Technical and Further Education Bill

Baroness Wolf of Dulwich Excerpts

Report stage (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 27th March 2017 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Cohen of Pimlico (Lab)]

My Lords, I support the amendment. The Bill has cross-party support; it is potentially the greatest engine of social change that can be imagined and rights the injustice of the many years when technical education has been regarded as much less important than formal academic education. The effect of cancelling benefit for 16 to 18 year-olds embarked on apprenticeships will be to deter a small but important group of these young people from taking them up. Since the apprenticeship is not just education but a route into a job, this would be entirely wrong. In families with very low incomes, budgets are extremely delicate. Allowing one child to do an apprenticeship when they are not fully funded could damage the rest of the family and is therefore not likely to happen. I therefore hope that the Government will think again on this.

I will also speak to Amendments 14 and 16, which provide slightly different versions of guarantees if trainers go bust. I remind the House that I am chancellor of BPP University, with 2,000 degree-level apprenticeships, and my sister company has 2,000 16 to 19 year-old apprenticeships. It is not very difficult for long, well- established training operations to contribute to a contingency fund, if that is what is wanted, or to get a bank guarantee. I am thinking of new people who may want to come into this field, whom I believe the Government want to encourage. I suspect that having to contribute to a contingency fund, which is difficult and requires special provision, is possibly a barrier to entry, whereas producing a bank guarantee is—as my noble friend Lord Watson said—a well-understood route and I believe a lot of banks know how to do this. I would, therefore, much prefer any measure to require providers to produce a bank guarantee rather than a contribution to a contingency fund, or their own private contingency fund.

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich (CB)]

My Lords, I also support the amendment and share its concern for the small but important group of young people who may be denied an apprenticeship. I will also speak to Amendment 16 tabled in my name and lend strong support to the general argument that we must provide financial guarantees and security to young people in the training field. I declare an interest that, as a member of the Sainsbury review, I was part of the panel which lies behind other parts of the Bill. I also strongly welcome the provisions to ensure that, should an FE college fail, special arrangements will be in place to make sure that students are looked after; that clearly set out procedures will swing into place; and that they will not just go to the bottom of the list after creditors, in the hands of administrators whose responsibilities and skills are essentially commercial. It is absolutely right that the Government have recognised this as their duty. It is their duty because, by funding young people and adults, encouraging them to enter training—and, in very many cases, to take out loans—the Government have implicitly promised that an institution to which they are lending money will give a good-quality education and will endure to see students through. The introduction of loans is a mammoth change and lies under much of the Government’s conviction that they need to change the HE regime. We must recognise that the Government’s ambition for huge increases in adult learner loans changes the environment in which young people and adults are studying and training.

Many noble Lords will know that failures are not unheard of—one wishes that they were. In the United States, huge companies have gone under, leaving many thousands of people with loans. These are not all at degree level; they are often at associate-degree level, which comprises two-year courses. On the one hand, therefore, it is very welcome that we have these provisions for FE colleges, but, on the other, I find myself completely unable to understand why equivalent protections should not be introduced for people training and studying in institutions which are not FE colleges and which also offer—and are being funded to offer—technical education. Many of these people have loans, and many of them are not mobile. The loans represent large sums of money for them, and they have made big changes in their lives to undertake this form of training. Again, it is tremendously welcome that the Government are putting so much effort and money into technical education. However, we have to ensure that the promise, encouragement and—sometimes—pressure to enter technical education is matched by a guarantee that the Government will deliver on their implicit promise.

Against this background, the repeated failures—that is what it has felt like—in recent weeks of a number of private training providers should make us aware that this is not a hypothetical situation. Like the noble Lord, Lord Watson, I was not very convinced by the letters from the department and the SFA. My noble friend Lady Watkins will speak in a moment. She and I had a very productive meeting with the Bill team. We appreciated their willingness to listen to our arguments. However, the letters that we received seemed to amount to a combination of the statements, “We are muddling through” and “There aren’t very many of them anyway”. That is not adequate at a time when we are embarking on a major rethink—and, I hope, a major expansion—of technical education.

In Committee, the Minister noted that you cannot treat private businesses as though they were public organisations. That is indeed true. Although many private training providers are small charities, many others are commercial organisations, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cohen, said. Many of them survive entirely on government contracts and are very small. That is why I have proposed a mechanism which I think would be entirely appropriate for this situation. We have heard about it already, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Neill, for first bringing it to my attention. It is well established, costs the Government nothing and would not cost providers anything that would begin to wipe out their margins. It is well and frequently adopted in other sectors and I cannot see why it should not apply here.

That brings me to my final point—the idea that we do not need to worry about this matter because only a few people are involved and the risks of failure are quite small. Even if the figure is less than 1%, that is hundreds of people a year on current levels of loans. If we have the expansion that we hope for, thousands of people a year will be affected. To give a medical analogy, if 1% of life-changing operations were cancelled and eventually lost because people got older and were never able to have their operations and had to go back to the bottom of the waiting list, I do not think that anybody would find that acceptable. Therefore, I strongly hope that the Minister will assure us that at Third Reading he will be able to bring concrete proposals to this Chamber and that we will see the same acceptance of the importance of looking after students in the entire technical education sector that we so happily see in further education colleges.

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 14 and to Amendment 16, which is linked to that, and will say a few words in support of Amendment 1.

