority maintains an education, health and care plan and for care leavers up to the age of 25. I should have said the Minister will be aware; it is a bit unfair to say he may be.

I also note that government Amendments 48 to 54, which we shall consider on Wednesday, make the local authority director of children’s services a person who must be informed about the insolvency of an FE college because, according to the Government’s explanation, such colleges will be educating care leavers, and the local authority needs to know to ensure that the local authority–appointed personal advisers to the care leavers know of the insolvency.

There are numerous reasons for local government to be involved. Perhaps the Minister will make a statement—I will be perfectly happy for it to be on Wednesday—about the anticipated roles of the local authority and the institute and how they will interact.

Technical and Further Education Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Wednesday 22nd February 2017 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

1: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Report on quality outcomes of completed apprenticeships
(1) The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education must report on an annual basis to the Secretary of State on quality outcomes of completed apprenticeships.(2) A report under subsection (1) must include information on—(a) job outcomes of individuals who have completed an apprenticeship;(b) average annualised earnings of individuals one year after completing an apprenticeship;(c) numbers of individuals who have completed an apprenticeship who progress to higher stages of education;(d) satisfaction rates of individuals who complete an apprenticeship with the quality of that apprenticeship; and(e) satisfaction rates of employers, who hire individuals who complete an apprenticeship, with the outcome of that apprenticeship.(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of any report under subsection (1) before each House of Parliament.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, as we embark on three days of Committee on the Technical and Further Education Bill, I must admit that I have been caught slightly unawares by the changed groupings that have been issued, further to those circulated yesterday. So I may have to edit as I go along on some of those to which I shall speak.

Be that as it may, the first group comprises Amendments 1, 4, 5 and 19—though not Amendment 17, as I had thought—and is mainly about the quality of outcomes. That concerns not only the input to but the outcomes of the apprenticeships that are a central part of the Bill. I say “outcomes” because outputs and outcomes are not necessarily the same thing, a point we want to stress with Amendment 1. Despite some progress in recent years, the situation for those young people who remain not in employment, education or training remains of some concern and we cannot be complacent about the job that still needs to be done to deal with many of the 16 to 24 year-olds in what is known as the NEET category.

As my noble friend Lord Hunt and I said at Second Reading, the focus for the Government’s target of 3 million apprenticeships must be high standards, not simply a concentration on meeting what was, after all, rather an arbitrary figure. Ministers must now choose either to honour their pledge to increase the quality of apprenticeship training or allow themselves to be consumed by the need to hit those targets. Last year the Public Accounts Committee emphasised the need for the Government to be unrelenting in their focus on the quality of apprenticeships and we believe that this is very much the key. While the temptation may exist to water down apprenticeship standards to hit the 3 million target, such short-termism would ultimately prove counterproductive. Unless there is an increase in quality, people will continue to look down their noses at apprenticeships and technical education when they should be viewed with the same respect as other forms of further education, such as university degrees.

Young people themselves are very keen to ensure that their apprenticeships are marked by quality. In last year’s Industry Apprentice Council survey, their main concern was quality because industry apprentices rightly see their apprenticeships as badges of honour—as, it is to be hoped, do their employers. It was satisfying to learn that nearly nine out of 10 level 2 and 3 apprentices were satisfied with their apprenticeships, but with such an increase planned it is essential that the satisfaction rate is maintained.

Given the new routes and standards for technical education and apprenticeship expansion, it is vital to track the outcomes for each group. The last two years’ apprenticeship evaluations showed small increases in the proportion that had completed their apprenticeships and were in work, but monitoring those trends is important. Related to that is monitoring progression and pay, which is not just important but very important. Apprentices have talked about a number of positive impacts in the workplace, but that does not always translate into pay or promotion benefits. Some 46% of apprentices received a pay rise after completing their apprenticeship and 50% had been promoted. Both figures represented an increase, and we certainly hope that trend will continue because it is important that young people who have worked hard to complete their apprenticeships are made to feel that it has been worth while. If they do not have that sense, perhaps because they feel that they have to some extent been exploited, demoralisation can set in, and that can dissuade the next cohort.

