Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O’Brien]

Clauses 4 and 5, to which our amendments apply, allow the Secretary of State to prepare, respectively, either a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan on her own. She can do that as long as she is satisfied that it would be more appropriate for the standard to be prepared by the Secretary of State rather than a group of persons. The Government say that a group of persons will normally be consulted, but the Bill does not specify who will be consulted when it refers to “a group of persons”. That lack of detail is concerning, and our amendments seek to rectify it.

In its written evidence to the Committee, the Royal Society of Chemistry said that it feels that

“some of the mechanisms put in place by IfATE should be retained. The concept of engaging with employers and other stakeholders in relationship to development of apprenticeship standards and technical qualifications is well founded and valuable.”

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 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.

The Bill, however, gives very wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State without maintaining those clear external links and the accountability that they help to provide. That is potentially damaging to the status of these qualifications. Amendment 3 states:

“A group of persons under subsection (3) must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”

Amendment 4 says:

“When approving a standard under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable requirements of—

(a) industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and

(b) persons who may wish to undertake education and training.”

I will not read out amendments 5 and 6 because they just repeat the same things in relation to clause 5.

One would think that the amendments are pretty uncontentious, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept them. It is not at all obvious to me why they would be any problem, but the Minister in the Lords seemed resistant to these ideas, arguing that this would be a “constraint in the system” that would slow down “groups coming together”. It is not at all obvious to me why it would slow things down.

The power to make standards and assessment plans alone is not something that we would ever accept for academic qualifications. The Secretary of State would not be allowed to write the national curriculum for, let us say, GCSE Geography and then take on the role of the examining boards—OCR, Cambridge Assessment or whatever—and turn it into a specification. We would not accept it if she took on the role of Ofqual and was in charge of marking her own homework and deciding whether the standards were comparable to similar things. Yet, under the Bill, that is exactly what we will be able to do on the technical side. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out earlier, this is another difference in parity of esteem between the technical and academic sides. The Secretary of State will be able to be judge, jury and executioner in this legislation.

When asked for an example of when the Secretary of State’s power to go it alone and write things herself will be used, the skills Minister told peers that it could be used to

“update standards for emerging or rapidly developing occupations, such as those in the digital sector.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC108.]

Personally, I do not find that very reassuring. Having seen Governments and civil servants struggling with the implications of new technologies, it might be an example of where there is more cause to work with others who know the industry well rather than go it alone. I am not sure that that is the example that I would pick to show why this is a good idea. The Cross-Bench peer Baroness Wolf noted:

“I was staggered when I was working as an expert adviser in government to discover, for example, that most people in the apprenticeship division in the DfE had been in their jobs for only a couple of years. There were some wonderful people, but there was no real collective memory of why things had gone wrong before. That is why you have to make it clear in legislation that, as Skills England goes forward and as, particularly in this context, its apprenticeship functions go forward, it has to involve everybody, even though it takes longer”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC104.]

All of this matters because the framework document, which has now been published and which I have here, is at best vague and at worst silent on the involvement of employers. There are some vague statements in the section on aims. It says that employers will be engaged in the preparation of standards and so on, but it does not say how. The rest of the document does not refer to this. The section on the responsibilities of the chief executive focuses just on their role as the accounting officer, in relation to the board and in relation to their responsibilities to the Department for Education. There is no mention of employers. There is no explicit reference in the section on the purposes of the new agency; there is just the reference that I have mentioned. If I were an employer, I might be concerned by that. We have this strange proposal that the Secretary of State will just be allowed to write everything herself, whenever she believes that it is advantageous to do so.

With our amendments, we are not trying to stop that, although we are very sceptical about it. We are just trying to specify the sorts of people who will be involved. It is our way of encouraging the Government to be much clearer than they have been, in the framework document or anywhere else, about how they will maintain IfATE’s focus on involving employers in drawing such things up; that was really its purpose. Our concern is to ensure that politicians who have some foible of their own—some idea or bee in their bonnet—do not impose what they want without listening to industry. That might not be current Ministers; it might be future Ministers. That is why we tabled these amendments. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us on that point, and perhaps she will even accept the amendments.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I would like to express Liberal Democrat support for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. They address a critical weakness of the Bill, namely the lack of any concrete requirement for the Secretary of State to engage meaningfully with employers or industry bodies when preparing standards or apprenticeship assessment plans.

