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

Baroness Barran Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, as I rise to speak at Second Reading, I say first how much I enjoyed the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Beamish. I look forward to the insights he will bring to your Lordships’ House.

The goal of improving our skills system and meeting skills gaps is not a new one. Indeed, today, as my noble friend Lady Finn said, it is an international one. Under successive Governments, we have seen work to simplify the system, achieve parity of esteem with academic qualifications, place employers at the heart of the system and improve the quality of skills-based qualifications. In their manifesto, His Majesty’s Government committed to establishing a new body, Skills England, to deliver their skills strategy, but unfortunately this Bill merely abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State; in effect, absorbing them into the Department for Education. We have no details on the plans for Skills England itself, nor on how the Government’s proposed changes to the funding of skills-based qualifications will work in practice.

On these Benches, we have three main concerns. First, we do not believe that the proposed machinery of government changes are likely to make the difference that the Government hope they will. In the last 50 years, there have been no fewer than 12 skills agencies, or 13 including Skills England. If the creation of a new body was alone enough to address our challenges in this area, surely one of the earlier iterations would have been the answer. Secondly, as we have heard across the House, we believe that the powers of the Secretary of State created by this Bill are too wide-ranging, have little accountability and will risk directly damaging the status of these qualifications. Thirdly, we have real concerns that these changes will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues in skills development that the Government face and have set out.

Given that all noble Lords want the most effective approach to developing our skills system, it is important to recognise the achievements of the last Government and the key challenges that remain so that the new Government benefit from the institutional memory of this House and avoid repeating any past mistakes. The last Government delivered on a major simplification of the system in relation to T-levels, higher technical qualifications and apprenticeship standards. We raised the value of skills-based qualifications in the minds of students and employers, particularly in relation to apprenticeships, which we put on a statutory footing for the first time.

The noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, spoke eloquently about the importance and effectiveness of putting employers at the heart of the system, which IfATE brought as well as the creation of local skills improvement plans, which linked employers and providers for the first time. We improved the quality of qualifications across the board, including for the missing middle which your Lordships have referred to, and we laid the foundations for lifelong learning through the skills Act and the lifelong learning Act of 2023 so that options for training and retraining were available at every stage of a person’s career. I hope the Minister will confirm that the Government will not discard the progress of the past 14 years but build on it and focus on the key challenges of the future.

If we look at the challenges of improving our skills system, I am genuinely baffled as to why one would start by creating a new agency within the DfE and abolish IfATE. I am not sure how this helps build demand for newer and less well-established qualifications such as T-levels and HTQs. I am not sure how it addresses the workforce pressures in further education or the decline in investment in training by employers or how it will help the Government realise the potential of the lifelong learning Act. How does it quickly set out the plans for the new growth and skills levy which the Government promised in their manifesto, so that we avoid a hiatus in skills development and investment, as alluded to in their impact assessment? Can the Minister explain why the Government could not have achieved their goals of co-ordination with the industrial strategy council and the Migration Advisory Committee through IfATE rather than placing Skills England within the DfE, with all the time, cost and reorganisation that would have avoided?

If we had a blank sheet of paper—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, perhaps a sheet of paper that was nimble, agile and other good adjectives—and had to choose between an independent, employer-led body and an internal team within a government department to create the best skills system, I am pretty sure that most people would naturally assume that the former would be more effective. It would help if the Minister could give the House examples of where such centralisation of power has actually delivered on the Government’s aspirations.

We are also really concerned about the powers of the Secretary of State and expect to come back to these in Committee. In the King’s Speech, the Government committed to creating a new body, Skills England, but as noble Lords have noted, the Bill does not do that. Far from simply replacing the institute, the Bill abolishes it, leaving the Secretary of State in control. We now understand that Skills England will not be on a statutory footing and therefore will unquestionably be less independent than IfATE.

The Bill gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to prepare apprenticeship standards and plans, either personally or by commissioning others. Clauses 4 and 5 make it possible for the Secretary of State to bypass industry groups and employers entirely. In her opening speech, the Minister helpfully set out some examples to reassure the House about some of the limitations on how those powers might be used, but can she explain what the barrier is to putting them in the Bill if the Government are clear on what those limits are?

Secondly, we should be concerned about the potential impact on the quality of technical qualifications. Clause 6 removes the requirement for reviews of technical education qualifications, standards and apprenticeship assessment plans to be published at regular intervals. What will the arrangements be to do this in future, and why has the duty to publish been removed? This flexibility is supposedly to align qualifications with employers’ needs, but we know that without rigorous and independent oversight, standards can slip. Can the Minister tell the House how she plans to ensure that we have standards that are recognisable and high, without that regular independent review?

There is the further risk of dilution of quality via Clause 7, which removes the requirement to have a third-party examination of a standard or apprenticeship assessment plan before approval, leaving the power for the Secretary of State to appoint one if she sees fit. What should we expect from this? How often does the Minister expect this power to be used and under what circumstances? It would also help if the Minister could clarify under what circumstances the Secretary of State would use her powers set out in Clause 8 in relation to Ofqual.

Clause 9 is also of concern, as my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park pointed out, quoting the Attorney-General. Through regulation made by statutory instrument, it allows for the Secretary of State to make provision that is consequential on other provisions in the Bill. This is a very broad Henry VIII power, applying to existing and future legislation passed in this Parliament. I would be grateful if the Minister could give an example of how Clause 9 would be used. Perhaps she could commit to listing the existing legislation where Clause 9 will apply.

The assumption of power by the Secretary of State reverses the reforms of the Enterprise Act 2016 and risks severely eroding the parity of esteem between academic and technical qualifications. Imagine the outcry if A-level standards were directly controlled by the Education Secretary—I hope your Lordships see the point I am making. Yet the Bill gives ministerial control over all technical qualifications, which risks undermining their credibility and status.

Leaving the specifics of the Bill, we are genuinely concerned that Skills England will not achieve its goals. The Government are actually creating not one but three new bodies with an interest in skills: Skills England in the DfE, the Labour Market Advisory Board in the DWP and the new Industrial Strategy Advisory Council. How will these three—or four, if we include the Migration Advisory Committee—potentially competing bodies work together?

This approach raises so many questions. Can the Minister reassure the House about the level of seniority the head of Skills England will have? How will Skills England, sitting in a corner of Sanctuary Buildings, have the authority to influence other government departments? How will it work with the devolved Administrations and the mayoral combined authorities? How will it interact with the Office for Students? It is of great concern and regret that the objectives and limits of the new body are not clearly set out in statute, and we will seek to gain as much clarity as possible on these points during the passage of the Bill. I ask the Minister again: where is the evidence that such an approach has ever worked in this country before and will be successful now?

My belief is that, if His Majesty’s Government were serious about progressing quickly with the urgent strategic issues around skills reform, they would build on the success of IfATE, rather than dismantling it. The real risks here are, first, that the Government will unwittingly create confusion, lower standards and erode trust in technical qualifications; and, secondly, that the time and cost involved in creating yet another overcentralised agency in the DfE delays addressing the big opportunities and challenges that need to be grasped in this area and leaves us with an unwieldy, unaccountable and ineffective approach.