This issue was highlighted in last month’s report by the Low Pay Commission, which revealed that 18% of apprentices were being paid less than their legal entitlement. It is vital that these headlines do not act as a deterrent for non-graduate groups going into professions, and do not deter future young people from taking up apprenticeships. We believe that when the apprenticeship levy comes into force in April, tackling issues concerning exploitation should be a priority for the new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

Preventing such misbehaviour will require a strong regulator with power to punish instances of non-compliance on minimum pay. I repeat: this is a legal entitlement and there should be no exceptions under any circumstances. I accept that the Government very much hold to that view and I am certain that the institute will be told that it is an important part of its operation. Without that, the potential for further long-term harm to the reputation of apprenticeships is considerable. Research undertaken last year by the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants showed that apprenticeships face something of an image problem among many 16 to 18 year-olds. More than half the young people polled thought that apprenticeship routes would lead to their earning less over the course of their careers than if they studied at university. Apprenticeships are still seen as the poor relation when compared to traditional forms of higher education. If the Bill achieves anything by helping to reduce that perception, it will, in that sense alone, have been something of a success.

The duties that we place on the institute by the amendment are not onerous. Surely the Secretary of State would expect nothing less than an annual report from the institute on the quality of outcomes of completed apprenticeships. My question is: why not include that provision in the Bill? It follows, particularly while the Government are in pursuit of the 3 million target, that Parliament should have the opportunity to receive and debate the report. If the Government are serious about quality trumping quantity—I have done it again and I no longer feel comfortable using that word; I should have said “quality triumphing over quantity”—we should ensure maximum transparency in that regard.

Those sentiments dovetail with our Amendment 4 on standards and are a natural fit with new Section ZA11 on page 22 of the Bill, which sets out how the institute should publish standards in relation to the 15 occupations highlighted by my noble friend Lord Sainsbury in his seminal report. It is, of course, important to differentiate between quality and standards—terms that are often wrongly used interchangeably. It will be for the institute to set and maintain standards, while Ofsted and, in respect of maths and English, Ofqual, will have the task of ensuring that quality is widely established and then maintained. It is to be hoped that all the organisations charged with oversight will not overlap too much. I say “too much” because some overlap is preferable to gaps being allowed to develop through which who knows what might fall. To a significant extent, this is a question of resources and it will be the Government’s duty to ensure that staffing levels and resources of other kinds are not held at levels that restrict the effectiveness of any of the oversight bodies, particularly the institute.

Some surprise has been expressed by organisations in the sector at what Amendment 5 is intended to achieve. Let me be clear: first and foremost, it is concerned with achieving the best quality of teaching in further education institutions. No one would gainsay that, but before one can claim quality, one must have a means of measuring it. That is not to say that no measurement is currently undertaken, nor have there been suggestions that teaching quality in further education is poor. However, the detail we have is less than is available in higher education and, as noble Lords will know, when the teaching excellence framework is introduced in universities, the level of scrutiny will increase. We believe simply that, warts and all, the use of some sort of metrics would be advantageous, and Amendment 5 is not prescriptive as to what they might be. We simply call on the Secretary of State to bring forward a scheme to be operated by the Quality Assessment Committee of the Office for Students to ensure good-quality teaching in the further education sector. We also advocate a simple pass/fail outcome, with no suggestion of the cumbersome and ultimately unhelpful gold, silver and bronze scheme suggested for higher education. This would assist in achieving consistent levels of quality, with a broader aim of allowing the sector to build a relatively focused group of qualifications that carry the recognisability and acceptance of GCSEs and A-levels. People know what they are getting with those qualifications and the ultimate aim should be for something similar to develop with technical qualifications.

Finally, Amendment 19 would require the institute to publish apprenticeship assessment plans for all standards. Recent analysis of real-time experience shows that number-crunching on the government figures published last October suggested that there are no approved awarding organisations for over 40% of learner starts on the new apprentice standards. That is surely a matter for concern, although moving from a framework to standards involves moving down a road that will not, by any means, always be smooth. But apprentices on the standards will have to face end-point assessments for the first time and those assessments have to be carried out by organisations that have been cleared for the task by government or Skills Funding Agency-registered apprentice assessment organisations. Is the Minister confident that this will happen and that it will happen evenly across the country?