It is interesting that a large part of the Bill is about insolvency—what happens if a college becomes insolvent. Yet it does not say very much about what happens if a poor student, through no fault of their own, becomes insolvent because of debt problems arising from the fact that their college no longer exists. We also encourage private providers—I say right at the outset that there are many good private providers, who have an exemplary record and are very worth while. Sadly, however, some providers have caused immeasurable harm to young people, and we need to ensure that there is a proper safety net for those young people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich]

My Lords, I rarely disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, on technical education, where I highly respect her expertise and experience, but I confess to a certain unease about the idea that there should be only one list and that it should overtly include everything. One of the key things that we are trying to do here is to create a highly respected and distinctive technical education course which sits alongside the academic one, and therefore by definition it cannot include everything that has passed a basic set of requirements for being an acceptable qualification.

I remind noble Lords that I have an interest in this, having been on the Sainsbury panel, but also looking back to my experience when I was doing the 14 to 18 vocational education review. I completely agree that one could go round for ever on vocational to technical to professional. But there is a really important distinction here between a limited set of qualifications that have been identified as having a very clear purpose and the possibility—and, I would say, high desirability—of allowing a very large number of qualifications to arise and be offered and meet a minimum threshold in the vocational and technical area. It may be that the wording of the noble Baroness’s amendment will not get in the way of that, but these distinctions are important.

When I made the 14 to 18 recommendations, I said explicitly that there should be a distinction between there being strong requirements before something could be offered in mainstream 14 to 16 education and a very different set of requirements which said that they could be out there and schools could offer them if they wished but they could not count in the league tables as being equivalent to GCSEs or A-levels. The same thing applies here with the task set for the new institute to identify qualifications which really meet the requirements of that distinctive high-status route. That is not the same as being on the Ofqual register.

This is not about whether it is craft or creative or technical, where I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, but about creating this “lost” route that we used to have without at the same time throwing overboard a large number of qualifications—some of them tiny, some of them big—which may serve quite different purposes. It is really important to recognise that one of the purposes of the institute is to create that alternative route and that part of that is about having a set of qualifications—probably not thousands long—that meet these criteria. Getting there is going to be difficult but if you do not have this end in view, it is hard to see how we will ever get out of what is at the moment a hugely confused and confusing mass of qualifications.

Again, to talk from personal experience, when I did the 14 to 18 review, I did not recommend anything like as much restriction at 16 to 18. What was recommended and adopted was this idea of a programme of study for each individual student between 16 and 18, which has worked quite well. I thought at the time that as a result of that we would move to a situation where a smaller number of good qualifications became clearly apparent as market leaders, and strongly established. I was convinced by Nick Boles, the Minister at the time the Sainsbury panel was set up, that this was just not happening; we needed to be more active and the programme of study was not enough.

It seems to me that a fundamental part of what the institute is about is creating a set of qualifications which meet the requirements for that alternative, high-status route from 16 on into adult life. Without talking to lawyers or drafting clerks, I do not know whether the amendment would have any negative impact on that but it is important to understand that one of the purposes of the institute, for which I think there is cross-party consensus, is to recreate that route. In my view, that means that you cannot just say that everything that is not an A-level can be on the institute’s list, because we need a list that is clearly part of this route without wiping out all the other many qualifications which may serve other and different purposes. That is what I wanted to say and I hope the noble Baroness and I do not really disagree.

[Baroness Vere of Norbiton]

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate the amendments in this group. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.

I fully understand why the noble Baroness and the noble Lord have tabled Amendment 6, which seeks to define technical education qualifications as,

“the full range of work-based qualifications”.

I reassure them that all relevant and appropriate occupations in the economy will be covered within the technical education routes. What is important is that there is good provision for everyone and that the reformed technical education system focuses on occupations for which skilled technical training is a requirement.

The Sainsbury panel report has already provided a clear definition:

“Technical education must require the acquisition of both a substantial body of technical knowledge and a set of practical skills valued by industry”.


Trying to define these qualifications in this manner could restrict the scope of technical education qualifications, both now and in the future. In practice, technical education qualifications will be defined by the coverage of the 15 technical education routes. Each route will provide a framework for grouping together occupations where there are shared training requirements. An occupational map will identify all the occupations within the scope of each route.

When defining the coverage of the 15 technical education routes, it is important to highlight that not all occupations will be included. The Sainsbury panel was clear that unskilled and low-skilled occupations that do not have sufficient knowledge requirements would not warrant a technical education route. Rather, these occupations can be learned entirely on the job, often within a matter of weeks. For these occupations, it would not be appropriate to offer technical education qualifications.

I reassure the noble Baroness and the noble Lord that within the technical education routes there will be comprehensive coverage of the skilled occupations that are vital to the success—

--- Later in debate ---

Tabled by

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich]

16: After Clause 35, insert the following new Clause—
“Providers of technical education: guarantee to students
(1) Any providers of technical education who are not covered by the insolvency regime created by this Act must provide a guarantee from a reputable financial institution to each Government supported student that, if the provider is made insolvent, the financial institution will cover the cost of operating that student's course until a suitable end point.(2) In subsection (1), a “suitable end point” means the completion of the course or the successful transfer of the student to an alternative institution.(3) In subsection (1), a “Government supported student” means any student whose education is funded directly by the Government through grants to the providers or student loans.(4) The cost of providing the guarantee under subsection (1) must be met by the relevant provider under subsection (1).”

[Baroness Wolf of Dulwich]

I note that the Minister did not reply to my amendment in his response, and I hope we can have further discussions before Third Reading.

Amendment 16 not moved.