The Bill threatens to undo much of the progress made under successive Conservative Governments in building a world-class apprenticeship and technical education system. I have no doubt that the Minister wants the best for our skills system and those who learn and work in it, but I have grave doubts that this Bill will deliver the system that the country needs and that she wants. I hope very much that the Minister will listen to these concerns and act to address them when the Bill reaches Committee.

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

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 21st November 2024 Grand Committee

Debate on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I shall also probe whether Clauses 2 and 3 and Schedules 1 to 3 should stand part of the Bill.

At Second Reading, we heard about the importance of skills development to boost economic growth, the gaps that employers face in finding the skills they need to fill vacancies, the continuing complexity of the skills landscape, and the ambition of the Government to meet these challenges. At this point, I thank particularly the Learning and Work Institute and the Association of Colleges for their advice and their perspectives on the Bill. On these Benches, while we accept that the Government have a real commitment to address these issues, we also believe that they need to give Parliament and employers much greater clarity on their plans. The Bill is clear in the door that it closes—the abolition of IfATE—but is silent on the door it opens; that is, Skills England and its powers and accountability. We are left with an interregnum, with the Secretary of State holding all the powers of IfATE and a few more for good measure.

I will try also to explain the logic of my Amendments 32 and 33. Ideally, we would have liked to be debating a much clearer, more detailed Bill and have all the answers to the concerns expressed across the House at Second Reading. I note that in her closing remarks at Second Reading, the Minister committed to setting out the relationship between the Department for Education and Skills England in a publicly available format which will be updated periodically. Even the phrase “updated periodically” begs questions about the clarity and stability of roles and accountability. No doubt the Minister will give us further details on this today.

My amendments suggest solutions on a sliding scale. At one end, we are proposing to stick with the status quo through the stand part notices for Clauses 1 to 3 and the associated schedules; from there, to different degrees of independence and accountability for a new body called Skills England; to, finally, although not in this group of amendments, accepting the Government’s proposals, but with a clear and rigorous reporting requirement to Parliament. At this stage, these are probing amendments.

As we heard at Second Reading, there are genuine concerns about the transfer of IfATE’s powers to the Secretary of State, in terms of compromising the independence with which apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications, including T-levels, are accredited, and in diluting the voice of employers. These concerns are only amplified by later clauses which extend the powers of the Secretary of State beyond those of IfATE to prepare standards without employer input, and remove requirements for regular reviews of technical qualifications and third-party examination of standards. We will, of course, debate these points later in Committee.

The proposed creation of Skills England as an executive agency within the Department for Education, rather than as an independent statutory body, although not part of the Bill, has raised questions about both its autonomy and its effectiveness. More broadly, our stand part notices seek to elicit from the Minister explanations on the following points.

First, why does the Minister believe that this organisational change will be any more effective than the previous 12 changes in the past 50 years?

Secondly, the impact assessment set out that the Government had considered both keeping IfATE as an organisation separate from Skills England and expanding its powers to take on Skills England’s full set of powers. My Amendment 32 attempts to reintroduce this as an option for the Government to consider. It would create an executive agency of the department, which would be called Skills England, and would focus on wider skills strategy, as well as keeping IfATE as an independent body for the accreditation of technical education qualifications and for its other responsibilities.

That amendment has a lot in common with Amendment 21 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, although Amendment 21 would not retain IfATE, as mine would. One can make the case that it is more coherent to have everything in one place, but one can also argue that Skills England has a huge brief and should focus on some of the more urgent priorities, leaving IfATE to continue its good work in setting up clear lines of communication.

It is hard to avoid the conclusions that the Government are knowingly diluting the voices of employers; that they want to have as much control as possible over these qualifications in future; and, importantly, that they are seeking to reorganise the structures to deliver skills reforms rather than getting on with “doing the doing”, which is much needed on the ground. The impact assessment sets out briefly the advantages of the Government’s chosen approach but says almost nothing about the drawbacks of losing an independent, employer-led organisation that the Government acknowledge does an excellent job. It would be most helpful if the Minister could explain in more detail the barriers to doing this and how His Majesty’s Government evaluated the shortcomings of this approach.

Moving along the sliding scale, I turn to Amendment 33, which aims to commit the Government to introducing a draft Bill that would create an independent arm’s-length body, to be called Skills England. I note that organisations such as the St Martin’s Group, which represents employers, training providers and awarding organisations, have been clear in their briefings that it is

“crucial that Skills England’s independence needs to be exerted in statute”.

Given the independence that this would create from the department, we have assumed that IfATE would no longer need to exist. I hope very much that this is something to which the Minister can respond positively.

In my Amendments 32 and 33, we stipulate that the chief executive of Skills England must report to the board of Skills England. It seems extraordinary to have to make this point but noble Lords may have noticed that the job description for the CEO of Skills England made no reference to the board; rather, they report to the relevant director-general in the department. Given the emphasis that the Minister put at Second Reading on the strength and operational independence of the Skills England board and its members, it seems a major drawback that the chief executive of the organisation, on whose board they sit, does not report to it. Could the Minister undertake to reconsider this?

Finally, I turn to my Amendment 42, which I tabled, as the French might say, “pour encourager”. I am hopeful that the Minister will take my other amendment seriously as a way of actively demonstrating her commitment to the independence of Skills England but, failing that, this amendment seeks to sunset this legislation and give the Government time to come back with a Bill that addresses the concerns that we heard at Second Reading—and that we will no doubt hear more of in Committee. I beg to move.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, I consider myself encouragée. We on these Benches have some sympathy with these wrecking amendments. We have never supported taking decision-making out of the hands of experts and into the hands of a Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be and however informed and enthusiastic he or she may be about colleges, further education, and technical and vocational qualifications. As I said at Second Reading—I do not apologise for repeating it—politicians are almost always university-educated and may have little understanding of or enthusiasm for the world of skills. I exempt our Minister from this because I know that she cares but, of course, there is no guarantee that she will not be replaced—not for some time, I hope—by a “here today, gone tomorrow” Minister with no knowledge of this sector. These posts do not last, as we all know.

I speak with some knowledge. In the coalition Government, I was appointed Minister for the Olympics and Sport, having never had any interest in sport in my life. At school, I was a fat little bespectacled nerd who was always chosen last for any team. But, given the portfolio, I spent days and weeks of my life learning all there was to know about rugby league—thanks to my noble friend Lord Addington—cricket, hockey and other unmentionables in order to give educated answers to questions. But that is not the same as having a lifelong enthusiasm, and, because Ministers have almost always been educated—surprisingly enough—and can display an astonishing academic superiority, they may look down on practical achievement, as I discovered when I worked in Michael Gove’s team.