There is a degree of uncertainty about how this will evolve and what role the institute will have in relation to, say, Ofqual. Because of that it is important that we have transparency on who is being cleared and who is doing the clearing. As this process strengthens and multiplies, as it needs to do to meet all the government targets, the Government will have to pay close attention to the issue of capacity; otherwise, they will find themselves in a logjam of standards approvals as early as the middle of next year. That is the point at which any Government of any political persuasion, when they have the Opposition and other stakeholders bearing down on them, might be tempted to cut corners. Clearly, we do not want to see that but, like other stakeholders, we want to see what progress is taking place in real time. That is why we have tabled these amendments. I beg to move.

[Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak this early but I support these amendments. The desire across all parties in the Committee to achieve high standards in apprenticeships is unquestioned. We know that is what needs to be done. We know that is what we have failed to do in the past. I think the jury is still out on whether or not the Bill will achieve that.

We know from experience that new structures do not always achieve the ends that we want. There is a real danger in politics that because structures are the things we can control, that is where we put our emphasis. It is the one thing we can do. We do not teach, we do not mark, we do not assess; we can give funding and we can build structures. Sometimes there is a danger that we persuade ourselves that as long as in our mind and on paper the structure looks right, all will be well and things will be delivered. The education system is littered with gaps between the intentions of the structures and the reality of what is being delivered to children and young people. If you look at any part of our education and skills system, nowhere is that more the case than in skills and apprenticeships. We do not have a strong basis on which to build. We are not building on a record of high standards.

To be honest, you have to be as old as I am to remember the day when apprenticeships were generally thought of by the public as being high-quality training that did young boys and girls good in terms of the opportunities they had for life. Anyone a bit younger than me has an impression of an apprenticeship as being second best, not wanted—perhaps okay for someone else’s child but certainly not for mine.

Throughout the Bill the testing of whether we have done enough to ensure high standards is crucial to what happens in the future. The Government have a real quandary about how to deal with it—whether to go for the 3 million target or for standards. I feel certain that at some point along the line those two really good ambitions—nothing wrong with either of them—will come into conflict with each other. It is important as we go through the Bill that we put in some measures to make sure we are monitoring the standards and outputs of these new structures that we are putting into place.

Amendments 1 and 4 do that. Why would we not want to know what is happening to people who have taken the initial apprenticeship route? Why would we not want to know what employers think of people they might recruit? Why would we not want to know what the students themselves thought of their apprenticeships? I do not doubt for a moment that the Government have plans for how to get that feedback. Indeed, I know that to be the case because they are not silly; of course they will want feedback.

My noble friend on the Front Bench made a crucial comment: this is as much about building trust with the public and the people involved in apprenticeships, both employers and users, as it is about anything else. It is not enough for the Government to collect the statistics and then amend structures or legislation on the back of them. This is not a highly charged Bill politically and there is a great deal of good will across both Houses of Parliament to make sure it succeeds. Our joint endeavour is to build confidence and trust among teachers, parents, employers and learners. Even if the Minister wants to amend it in some way, because we could have lots of arguments about the detail of the information to be collected, this is a reasonable amendment. Its aim and thrust would stand us in good stead in the Bill we are now considering and I support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Nash]

I will write to my noble friend about that.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this lively debate. It is important that the Minister in his response began by saying—I wrote it down—that the 3 million target is a target but quality comes first, and that the institute is not responsible for meeting the target but for ensuring quality. Those words will be well received, and to have them in written in Hansard will be a comfort to many people. However, that is the aim and it has to be followed through to ensure that apprenticeships achieve what everyone in this room would want them to achieve.

There seem to be three primary aims for apprenticeships, at this time anyway. One is that the aforementioned word “quality” must be everywhere. The second is that they are able to produce young people, and perhaps not-so-young people, equipped to fill the skills gaps in the economy that we know are there. The third aim is that apprenticeships and everything surrounding them should ensure what my noble friend Lady Morris said: that they have public confidence and that parents in particular are not just willing but knowledgeable enough to guide their sons and daughters into apprenticeships with the confidence that they will get something worth while out of them. If that public confidence is not there, the 3 million target will not be met. I therefore hope that those three aims will be met as a result of the institute being reformed.

The Minister mentioned Ofsted. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, covered some of the points I wanted to make but the Minister said Ofsted tells him that it has sufficient resources. I am tempted to say that it would, would it not? However, with a new head of Ofsted, I should have thought that this was a time to increase resources to take account of increased responsibilities and duties. There will clearly be far more apprenticeships than there have been. If Ofsted has the work deriving from Bill added to its ability to inspect schools—some are inspected rarely—it is hard to see how that can be done without additional resources. The Minister did not mention additional resources and I suspect that is because there may not be any, but it would be helpful if he could clarify the point about Ofsted. It is difficult for us to take on board that Ofsted could suddenly adopt extra responsibilities without additional resources.