Although the current system is far from perfect, one strength of that system lies in its connection to industry needs. Employers understand better than anyone else the skills required for their sectors, and their involvement is essential to maintain the credibility and relevance of standards and assessment plans. Without those safeguards, there is a risk that over time the standards and assessment plans could become disconnected from workplace realities, and that would undermine the value of apprenticeships and technical qualifications for both employers and learners. There really should not be a problem with maintaining that link, and that is why we support the amendments.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It would be difficult to overstate the centrality of employer involvement in setting standards for technical and vocational qualifications. Earlier I mentioned Lord Sainsbury’s report and its finding that the then system of qualifications and courses had become “divorced” from the occupations that it was meant to serve. Several things are different about T-levels, compared with their predecessor qualifications. There is more time in college. There is English and maths and digital, alongside the core vocational discipline.

When we talk to young people, however, they talk about two real differentiating, distinguishing factors that motivated them to do T-levels. The first is the industrial placement—nine weeks of actual work in an actual workplace—which also appeals very strongly to employers, because it is like a nine-week job interview. It is a fantastic way to see people coming through. Employers are investing in the next generation, but they are also getting to figure out which of the next generation they most want in their business. It is a way to instil so-called soft skills—there is nothing soft about soft skills—which are sometimes called employability skills. When employers talk about the education system and about people who are taking their first job, the thing they complain about most is the lack of such development, and all that can be helped during the industrial placement.

The second distinguishing factor that people talk about is that they know that T-level standards have been designed by those that they want to go and work for. They have been designed by leading employers in the sector, and they have to be kept up to date.

Clause 4 says that the Secretary of State may herself prepare standards, instead of a “group of persons”. It is worth dwelling on that. I am sure everybody knows this, but “group of persons” is a funny old phrase, because in this context it means employers. The clause says that the Secretary of State may insert herself into the process instead of that group of persons if she is

“satisfied that it would be more appropriate”.

The same is true for clause 5, on assessment plans.

When the Bill was debated in the other place, Government amendments were made to try to calm concerns and answer some of the questions that were raised. Lords amendments 3 and 6—the Government amendments—appear here as clauses 4(5) and clause 5(5). They state that Ministers will publish something about the things that the Secretary of State takes into account in making a judgment about whether she, rather than the group of persons—employers—will set the standards.

The suggestion from Ministers is that that would be interpreted in a very minimalist way. I am not doubting that, but at the moment it is only a suggestion, so we do not know. In other words, the Secretary of State would supplant businesses and employers only in the case of something minor—I say “minor”, but it may be an important thing—in its effect on the standard, such as a change in the regulation. I am still a little nonplussed, because I do not know why we would not want employers to be involved in working out what even a change in regulation would mean for what somebody doing this qualification would learn and how they would go about it.

Will the Minister tell us what reason there could be for not wanting employers to be involved in setting those standards? Does she perhaps have a mountain of evidence showing hold-ups in standards because all these regulatory changes have had to be reflected in standards for qualifications and it has been impossible to do so?

As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, in the case of rapidly changing occupations, it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to sign off changes so that they can happen quickly. But the most rapidly changing occupations and sectors—things such as advanced electronics or artificial intelligence—are probably the last ones for which we would want to say, “Let’s take employers out of the equation and let Government make the changes.” Generally speaking, employers are much quicker at spotting the changes that are needed and pushing for them.

Amendments 3 and 5, in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, specify that the group of persons should include

“an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”

That seems a very sensible and almost unarguable proposition. Amendments 4 and 6, in my hon. Friend’s name, require the body to take account of the needs and interests of both employer and employee. I was trying to imagine whether, if we were having this debate in a committee room of the Bundestag, we would really be debating whether the remit of the group of persons should include considering the needs of both employer and employee; and whether leading employers from those sectors should be included in the design of the qualifications. I suggest not.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

Clause 9 is about improving the reporting and transparency of Skills England. It shows this Government’s willingness to listen and work constructively with Members here and in the other place. I believe I have already outlined what Skills England will do, but for the sake of clarity, the Bill means that for the first time mean there is a single organisation responsible for identifying skills needs in our economy. It will design training that reflects employers’ skills needs, and it will work in all parts of the country so that the training available reflects national and regional priorities.