We are disappointed, as we always thought of Labour as a party supportive of education in all its guises, yet it has brought forward the damaging VAT on independent schools Bill, which would make us the first country in the world, I believe, to tax education—shame on them—and now this damaging Bill to attack practical education. It is a sad day indeed. We are also bemused that this apparently is the skills Bill, yet there is no mention of skills in it. It might as well have been the flying fish Bill because there is no mention of flying fish either. Some of the amendments in this group try to remedy this, including Amendments 32 and 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which we broadly support.

I will speak to Amendment 21 in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey, who much regrets that he cannot be here today, to which I added my name. We are spelling out what is missing from the Bill—namely, the establishment of a new executive agency to be called Skills England. Our amendment sets out the conditions for Skills England to be established and the need for both Houses to agree proposals. Other, linked amendments have been regrouped for some reason—I had some work today to try to work out where the groupings have changed since yesterday; I am not quite sure why they were—but we still have the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to keep some of the duties of IfATE alongside the new body. As IfATE contains many real experts and champions, we feel this is a sensible move and we support it.

We have very strong objections to the power grab by politicians over the experts who really care. We will seek to change this and to convince the Government of the harm that could be done to enhancing the much-needed skills of the country if this goes through unamended. I hope that our listening Minister will appreciate how much is at stake in the Bill and will take note of the very well-intentioned and well-informed amendments that have been tabled.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

It is because, as with all executive agencies, the process for setting up Skills England as an executive agency does not require legislation, but for it to hold the functions that enable it to operate in the coherent manner I described, the functions currently held by IfATE need to be transferred to and delivered by Skills England as an executive agency of the DfE. It is the route through the Secretary of State that enables that to happen. I reiterate my earlier point: Skills England might not appear in the legislation in this place, but it very much appears on the country’s skills landscape. Notwithstanding the significance of the scrutiny that this place is able to give, as well as the concerns about Skills England’s longevity, that is probably more important than whether it is in a Bill.

The passage of the Bill provides an opportunity for both Houses—as we are doing today, in fact—to consider the approach we are proposing, which is to move away from the current, narrow IfATE model. Creating any further requirement for parliamentary approval before Skills England operates fully would frustrate the intentions of the Bill to enable a smooth transfer and the delegation of functions to Skills England; the efficient and orderly closure of IfATE; and the ongoing work in the service of employers and learners. I assure noble Lords that the practical transition of functions will be designed to ensure that, where standards or apprenticeship assessment plans are in the process of preparation or approval at the point of transition, these will continue. Similarly, approval decisions for technical qualifications that are part-way through the process will also continue. It is our intention that employers and other stakeholders perceive no interruption in that work.

The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, asked about the progress on the review of level 3 qualifications. Briefly, let me say that we will, as I have said all along, make public our decisions on the review of those qualifications; they are due to be defunded in 2025, before Christmas.

I have talked in the House about this Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement. We will now be introducing it for courses starting from January 2027, precisely to ensure that it has the impact that the noble Lord rightly identified that it can have for lifelong learning.

I hope I have set out the intentions behind Clauses 1 to 3. For these reasons and those that I outlined on the remaining amendments, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will not press her stand part notices and amendments.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and the Minister for her remarks. I hope she heard loud and clear that no one in this Committee is arguing about the Government’s ambition for skills reform; rather, we are all rooting for success in this area. This is not about what the Government are trying to do but more about how they are trying to do it.

I was struck by the almost unanimity of view about the importance of greater independence from the department for Skills England. It was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight of Weymouth. He triggered what I think is the ex-ministerial version of PTSD—I call it PLSD, or post-legislative stress disorder—by talking about the Schools Bill, but I will forgive him this once. Importantly, it was also raised by my noble friend Lord Johnson, who talked about the importance of credibility with employers, which need stability in our system, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, who rightly mentioned the importance of bringing students, families and others on this journey.

I was also struck by the constructive tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the aspiration to make this the best it can be to deliver for our country. However, as the noble Baroness went on to say, there is a lack of confidence that this approach will deliver without that independence. Ironically, it is almost the fact that, as the Minister says, Skills England is already operating when the Bill has not even passed. It is just kind of happening within the department. There will be a framework published, but without any potential to input to it. It feels like DfE marking its own homework, which is not a healthy place to be.

I did not feel a lot of movement in the Minister’s remarks. I am sure that, when she looks at Hansard, she will note the strength of feeling across the Committee but, for the moment, I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part.

Clause 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope my noble friend may be able to come back on Report with the idea of putting the framework document that has been referred to this afternoon in the Bill, because in that way, at least Parliament might have some foothold, some purchase on what we are doing. A Skills England that has no legislative backing and no parliamentary references but is down merely to the changing face of ministerial and departmental appointments is in danger of losing its birthright before it has got off the ground. I hope that we can have this debate this afternoon in the spirit of wanting to get this right. I beg to move.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Aberdare (CB)]

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

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

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

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I rise just to give my much wiser noble friend a break. The assessment plan for any qualification is of the essence. If you get that wrong, you might as well not bother doing it. When you have a group of people looking at this, you stand a better chance than you get from one centre. There are a series of clichés about Secretaries of State, and I will try not to kick and wring every one of them, but the basic one is that if the Secretary of State has spoken to somebody who just does not understand or gets it wrong, the whole thing can go wrong. If you have a group, you stand a better chance of getting a correct result. Nothing is guaranteed either way, but that is what it is about.

I hope that we can get some response from the Minister on where we are going to get this expertise in to check on what is happening. That is it, in essence, because we have had Secretaries of State who know exactly what they want and will talk to a certain group that agrees with them. That is very easy to do, and we have all done it. I hope that we will get some assurance that the Secretary of State will talk to a divergence of opinion to go through these things to make sure that they work. If we do not and start to get them wrong, the price will be huge and we will have nothing useful. Being a little slower and a bit more certain is infinitely better than taking the chance of getting it horribly wrong. I hope the Minister can give us a reassuring answer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, there is no mention of awarding bodies in the Bill but, when I worked for City & Guilds, it was part of our role to review qualifications at regular intervals. I wonder why that does not feature anywhere in the Bill and why the Secretary of State is apparently taking over a function that was done very effectively in those days by awarding bodies.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I was delighted to add my name to the Clause 6 stand part notice in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Like him and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I am baffled about why the Government do not want to review the approvals of technical education qualifications, published standards and assessment plans at regular intervals. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, intimated, it seems that the closer one is to the department and any Secretary of State, the more one will need independent scrutiny to retain the confidence of employers, learners and providers. Obviously, there is a risk that, without that independent oversight, standards of technical qualifications could be eroded or become less relevant than they should be.

Does the Minister agree that Clause 6 potentially introduces conflicts of interest? By removing the requirement for independent oversight, are the Government not placing an undue burden on those directly involved in the design and delivery of standards to act as their own assessors, where they end up marking their own homework? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee why the Government do not believe that this level of scrutiny is needed. I absolutely appreciate that, in some areas, the review might be very light-touch—for example, because of the suitability of a set of qualifications—but we have seen how qualifications rise and fall in popularity and relevance over time. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords this afternoon, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, there are clear calls from the sector for greater simplification of qualifications.