The Minister also mentioned the Office for Students, particularly in respect of Amendment 5. He did not believe that it was appropriate for the OfS to have the regulating duty set out in that amendment and that the body’s role was regulating higher education. I agree that Ofsted will have the lead role but that does not preclude the OfS. I must ask the Minister for clarification because—with due deference to my noble friend Lady Donaghy—there are five acronyms in the letter he issued today for bodies involved in apprenticeships and technical education. The OfS is not one of them, yet it has some role in the provisions of the Bill. If Ofsted is going to take the lead role, it impacts on the resources argument. We need some clarification of what the OfS is expected to do.

I must also ask about another comment the Minister made in his response. He said that Ofsted had sufficient resources up to level 5. However, the chart at the back end of the letter we received today said that Ofsted inspects the quality of training for level 2 to level 3 apprenticeships. Perhaps that can be clarified because the two comments do not sit easily together.

The points made by my noble friend Lord Young, a former skills Minister, about the importance of safeguarding quality, and the Minister’s acceptance of the basis of these amendments, particularly Amendment 1, are important. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for his enthusiastic welcome. It is good to have cross-party support in these situations.

To some extent, the Minister has answered the points that we put to him. Some concerns remain, not least about who will be doing what. He seeks refuge in HMRC being the answer to enforcing the national minimum wage and apprenticeship rates. In my experience, HMRC is unable to enforce the national minimum wage for adults, again because of a lack of resources. I do not think much attention has historically been given to apprenticeships, and clearly much more should be, as recommended in the report from the Low Pay Commission, which I outlined earlier. But you cannot just add additional duties to public bodies without giving them the resources to make sure they can meet those. However, we have covered most of the points in some depth. On that basis, I thank the Minister for his response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

3: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“Institutional autonomy and academic freedom
(1) The Secretary of State, in issuing guidance and directions, and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, in performing its functions, have a duty to uphold the principle of institutional autonomy for English further education institutions.(2) In this section “institutional autonomy” means—(a) the autonomy of English further education institutions—(i) to determine which courses to teach, the contents of particular courses and the manner in which they are taught, supervised and assessed,(ii) to determine the criteria for the selection, appointment, promotion, remuneration, and dismissal of academic staff; and to apply those criteria in particular cases,(iii) to determine the criteria for the admission of students and to apply those criteria in particular cases, and(iv) to constitute and to govern themselves in a manner which they deem appropriate for their purposes, subject to legal requirements relating to the corporate form and purposes that they may adopt; and(b) the freedom of academic staff within the law—(i) to question and test received wisdom, and (ii) to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing jobs or any privileges they may have at an institution.(3) All persons or bodies exercising powers under this Act are under a duty to protect the principle of academic freedom in accordance with subsection (2)(b).”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

My Lords, I hope that this group of amendments will take rather less time than the previous group.

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

Have we passed Amendment 11?

[Lord Baker of Dorking]

Yes, of course. I am anticipating—sorry. I will have to wait.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

The noble Lord, Lord Baker is, of course, a novice at these procedures; or perhaps, like me, he is still getting his breath back following the words “I accept” from the Minister, which were much welcomed.

This is a probing amendment and, to some extent, a read-across from the Higher Education and Research Bill. It is pretty much self-explanatory, although that does not mean I can resist the temptation to say a few words. Almost three decades have passed since the Education Reform Act 1988 ended the tenure that had long been enjoyed by British academics, but an amendment to that legislation protected in law the freedom of academics to question and test received wisdom and to put forward new ideas and controversial and occasionally unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or the privileges they may have had at their institution. That right that should apply across the board to all academics, whether in higher or further education. I accept that this is an issue of more concern in higher education, but increasing staff insecurity in further education colleges and other further education providers leads us to believe that the principles that apply in higher education should also apply in further education.