We have a skills shortage in our country and a workforce shortage. We need more people trained up to take on the jobs that are needed in our society. We want to get things moving. That is why we are bringing this Bill forward. In relation to accountability, the Secretary of State will be accountable as usual before Parliament and relevant Select Committees, as Skills England will be. On that note, I commend clause 9 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Power to make consequential provision

[Ian Sollom]

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 10, page 4, line 32, at beginning insert—

“Subject to subsection (6),”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, in clause 10, page 4, line 34, at end insert—

“(6) For 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed, a statutory instrument to which subsection (5) applies may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

Clause stand part.

[Ian Sollom]

Amendments 8 and 9 address a fundamental concern that we have with the Bill, which is the lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny. As drafted, clause 10 gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to make consequential provisions through regulations. While statutory instruments containing regulations that amend primary legislation would require the affirmative procedure, all other regulations would be subject merely to the negative procedure. Amendments 8 and 9 together would ensure that, for the critical first six months after the Act passes—the period when the most significant consequential regulations are likely to be introduced—all such regulations would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament, regardless of whether they amend primary legislation.

The Committee should be concerned about this, because the Bill already centralises considerable power in the hands of Ministers, as we have discussed many times today. We know that the Government’s intention is for Skills England to be an Executive agency of the Department for Education, but without the safeguards that the amendments provide, Parliament would have limited oversight of the implementation of the transfer of IfATE’s functions to Skills England. That matters most during the transition period, which stakeholders as well the Government’s own analysis highlighted as being fraught with risk.

We have been given little detail about the governance structures of Skills England, its operational independence or its accountability mechanisms. Given that uncertainty, ensuring robust parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations that will shape its operation is not unreasonable.

The six-month period suggested in the amendment strikes a sensible balance and does not permanently encumber the regulatory process. However, it ensures that those critical early decisions about how the functions will operate receive proper scrutiny from both Houses. The amendments are about good governance. If the Government are confident of their approach to Skills England, they should welcome and not resist scrutiny.

I think we all agree that the skills system is important for our future. It would be disappointing if such fundamental changes were made without proper parliamentary oversight.

[Neil O’Brien]

This is an extremely sensible amendment, which we welcome. Although I am not a liberal, one of the great strengths of the liberal tradition is its knee-jerk suspicion of centralisation. The Bill represents centralisation in many different ways. It takes lots of brakes off, and we keep hearing in our sittings that, “We must get rid of this or that form of scrutiny because we must move quickly.” The hon. Gentleman is right to be nervous about that and about the lack of limits to the consequentials off the back of the Bill. I support the amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Skills England is in communication with the Migration Advisory Committee and others as well. It has a broad remit as well as having a relationship with the CITB. I feel that we might be swaying outside the purpose of the Bill. I am happy to get further information if the hon. Gentleman feels that he needs some. In terms of the merger of the CITB and EITB, there are good reasons why that merger is not favoured by the Government.

As well as existing primary legislation, clause 10 will allow the Secretary of State to address any consequential effects that this Bill may have on other Bills passing through Parliament this Session. However, it is always possible that further changes may be necessary. It is therefore prudent to provide a failsafe should anything have been missed. Without it, there is a risk not just to the coherence of the legislation, but to the functioning of the system for employers and indeed learners. Should such a circumstance arise, any amendments to primary legislation will be made through the affirmative procedure.

The necessary consequential amendments to secondary legislation, which cannot be made on the face of the Bill, will be made through the negative procedure, as is customary. We have already identified amendments to secondary legislation that are needed—for example, repealing the provision in the Apprenticeships (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2017, which empowers IfATE to charge fees in relation to evaluations and apprenticeships assessments.

Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, would require regulations making consequential provisions that are subject to the negative procedure by virtue of clause 10(5) to instead be subject to the affirmative procedure for a period of six months. Given the limited and uncontroversial nature of the necessary changes, the negative procedure balances sufficient parliamentary oversight while enabling changes to be made without unduly taking up parliamentary time or risking the coherence of the skills system for learners and employers.

As Members of this House will be aware, the affirmative procedure requires debate and the approval of both Houses. That would mean that consequential amendments to existing secondary legislation would take longer, which could delay the implementation of the Bill and create incoherence across the statute book until the necessary changes are made. There is a strong precedent for delegated legislation under the negative procedure to be used to make consequential amendments to delegated legislation, and therefore the amendment seeking affirmative resolution is not necessary. For the reasons I have given, I commend the clause to the Committee and ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Ian Sollom]

I thank the Minister for her response. I am afraid I am not satisfied that that is sufficient and would like to push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.