At Second Reading, the Minister committed to publishing information about the intervals for reviews of different qualifications. I wonder whether she could update the Committee on when that will happen.

Similarly, my Amendment 16 to Clause 7 seeks just to restore the status quo; namely, that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, make arrangements for an independent third party to carry out an examination of a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan. As the Committee knows, independent reviews are there to provide feedback to policymakers and training providers by, for example, identifying areas for improvement and best practice. I very much hope that the Minister will consider this amendment and stand part notice positively.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this group. I feel confident in thanking noble Lords, because I am confident that I am on strong ground on this one. I hope nobody proves me wrong.

In preparing to transfer functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State, an assessment of the current operation of the system was undertaken to identify any functions that should be amended rather than simply being transferred in their current form. In that consideration, the proposal for a relatively small change to Clause 6 came forward. Clause 6 amends the requirement to review technical education qualifications and standards, and apprenticeship assessment plans, at regular and published intervals, by removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted.

The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, argued, rightly, that there is a need for review. The point about this clause is that there is no change to the broader review requirement. The Secretary of State and Skills England will still be required to maintain arrangements to review approved technical education qualifications and standards, and apprenticeship assessment plans, with a view to determining whether they should be revised, be withdrawn or continue to be approved. I wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords who have said that that is an important function, and it is absolutely right that that duty should remain.

Removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted will allow Skills England to determine when reviews of technical education qualifications and more than 700 high-quality occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans should be carried out, based on need rather than a fixed review point, as is currently the case. Originally, IfATE expected to carry out reviews every three years but, with the proliferation of standards, assessment plans and technical education qualifications to review, it has been unable to do so; nor was it able to do this by undertaking reviews on a route-by-route basis. It has since adopted a more risk-based approach. The current approach, which fixes review points, has been too rigid and fails to recognise the differences in starts and achievement rates and rapid changes in skills needs; for example, where occupations evolve quickly.

Clause 6 will ensure that standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept up to date, coherent and relevant, and are reviewed appropriately. The amendment would remove a statutory obligation and provide the Secretary of State flexibility that is in line with the current risk-based approach taken by IfATE to determine whether a review should be prioritised; in other words, we believe that IfATE has arrived at the right, flexible position, but that would not be reflected without this legislative change. It recognises that flexibility is needed to take a targeted approach to administering the significant volume of reviews based on whether there are specific issues with the performance of the standard and how widely used it is, rather than on meeting an arbitrary timetable.

Without this clause, standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans would need to be reviewed at published intervals, rather than based on need, preventing resources being deployed effectively to ensure that standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept relevant and up to date as required.

Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the flexibility that we intend to create, and it would mean that the Secretary of State would be required to arrange for an independent third-party assessment for every new standard and assessment plan. Clause 7 amends the 2009 Act to substitute a requirement for independent third-party examination of all new standards and assessment plans with a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make arrangements to do so. The default position will remain that the Secretary of State will make arrangements for independent third-party examination of new standards and assessment plans prior to their approval.

The clause will provide an alternative approach in certain circumstances where obtaining third-party examination is duplicative or not necessary. For example, the option not to arrange an independent third-party review might be deployed where employers place unequivocal high value in a professional body’s mandated qualification or key skills and behaviour learning outcomes, and where the occupational standard adopts that very closely, such as the CIPD and HR standards. In these cases, an external review would be nugatory.

In highly regulated occupations, such as the health sector, the regulatory requirements for occupational competence must be reflected in the occupational standard and assessment plan, and deviation from this is simply not possible. Again, the need for third-party review would be redundant.

Without Clause 7, examinations that do not improve standards and assessment plans but take time and resource to deliver would continue to be required. That would continue to place unnecessary burdens on those involved, slow down the process and make it excessively onerous.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw his opposition to Clause 6 standing part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks greater clarity from the Government about how the different bodies involved in the regulation of technical education will work with the Secretary of State, given her new powers under the Bill, and, in turn, whether that impacts on the responsibilities and relationships between them. I was trying to think of what the collective noun might be for a group of regulators, and I could come up only with a “regime”. There are certainly several involved in this area, including, of course, IfATE currently, as well as the department itself, Ofqual and the Office for Students.

It will help to hear from the Minister her reflections on how the Government will set the strategic direction in this area and then bring clarity to the different—that word again—roles of each regulator and how they can contribute to that goal. Despite their best efforts, and with apologies to those drafting the Explanatory Notes, I am still not entirely clear about the impact of Clause 8 on Ofqual’s powers in this area. I have already raised this with the Minister and made absolutely clear that this is a probing amendment by which I merely seek to understand whether there would be any change in Ofqual’s powers as a result of these amendments to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. Although I have reread her comments at Second Reading, I very much hope she can set out for the Grand Committee the impact of Clause 8 in practice—ideally with a couple of examples—so that at least I, if I am the only one left standing, am completely clear on this point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, in responding to this part of the debate, I am confident that I will be able to explain to noble Lords the intention of Clause 8; however, given the broader questions about the roles of a range of regulators in this field, I may well write to noble Lords to set that out, because it goes broader than Clause 8.

The amendments in this group relate to proposals regarding quality assurance and the accreditation of apprenticeships and technical qualifications. Section 138 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 allows Ofqual to set an accreditation requirement for individual qualifications or descriptions of qualifications. If it does that, any such qualification must be accredited before it is awarded.

Ofqual accredits a qualification submitted by an awarding organisation, first, if the awarding organisation has been recognised in respect of that qualification or type of qualification; and, secondly, if the qualification submitted meets the relevant criteria. This is a rigorous process that gives confidence in qualifications—our A-levels and GCSEs. However, since 2022, Ofqual has been prevented from making determinations on accreditation for technical qualifications. This means that, in respect of accreditation, technical qualifications are treated differently from academic qualifications and are prevented in all instances from benefiting from an important tool for ensuring quality.

Clause 8 will change that by enabling the Secretary of State to forge a route to technical qualifications being accredited. The clause provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to determine, should it be deemed appropriate, that an exception could be granted to the general prohibition on Ofqual being able to accredit both approved technical education qualifications and technical education qualifications that the Secretary of State is considering approving. This will mean that, where it is directed to do so by the Secretary of State, Ofqual could exercise its power to determine whether an accreditation requirement should apply to certain technical education qualifications, subject to appropriate consultation.

In some instances, the Secretary of State may deem it appropriate to ask Ofqual to consider whether imposing an accreditation requirement on the qualifications in question could help maintain their quality and signal to the wider system that they are broadly commensurate with other accredited qualifications in terms of rigour. For example, the Secretary of State could use this power in instances where it is important to ensure that students who opt into and successfully complete high-quality technical education qualifications are in no way disadvantaged as compared to their peers who pursue academic qualifications. They may consider, for example, whether a category of technical qualification provides a particularly important springboard for onward progression but where those who successfully complete the qualification may be competing with those who have studied other qualifications that have been accredited, such as GCSEs or A-levels.