The Minister may well say that academic freedom is already established by common practice, but that is not the view of teaching organisations. This amendment applies to the Secretary of State in issuing guidance and directions, and to the institution in performing its functions, giving them a duty to uphold the principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. It is not a draconian measure; it merely states unequivocally that institutions have the right to determine which courses to teach and who they appoint to teach them, and that academic staff have the right to speak freely about how their institution is run, what courses should be pursued and how, and to advance unconventional or perhaps unpopular opinions. Such expressions should not impact on the job security of academic staff, and for that reason we believe they have the right to have such protections clearly set out in the Bill.

Amendment 3 would also incorporate the human rights to freedom of expression, assembly, thought and belief. It is unfortunate that this amendment is necessary but, given the threats felt by universities as a result of the dramatic changes being introduced to the sector by the Higher Education and Research Bill, who is to say that providers in the further education sector will not sooner or later experience a similar feeling of threat? Forewarned is forearmed, which is why this issue must at least be highlighted today.

Freedom of speech is the subject of Amendment 7. It, too, is a provision that ought not to be necessary, but the hard facts are that it is necessary. Recent events, particularly in some educational institutions involving Jewish students or staff, demonstrate that for some people freedom of speech can and does become unlawful speech. My view on this goes back to my days as a student activist, some four decades ago, and is that a demand to no-platform a particular speaker is wrong. I have never believed that you deny someone a platform simply because you disagree with them. Even if you disagree vehemently with what they are saying, my response is that you should take them on by argument, but when that kind of speech enters the world of racism, misogyny, homophobia or threatening behaviour, it contravenes the law, and the law should intervene.

It is unfortunate that these matters have to be aired, but I believe they should be. They are matters of concern in the further education sector as well as the higher education sector. I hope the Minister will take them on board and given them due consideration. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I support these amendments. We had extensive discussions on these issues during the passage of the Higher Education and Research Bill, and they are no less relevant to further education colleges. Institutional autonomy is as important for colleges, where the people who work in them really know what works for their pupils and students, and academic staff having the freedom to question and test received wisdom is just as important for colleges as it is for universities. So is freedom of speech and preventing unlawful speech, which seems an increasing aspect of student life these days. In a way, it is almost more relevant for colleges as they have such a wide variety of students under their roofs. Both these amendments are entirely relevant to this Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

However, the sector has not told us that preventing unlawful speech is a problem. Introducing a new standard would risk unnecessary confusion, and could create caution and risk-aversion which would stifle free speech. Further education providers will continue to be subject to the existing freedom of speech duty. On unlawful speech, we can best protect staff and students by working with them to implement existing legislation rather than by introducing additional legislation. I hope the noble Lord will therefore feel able to withdraw this amendment.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank all noble Lords who spoke on this group and I welcome the noble Baroness to her first stint on the Front Bench in Grand Committee. I thank her for a thoughtful and detailed response. There are one or two points that I want to come back on. First, I accept what she said on Amendment 3; she gave a considerable amount of detail on the legislation that covers what we were seeking to achieve, and I and others will want to look at that. On that basis, she may well have dealt effectively with the issues of institutional autonomy and so on.

However, I am not so convinced by the noble Baroness’s arguments in respect of Amendment 7 on free speech, particularly when she said that introducing the provisions of this new clause could in fact stifle free speech. I find that rather a strange concept to get my head round. I noted down certain comments: she mentioned that it would require further education colleges to change policies and practices and that they have not identified problems. I would value a letter from her explaining some of her comments, such as why that would be what she termed a “disproportionate burden”—how so? She also said that it would involve colleges addressing matters that could be outwith their control, including attendees at a particular event. Any event on the premises of a college becomes its responsibility, even if the college has not organised it. If it has allowed the property to be used then it is ultimately responsible for what happens there at a meeting. I do not see how colleges can escape that and I do not see that it would be a disproportionate burden. In any case, colleges have to do basically what the amendment says—that is, ensure that,

“students, staff and invited speakers are able to practise freedom of speech within the law”.

I would therefore value some explanation of the noble Baroness’s reasoning in saying that she finds Amendment 7 unacceptable. If it is not a problem, that does not necessarily mean that nothing needs to be done. I think that this amendment would strengthen the ability of further education colleges and providers, if appropriate, to ensure that their premises were safe havens—places where people could express themselves freely and be able to engage in debate, at all times within the law. If the noble Baroness could provide a bit of additional information on that in a letter, it would be much appreciated. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment 3 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

6: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—
“New further education institutions
The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education must not recommend to the Secretary of State the authorisation of a new further education institution unless—(a) the provider has been established for a minimum of four years with satisfactory validation arrangements in place;(b) the Quality Assessment Committee is assured that the provider is able to maintain the required standard expected for the granting of approved qualifications for the duration of the authorisation; and(c) the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is assured that the provider operates in the public interest and in the interest of students.”