It may also be the case that the Secretary of State therefore considers using this power where they are persuaded that a particular category of technical qualification is not subject to any broader review or has reached a certain level of maturity in delivery, and/or is being taken by a sizeable number of students. It is important that the potential for the accreditation of technical qualifications is reintroduced in the managed and considered way the clause allows. Here I come to the questions about why Ofqual does not have a complete permission and ability to consider technical qualifications.

The clause provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to determine, should it be deemed appropriate, that an exception could be granted to the general prohibition on Ofqual being able to accredit. This is because of the relative newness of many technical qualifications and is in order to consider carefully the interactions with the ongoing and vital reviews both of post-16 qualifications and of curriculum and assessment. These considerations are more significant for technical than non-technical qualifications. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we are doing this not because we necessarily have specific examples in mind but to enable them to be considered in response to some of the reviews, where it would seem appropriate.

Amendment 34, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to lay before Parliament a report on the effect of this Act on the powers exercised by regulators, including the Office for Students and Ofqual. We are committed to ensuring transparency in the way that the Bill’s powers are discharged and the effects that their transfer and execution will have on regulators, other public bodies and parts of government. We intend to follow the usual methods for agreeing and making this information available publicly and to Parliament, and therefore consider the amendment to be unnecessary, notwithstanding my commitment to write to noble Lords with some more detail about the way that different regulators work.

Specifically, Skills England’s published framework document will govern the relationship between the body, the department and the rest of government. There is a further and pre-existing published framework document already governing the relationship between the Department for Education and the Office for Students, and an equivalent document is being developed between the department and Ofqual to support effective working arrangements.

IfATE currently has memorandums of understanding with Ofqual and the Office for Students, and we anticipate that equivalent documents will be developed and published in respect of Skills England in due course. These documents will set out the nature of the relationship between Skills England and the regulators it will work with, in line with their respective framework documents.

For the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, feels able not to press her amendment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I thank noble Lords—or noble Baronesses—for their contributions to this short debate, and the Minister for her response and explanation of what Clause 8 intends to do, which, at least for the moment, I think I understand. What I heard her say is that the intent is to improve the rigour in the system and send a message to the system about rigour in relation to technical education qualifications, but that there are no current plans to use that power. That raised the question: if some qualifications are then accredited by Ofqual that have a particular status, what impact will that have on all the others? That is a little policy joy for her to consider. I very much look forward to her letter explaining the network of regulators and how this legislation will impact them, as I am sure other noble Lords do.

I very much support the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on the importance of moving on as quickly as possible with the lifelong learning entitlement. I hear loud and clear my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith’s comments about the need for speed. The slight concern many of us might feel is that agility and speed are not always the first words that come to mind when thinking about central government.

Clause 8 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I think that this amendment is worth very serious consideration. When I was Science Minister, I saw up close—as the whole country did during the pandemic—the value of the Chief Scientific Adviser and the network of scientific advisers across government departments. They play a really useful role in ensuring that policy is informed by the strongest possible understanding of science and in bringing the scientific method to policy-making. They have had a huge impact and made a huge contribution.

However, I would just flag that this raises an interesting question about what exactly the role of Skills England is. My understanding, from what the Government have said so far about Skills England, is that it was meant to be a body working across government and doing the difficult job of ensuring that all the different interests of different government departments in the skills agenda are given appropriate balance and focus. To my mind, that may be somewhat duplicative of what Skills England is itself seeking to do. In that sense, it may be a perfectly good alternative to Skills England if you have a chief skills adviser, informed by skills advisers in the various departments, feeding into the DfE; then, you may not need the horizon-scanning, policy-making function that Skills England is proposing to offer. I suggest that you have either one or the other; you probably do not need both.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for setting out so clearly the case for the appointment of a chief skills adviser and a network across government departments. However, I also have a lot of sympathy with the remarks from my noble friend Lord Johnson about the risk of duplication. In a way, this debate has made me feel like we are coming back to Clause 1 of the Bill, which I promised not to do, and to the appetite for understanding the Government’s thinking about how Skills England will work in practice. Clearly, this is a kind of alternative model.

I will make just a couple of brief points. In the previous Government, we benefited from the advice of Sir Michael Barber in his role as an adviser on skills policy delivery. My first point on that concerns the importance of the word “delivery”. His focus was on the delivery of skills policy. We all know that writing a great policy document is about 10% of the task while about 90% is effective delivery of that policy at scale, in real life. On behalf of my former colleagues in the department, I thank Sir Michael for his excellent advice in this regard; I had only one conversation with him but I have thought about it and used his advice many times since.

My second point is that Sir Michael reported not only to the Secretary of State for Education but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wonder whether that is something that the Minister might consider.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, Amendment 17, which makes up this sixth group, was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As he outlined, it points us towards considering the case for a new and separate chief skills adviser—or, as I think the noble Lord described it, a network of chief skills advisers across government. I certainly agree that we need champions of skills in this country in a broad sense. Earlier, my noble friend Lord Blunkett made the case for having to make that argument across government and the challenges in doing so over the years. I do not dispute that need. Harnessing the skills of all our people is crucial to unlocking growth and spreading opportunity.

As it stands, our skills system is fragmented and not meeting the skills needs of either the economy or our people, so I have some sympathy with the idea that we need a unifying force that can also have an impact across government. However, that unifying force, as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said, is Skills England. As this legislation paves the way for us to establish Skills England, it is not necessary, I would argue, to include consideration of a chief skills adviser in parallel; doing so would only add a further layer of complexity and, arguably, make it less clear where the accountability for delivering a step change in skills provision sits.

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

Baroness Barran Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I am also slightly uncertain about the order of speakers; I thought it was in the same order as the amendments.

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ashton of Hyde) (Non-Afl)]

It can be in any order.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

It can be in any order. I rise to speak to my Amendments 35 and 36 and to support Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. Before I talk to the amendments in detail, I will reflect briefly on some of the important points that were raised earlier in Committee and that have a bearing on the groups that we will be debating today.

In addition to the fundamental concerns raised about the abolition of IfATE, which we have heard again from your Lordships today, and the absorption of its powers by the Secretary of State, we heard concerns from my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith about how long it takes for a new body to bed in and gain the trust of employers and, again from her, from my noble friend Lord Johnson and from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, about the risk that we lose momentum in implementing the Government’s skills reforms. Similarly, the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf of Dulwich, and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight of Weymouth, among others, expressed their doubts about the Government’s approach.

In particular, there was a real sense, as we have heard again today, that everybody wants Skills England to succeed but there is a worry that it will be swamped by the volume of technical work that it will have to do, which could prevent it from delivering on the changes that the nation needs to see. I absolutely echo the earlier words of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in hoping that the Government will bring forward their own amendments to address these concerns on Report.

My Amendments 35 and 36 seek to bring some focus and clarity to the work of Skills England by requiring regular reporting to Parliament. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, on the 12 different versions that he tracked in the Marshalled List. Without this, Skills England might disappear from view, buried under a mountain of technical processes. Importantly, critical accountability disappears with that; we will not be able to name who is accountable for different decisions.

I will first explain my Amendment 35. There are many people in the sector who are concerned by the uncertainty that the Bill creates surrounding previously established processes, such as the granting of new technical education qualifications. As your Lordships know, IfATE was an independent body and new qualifications were decided with the help of employers and businesses, informing them what skills were needed in the economy. However, with the arrival of Skills England we need to understand two things: first, how will the Government decide on its strategic priorities and, secondly, how will this be operationalised in the creation of new technical qualifications? With this transition, it is likely that the processes to decide which sectors receive new qualifications could change, so my Amendment 35 seeks to clarify how these decisions will be made and what will guide this decision-making. We need a level of transparency that retains the confidence of employers, training providers and, crucially, students for this approach to have a chance of success.

Next, I will give details on my Amendment 36, which seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on various skills metrics. Your Lordships will have noted that this is a long list that reflects the complexity of this area. There may of course be better metrics and, ideally, a shorter list, but this is our starter for 10—or perhaps I should say 12, since the list stretches from paragraphs (a) to (l). I will go through these points individually—I apologise to your Lordships for the length of this, but it underlines how many areas we do not have clarity on where we need clarity.

Paragraph (a) in the proposed new clause seeks clarity on the level of need or skills gaps by sector, level of qualification and region. Without this, I fear we will get a generic report with broad-brush headings that might well reflect the national averages but does not give any actionable insight about where to focus or prioritise, or about the amount of progress made from year to year.

Paragraph (b) aims finally to bring some consistency to different qualifications across the sector, particularly as they apply to key core competencies. At the moment, we have a long and varied list of qualifications, and they are not really interoperable. For example, the standard of generic digital skills is not the same in two digital skills qualifications at the same level, and this contributes to the complexity of our system and is a blocker to streamlining it. This would be a key step to achieving the aims also mentioned in paragraph (i).

Paragraph (c) intends to give visibility to the earnings impact of completing different qualifications at different levels and in different regions. I do not think that we could answer that question today with solid data.

Paragraphs (d), (e) and (f) follow the same structure as paragraph (c) but in relation to how the Government are spending their budget in the area and how the landscape is evolving in terms of new qualifications, as well as the impact of both of these on trainees.

Paragraph (g) intends to explore whether the system is still meeting employer needs. We keep hearing from employers an urgent need for more clarity on what would happen if there were a gap in, say, engineers on Teesside, and what the Government, through Skills England, would do about it.

Paragraph (h) turns to the funding of skills training by employers. I thank my noble friend Lord Johnson for his comments on this. As he said, this is an area that we all know has declined significantly in real terms over the past 20 years, and we now lag badly behind other industrialised nations. We hope that there is some way that this can be measured annually to shine a light on this important area, both in financial terms and in relation to take-up by employers of new qualifications. Of course, this will be impacted by changes to the apprenticeship levy that the Government have proposed.

All these elements intend to create a far clearer picture of the impact of technical education qualifications on the people who take them, and the differences that happen through their learning. It also seeks to explore the way in which Skills England will work differently to IfATE and to provide an outcome-based framework by which its efficacy can be judged and adapted if necessary.

The letters after that intend to provide a framework to evaluate Skills England more generally, judged on the factors that matter to both employers and students. As noted above, paragraph (i) intends to ensure that this new system is created in a manner that is easy to understand for employers and students. For example, it is unclear how and where the Secretary of State will get advice on the content, accessibility, assessment and rigour of T-levels. This has much in common with Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.

Paragraph (j) seeks to get regular updates on the impact of changes in the post-16 education strategy that the Government have committed to delivering, and its inclusion would commit the Government to detailing how they are delivering the objectives of the new strategy and what difference it is making on the ground.

I hope that, if my noble friend Lord Lucas reads the Hansard of this debate, he will be pleased to see paragraph (k), which looks at careers advice and seeks to ensure that there is a sufficiency—to be clear, I mean quality rather than just volume—of careers information, advice and guidance.

Paragraph (l) mirrors the wording in paragraphs (a) to (c) in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause to be inserted by Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. This would ensure that the Government’s reforms focus on the areas where there is the most urgent need for increased participation.

Finally, I want to touch briefly on Amendment 31 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, which I support; I have already spoken about its proposed subsection (1). The second subsection seeks to get a clearer sense of how the skills and growth levy will operate in practice and to build on the promising start that we have already seen from the local skills improvement partnerships.

I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on this, but I hope that she has heard the message from all noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon: there is a pressing need to build confidence in the Government’s approach. A commitment to putting Skills England on a statutory footing, linked to a rigorous reporting regime, would be a helpful step in that direction.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I was just looking through my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s Amendments 28, 29 and 30, to which I added my name. I am sure noble Lords will be aware that, since Skills England was announced, the DfE has been using a pretty coloured diagram in five sections to describe the planned functions of the new executive agency. One of the sections says that Skills England

“identifies priorities for and shapes technical education to respond to skills needs”.

Having done that, it will need to update the necessary technical standards and work with sectoral industry bodies to develop them. Indeed, the Government will need to set out which functions currently with IfATE will be delegated to sectoral organisations and regional bodies. That is what Amendment 28 seeks to achieve.

My noble friend the Minister said in Committee last week that there needs to be “a sectoral approach” to the way that skills are developed across the economy. Of course, that is right. With that in mind, it is necessary that the Government’s plans for the powers that they anticipate will be required are set out, and this amendment would facilitate that.

Another of the sections in that DfE diagram says that Skills England will ensure

“national and regional systems are meeting skills needs”,

explaining that this will entail:

“Working with Mayoral Combined Authorities, Employer Representative Bodies, and other regional organisations to align national and regional systems with each other and with skills needs”.


All that seems fairly straightforward, but it is not clear how Skills England will achieve that without the necessary powers and some resources. We do not as yet know what these might be, so it is important that criteria for national skills priorities are set out and that the expectations of departments other than the DfE are made clear. My noble friend the Minister stated on several occasions how important the effect of joined-up government will be for the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders. Amendment 29 offers the opportunity for that to be spelled out.

Finally, there is more than a little uncertainty as to how the plethora of qualifications to be transferred will be subject to oversight. My noble friend Lord Blunkett has covered this, but I will simply say that qualifications at levels 3 and 4 are crucial in allowing young people the opportunity to build their skills in an environment in which they are not intimidated by unrealistic expectations or other barriers to entry, as has been the case too often with apprenticeships. The unfortunate tangle—let me put it no less kindly than that—that we currently have involving the introduction of T-levels and the consequent often rash and sometimes reckless defunding of some BTECs must not be allowed to happen with the transfer of the many essential qualifications validated by IfATE in its short lifetime.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 27 and in support of Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I start by noting that I support very much the spirit of the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the aspiration of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, although I have a certain sympathy with the Minister in trying to actually deliver on that.