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I should say at the start that I am not quite sure why Amendments 6 and 8 have been grouped but, as they say, we are where we are.

Noble Lords may feel it a little odd that, in a Bill very largely concerned with assisting further education colleges that have slipped into insolvency, we find an amendment seeking to address new further education institutions. I am being upbeat here: it is to be hoped that the time will arrive when the Government of the day fund the further education sector adequately and the post-16 skills plan and the 15 occupational routes for apprentices are successful, so that the sector will be seen as attractive to new entrants. That is the situation in higher education and safeguards have had to be built in in anticipation of an influx of more new entrants. It may well be the case that a so-called challenger institution will seek to establish itself in the further education sector and, when that happens, the sector needs to be prepared.

It is no more than reasonable that, before the institute recommends to the Secretary of State that a new further education institution be admitted, that institution should be able to demonstrate that satisfactory validation arrangements have been in place for a minimum of four years. Noble Lords may be aware that the Higher Education and Research Bill suggests that new entrants should be able to be given, albeit temporarily, degree-awarding powers from day one. We strongly believe that that is not appropriate and that there has to be an amount of time in which an institution has shown its ability not just to operate as a business but to provide students with everything that they are entitled to expect when they sign up for courses. That is what is behind the mention of a minimum of four years in the amendment.

The Minister may say that this is unnecessary, but he said at Second Reading that he did not envisage the insolvency procedures being used other than in very rare cases. With 28 out of 45 clauses in the Bill concerned with insolvency, methinks he may have protested too much. None the less, reasonable man that I am, I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and accept that these clauses may well prove necessary from time to time and that we need them. In return, I hope he will be willing to accept that Amendment 6 envisages a situation that may prove equally necessary in the future, and I await his response on that point with interest.

Amendments 13 and 14 are concerned with broadening access to post-school education or training, and Amendment 14 is specifically about equality of opportunity. The Learning and Work Institute gave evidence to the Public Bill Committee in another place in which it said that people with disabilities and learning difficulties and people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds had been under-represented in apprenticeships for many years. The introduction of the institute offers an opportunity to make a real difference by improving access to apprenticeships for traditionally under-represented groups.

The Government already have targets to increase the proportion of BME apprentices by 20%. Perhaps the Minister can say whether the intention is to do the same—not necessarily in terms of the percentage but in setting targets—for people with disabilities and those leaving care. Giving the institute a duty to widen access and participation would be beneficial for all parties. Only 50% of disabled people have a job, compared with eight in 10 able-bodied people. The Government have stated their aim of halving the level of unemployment among people with disabilities, so we believe that this offers an opportunity to use apprenticeships as a step towards narrowing that gap.

When it is fully established, we believe that the institute should consider as a priority what can be done for groups which are under-represented, not only women, those from black and minority ethnic backgrounds or those leaving care but also those who leave school with no qualifications at all. During consideration of this Bill in another place, the Minister for Schools, Mr Robert Halfon, talked about traineeships and the possibility of them forming an introductory route into apprenticeships. Traineeships would be particularly appropriate for the groups of people I have mentioned when it comes to promoting equality of opportunity for access and participation. Traineeships are also appropriate for retraining, particularly as the institute has now been given additional responsibility for technical education. I hope that the Minister will follow that up with his colleagues to consider what might be achieved. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 8 in this group, which covers some of the same ground that we have already addressed. It seems appropriate, in setting up this new institute, to specify what it is supposed to do—its functions and duties. I have rather optimistically put its “additional” functions and duties because, looking through the Bill, it is difficult to see any clarity on what its functions and duties actually are. However, the role it will play in apprenticeship standards is obviously set out clearly in the Bill. I have added certification, although I think there is a later amendment on this aspect, which perhaps we should address at that point because I do not think it is as straightforward as it appears. It is particularly important that the institute should have an overview of where the skills shortages are and be in a position to divert funding and encourage participation to address those shortages.