My Amendment 27—I thank my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park for adding her name to it—aims to ensure that the Government’s strategy is up to date and relevant for local areas and that the Government do this by consulting the relevant bodies. I suggest local skills improvement partnerships and mayoral combined authorities although, in his Amendment 36B and his extremely helpful, clear and practical explanation of it, the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, raises the relevance of other groups and the importance of making sure that we do not miss out significant parts of the population as we try to aggregate and understand these local views.

What we are trying to do is to balance technical education qualifications that can be tailored, to a degree, and that best support the needs of a local area, with the ability to aggregate and use the data and intelligence from them to inform national policy. That needs to then feed into an ability for the Government and those to whom they devolve their powers to understand where providers are delivering efficiently on these plans and where they are not, identifying gaps and seeking to address them.

I also want to speak to the importance of the Government setting out how they intend to delegate these powers that are being centralised. As my noble friend Lady Evans said, what the Government talk about and what is actually happening in terms of centralisation rather jars, so I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, has brought this forward through his Amendment 28. I do not think anyone is suggesting to the Minister that this is an easy task—if it was easy, somebody would have cracked it already—but it is clearly a very important task and the more she can say about how these different groups will interact with Skills England and how there will be lines of communication from the local to the national and back again, the more confident the Committee will feel.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had a good discussion on this group of amendments about the importance of ensuring that there is both appropriate engagement across government and improved coherence of the qualifications system, alongside the challenges of ensuring that we get appropriate local and regional input into our skills system while maintaining some coherence across it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is right that some of these issues around devolution are not neat government, as I think I said in a committee this morning, but they are nevertheless important in ensuring that local employers can contribute and there can be differentiation depending on different needs in different parts of the country. I will return to that as I address the amendments, but I wholeheartedly agree that it is very important that we are clear about the way in which a range of different stakeholders will be engaged. Some of this is already very clear; other aspects—I will be honest—will be part of the work of developing Skills England in the building of those relationships.

I turn to Amendment 19 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, and Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, regarding Skills England’s work with key bodies, in particular government departments. It is really important that we are able to work collaboratively with a whole range of different partners. Extensive work is already under way across departments to ensure that skills sit at the heart of joined-up decision-making across government.

As I probably said on the first day of Committee— I usually say it when talking about skills—Skills England and our improved skills infrastructure will play a key role in supporting the skilled workforce needed to deliver the Government’s five missions: driving economic growth, breaking down barriers to opportunity, supporting our NHS, delivering safer streets and the clean energy transition. Therefore, it is crucial that there is a cross-government approach and input into improving our skills provision.

Skills England will work closely with the industrial strategy advisory council. The chair of Skills England will sit on that council and, although I accept that that is not sufficient on its own to ensure join-up, it is an important signal. It will work closely with the Migration Advisory Committee, because it is important that we identify how to understand the analysis of where migration is needed as well as understand what more we need to do to boost the domestic pipeline of skills development. It will also work with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that the Government have the analysis and advice needed to inform a coherent approach to the labour market. The publication of the Get Britain Working White Paper, which we touched on, is an important example of that joint working.

In order to ensure that Skills England’s first report was informed and took in this need to look at skills needs across government, the report was informed by a skills audit across government departments. The cross-government approach will also be driven forward through the regular mission boards, which bring together Ministers from across government, helping to break down departmental silos and ensure a strategic approach to our mission priorities. Together, these connections are creating a coherent approach to skills, migration and labour market policy.

Amendment 27 was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 36B was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale. Regarding consultation with contributors to local skills improvement plans on the introduction and number of new technical education qualifications, it is my view that local skills improvement plans are playing an important role in giving employers a voice in this area. When I was on a visit last Friday and heard from FE principals, one in particular had feared that the development of LSIPs would be just another quango, but she was actually finding it useful to have that engagement with local employers.

Mayoral combined authorities also have an important role to play, using the elements of skills funding that are devolved to them and their convening power, to bring together a clearer view of regional growth needs, through the regional growth plan, and to work alongside local skills improvement partnerships—as well as the other initiatives announced today in the Get Britain Working White Paper—to build a coherent approach to the labour market and to skills development at a regional level.

The assessment of skills needs set out in the first report by Skills England—published in September, as I said—drew strongly on evidence from LSIPs. Skills England has already begun to engage and gather evidence from mayoral combined authorities, employer representative bodies and others on skills needs. This will inform decisions on where standards and, therefore, technical qualifications or apprenticeships are required.

Several noble Lords talked about the challenges of devolution, as I suggested at the beginning. Supporting a more joined-up approach to decision-making on skills at regional and national levels will be central to Skills England’s role, putting the bits back together, as my noble friend Lord Blunkett described it. I accept that there is a challenge, as the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, identified. While there is a very clear remit for those areas that are mayoral combined authorities, those that are not have less devolution of skills funding. However, the Government are preparing a devolution White Paper and we will want to encourage further devolution. We will also want to support local authorities in carrying out their role to input into skills discussions in those non-mayoral combined authority areas. I share the noble Lord’s interest in this, living as I do in the Midlands, in an area without a mayoral combined authority.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I went on at some length in my response to the previous set of amendments to spell out what the accountability mechanisms to both the public and Parliament will be for Skills England, both directly in its publication of an annual report and, via the sponsoring department, to Parliament. In respect of specific amendments, the concern is that what we are trying to do here is create a strategic body that brings together the data analysis and insights with the ability then to inform efficiently, effectively and agilely—if that is the proper word—the development of occupational standards, assessment plans and the technical qualifications that employers tell us they need. Creating legislative requirements in advance of it being able to do so will, the Government believe, limit that flexibility, when we really intend to improve it. That is one of the criticisms that employers have made of the current IfATE process.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

I have two points. First, if I heard correctly, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was asking why none of that could be in the Bill. Secondly, what the Minister just said might be a starter for 10, for the drafters, on what could go in the Bill. Of course, if you are incredibly precise about exactly what would be reported on, that limits you, but if something in the Bill says that this spirit will be aligned, it retains a degree of flexibility. With the level of flexibility that the Bill now affords the Government or any future Government, flexibility trumps accountability squarely, as the Minister has heard. I wonder whether she could reflect on that.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I understand why the amendments are formulated as they are, but most of them would create not just the requirement to describe but a condition that would be inserted into the process and that would therefore limit the flexibility and speed with which qualifications and occupational standards could be developed. I contend the suggestion that there is no public or parliamentary accountability in the way we are setting up Skills England. I went through at some length the routes through which both of those forms of accountability will be delivered to Parliament and, more widely, the public—while conceding the point about the requirement for an annual report, for example, and outlining the accountability through the sponsor Minister to Parliament to account for the progress and success in a whole range of areas that noble Lords have talked about.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Baroness Barran]

24: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause—
“Report: approval of new technical education qualifications Within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on mechanisms for employers to apply for the approval of new technical education qualifications and to appeal the removal of any technical education qualifications.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies the route employers will take to approve new technical education qualifications.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 24, I will also speak to my Amendments 25 and 26. As we heard on earlier groups, there is a lot of concern among experts in the sector about how the Government’s plans will work in practice and whether the proposed changes in the governance of the skills sector will result in confusion and delay—obviously to the detriment of the Government’s growth agenda. My amendments seek to bring clarity to this confusion.