The second part of the amendment deals with promotion and consultation. As we have discussed on previous amendments, having set up the new institute, surely it is only right that it should have a role in promoting apprenticeships and work-based skills. It would be a pretty poor body if it did not support the qualifications it has been set up to oversee, and we have such a long way to go. We have already discussed careers education, advice and guidance quite comprehensively, but we have heard from school leavers many accounts of the difficulties they face if they want to pursue the apprenticeship route rather than the university one.

There are steps that the Government could take, as we have already heard from the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Young, and the noble Baroness, Lady Morris. One would be to expand the measurements for school league tables to include vocational and practical achievement alongside academic results. Currently, schools get public recognition purely on their academic results, so obviously there is a lot of pressure on them to make sure that youngsters are diverted on to those routes regardless of where their aptitudes lie. They could also encourage schools to celebrate their students who leave to take up apprenticeships with the same enthusiasm they give to their university entrants. One can see on school noticeboards long lists showing how many students have gone on to university, and it would be cheering to read alongside them that a certain number went on to take up apprenticeships. However, schools do not seem to take that on board as something to celebrate. Instead, they keep trying to dissuade bright young people from seeking out apprenticeships, as we discussed when we were considering careers advice.

There was too little consultation with stakeholders before the Bill was drafted. It is difficult to believe that, in a rare further education Bill, they would have chosen that a major part of it—more than 30 clauses—should be devoted to the insolvency and financial difficulties of further education bodies. What a negative view of the sector when there are so many positive aspects of further education that could have been assisted through legislation. Even before the Bill has become law, this is having an impact. We are already hearing that, because of these provisions, banks and other financial organisations are treating colleges with some suspicion. The biggest area of current concern for colleges is the impact on local government pension scheme funds. What was the rationale in casting doubt on colleges, which will be one of the main providers of the qualifications the Government have said they wish to promote? With so many doubts being cast on the viability of the providers, how will that help to generate the 3 million apprenticeships being sought? There appear to be only sticks and no carrots from the Government.

The current situation requires very expensive financial consultants filling in enormous spreadsheets and application forms to the transaction unit—time and resources that could be spent more constructively. It may be better to have an orderly college insolvency regime that colleges hardly ever use than continuing the risk of a disorderly one, but why make it such a large part of the Bill? Which of the stakeholders supported this part of the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that my responses to these four amendments provide noble Lords with sufficient reassurance about our plans for the institute and its functions that they will withdraw or not move their amendments.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

I thank the Minister for that response and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, for her contribution. I should have said at the start that we support the suggestions in Amendment 8. I noticed that the Minister said that most of these were already covered. That impacts on a point that I will come back to in a minute about the operational plan for the institute.

The Minister somewhat took the wind out of my sails on Amendment 6 by saying that there was no role for the institute with regard to new institutions. I take it that just the Secretary of State would have the ability to give them the green light, if that is the case. In which case, I am rather surprised that it got accepted as an amendment. None the less, I hear what the Minister says, and if that is the case, so be it.

On Amendment 14 in particular, the Minister did not answer a couple of the questions I put to him. One was the point about the percentages for categories of those underrepresented in the take-up of apprenticeships. I mentioned the 20% target for people from black and minority ethnic communities and asked whether there were plans for anything similar for women, care leavers and indeed any other underrepresented groups. I am happy for him to write to me on that. I do not suggest what the percentages should be, but these are underrepresented, so by definition it is appropriate that some action is taken to bring them more into line with other groups.

[Lord Nash]

We do not intend to have any targets, but as I said, we intend there to be the expectation that the opportunity to participate should be widely available for all students.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

Yes, but that is a bit woolly. Students have always had the opportunity; the point is that certain groups are not taking it up in sufficient numbers. It would be interesting to know why black and minority ethnic people have been specifically identified, and yet others have not. If work needs to be done there to bring underrepresented groups more into the mainstream, surely the institute should concentrate particularly on that. However, that would impact on the institute’s operational plan. In the Minister’s letter today, he mentioned that the shadow institute’s draft operational plan is out for consultation but only for a few more days. He said that that will provide more detail on how the institute would be expected to deliver its role. I have not yet looked at that but I will do so. I hope that it will have something to say on broadening participation because we may wish to return to that matter on Report.

For the moment, we have covered the issues and I thank the Minister for his response. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 6 withdrawn.