My Amendment 24 seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to explain to employers the way in which they will be able to approve new technical education qualifications and appeal where qualifications are planned to lose funding. It is, obviously, essential that employers know how to get new qualifications approved so that our qualifications can remain up to date and relevant to the needs of businesses, and that the Government can receive the input from businesses on what skills our economy is lacking.

My Amendments 25 and 26 seek to address the delays that will happen when these powers are transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State, as laid out in the impact assessment that the Government published alongside the Bill. The impact assessment lays out details of how the creation of end-point assessments and the approval of new technical education qualifications will both be delayed. In order to minimise the impact that this has on students who are seeking to undertake a technical qualification, students who are midway through their course and businesses that are seeking to introduce qualifications, I felt it necessary to encourage the Government to give details as to how long this delay will be and the steps they are taking to ensure that it is as short as possible. It is important that businesses and students have certainty about the extent to which any delays will impact them. These amendments propose a timetable, when the Bill is passed, by which the Secretary of State must report on how long these delays will last and what the Government are doing to ensure as minimum a disruption as possible to the qualifications and to the students seeking to undertake them.

I hope the Minister will agree that these amendments are not controversial and may come back on Report with government amendments that look like mine. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

Yes, you can. There is a whole range of different types of arm’s-length bodies. Executive agencies are one such type. They are governed by a governance document—the framework document that I have previously described—and by a set of requirements and relationships that I would be happy to spell out for noble Lords.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for highlighting the impact on the groups and communities that could be most affected by delays, as set out in the impact assessment.

I am honestly a bit puzzled by the Minister’s response. She said that my Amendment 24 is unnecessary, but employers are telling us that it is necessary. There is obviously a gap between what the Minister knows and what is being understood, so the more clarity the Government can bring to those specific points, the better.

Similarly, the Minister spoke very confidently about minimal delays—my words, not hers—in approving endpoint assessments and new qualifications. We do not want to frustrate the Government’s plans, but if it is so clear to the Minister that this is a very low-risk area then perhaps she can put that and the exact timescales she expects formally on the record on Report.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

I commit to providing to the Committee more detail about the process for transition and some reassurance, which I suspect I have not sufficiently provided, on how that will mitigate some of the risks identified in the impact assessment.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

When the Minister does that, which would be much appreciated, I request that, in addition to more detail about the process, she includes a sense of timescale, which would be most helpful. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 24 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, I hope to be as quick as I can. My amendments suggest that everything should be under the affirmative procedure when it is reported back. That is just to make sure that Parliament gets a real look and a chance not to have those reports buried in the huge piles of SIs that are brought forward. We should guarantee that we are all looking at what happens in this new body.

[Baroness Barran (Con)]

My Lords, despite the Minister’s dismissal of my concerns about the Henry VIII powers at Second Reading, I have brought two amendments in this group to make sure that the scope of those powers is less broad.

Amendment 38 seeks to restrict the Secretary of State’s powers to amend only the Acts that are already listed in Schedule 3, so that both Houses can appropriately scrutinise the way in which these powers are being used. Surely it is the job of the Government and the department to identify all the Acts to which these powers apply. I cannot see the need for such a clause, unless the Bill has been rushed and the Government are worried that they have failed to capture all the legislation that requires amending with the abolition of IfATE. If this is indeed the case, perhaps there is more redrafting to do than we have already attempted.

My Amendment 39 is focused on the same issue but, rather than restricting the Secretary of State’s powers specifically, it simply removes the power to amend future legislation. Again, I note that all Bills which name IfATE as the body for apprenticeships and technical education have already been passed, so there should be no need to amend future legislation, unless the Government have plans to refer to IfATE in any future legislation that they intend to draft. Given that this seems unlikely, I am once again left with the question as to why this is necessary. I urge the Minister to reconsider this.

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, I begin on this group of amendments by reassuring the Committee that the department recognises and takes very seriously the important role that Parliament has in scrutinising consequential amendments. For this reason, we have made every effort to identify all the consequential amendments to primary legislation that are necessary, and to include them as Schedules 1 and 3 to the Bill.

Despite those extensive efforts, there is a risk that in the future we may uncover Acts which need amending because of provisions in this Bill. I reassure the Committee that this is a very limited and narrow power and that any use would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have carefully considered the power and believe that it is entirely justified in this case. In fact, the inclusion of similar powers as a safeguard is well precedented in legislation. Our delegated powers memorandum has been considered by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which has confirmed that there is nothing in the Bill which it would wish to highlight to the House.

Therefore, the amendment, and Amendments 38 and 39 in the name of the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Garden, would remove the delegated power to make consequential amendments to primary legislation. If this were accepted, it would be unnecessarily burdensome on Parliament and require greater amounts of parliamentary time should we uncover Acts that needed minor and genuinely consequential amendments to be made as a result of the Bill. It would, of course, require all those changes then to be made through primary legislation.

Depending on the nature of the issue, and to go back to the previous group of amendments, we might see an increased risk of disruption in the functioning of the skills system for learners and employers. I hope it might provide some reassurance to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, although perhaps not to the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, that previous legislation, including legislation passed by the previous Government, has included a power such as this because it provides that important safety net should future amendments be identified.

The power is limited to consequential amendments to previous Acts and Acts passed later in the same parliamentary Session. It does not encompass all future legislation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seemed to suggest. The amendments would limit consequential amendments to those Acts specified in Schedules 1 and 3 to the Bill, but our approach in relation to amending Acts passed later in the same Session is not unusual, notwithstanding the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. We have reviewed legislation and identified that including a power to amend primary legislation passed in the same parliamentary Session has been done in at least 20 other Acts since 2020. It may well be that the noble Baroness has now seen the light, but I suspect it is more likely that this is a sensible, narrow and reasonable provision to put into this legislation. That was why the previous Government decided to do it at least 20 times.

Amendments 40 and 41, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, would require regulations making consequential provisions that are subject to the negative procedure by virtue of Clause 9(5) to instead be subject to the affirmative procedure for a period of six months. As is customary, any consequential amendments to legislation other than primary legislation, which would be subject to the affirmative procedure, will be subject to the negative procedure. The limited and uncontroversial nature of such changes means that this procedure provides sufficient parliamentary oversight while enabling changes to be made without unduly taking up parliamentary time.

Consequential amendments to secondary legislation are not included in the Bill as the power to make or amend such legislation is held by the Secretary of State by virtue of the passing of that legislation previously. We have already identified the amendments to secondary legislation that are needed; these are of a similar nature to those included in Schedules 1 and 3 to the Bill. There is a strong precedent for delegated legislation under the negative procedure to be used to make consequential amendments to delegated legislation. Therefore, the amendment seeking affirmative resolution is not necessary.

I have set out in a letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, the chair of the Constitution Committee, how the clause is inherently narrow in scope as it is limited to making amendments that are genuinely consequential on the provisions in the Bill.

Therefore, for the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.