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

Debate between Ian Sollom and Neil O'Brien

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I rise to move new clause 1, which addresses fundamental concerns about the governance and accountability of Skills England. While the Bill as amended in the Lords does now make reference to Skills England, which the original Bill presented to the Lords did not, it still does not establish it properly as an organisation, define its powers, or provide robust mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny of its work.

The Bill, as we know, simply abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers its functions directly to the Secretary of State, with only limited reporting requirements. The most recent evidence provided to the Committee reinforces those concerns, particularly the evidence from the Skills Federation, as was highlighted by the shadow Minister.

New clause 1 remedies that by requiring comprehensive proposals for Skills England to be laid before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval. It would ensure that both Houses have a meaningful say in how the organisation is structured and operates. It would establish ongoing accountability through annual statements to Parliament and formal evaluation of its governance structure within the first year.

The Government have positioned Skills England as transformative, and the Minister’s letter to peers, which was also shared with the Committee early this week, outlines hugely impressive ambitions for Skills England. I welcome those, as I think we all do. But the governance framework described in that letter is largely discretionary. The framework document that the Minister references in that letter, which has still not formally been published, will be finalised by agreement between the Department and Skills England, with no formal parliamentary input at all.

We are being asked to approve a fundamental restructuring of the skills system without proper guarantees about how the body will operate or be held accountable. The skills system is simply too critical to proceed just on faith. I think Members on the Government Benches would be making the same arguments if they were in our position. I want to stress that the new clause is not about preventing the creation of Skills England; it is about ensuring it is established with the proper scrutiny and accountability that an organisation of such importance deserves. If the Government truly believe in Skills England as the vehicle to address our skills challenges, they should welcome the provisions for proper accountability in new clause 1.

[Neil O’Brien]

I rise only to support the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. I shall speak to new clauses 2 and 3 later, but I do not want the hon. Member to feel that that is because I do not support new clause 1. I absolutely do. I think it is entirely sensible, and if the Government had sense then they would listen to him and include the new clause in the Bill.

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

Debate between Ian Sollom and Neil O'Brien

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Ian Sollom and Neil O'Brien

Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will begin by asking a question up front, so that the Minister has time to confer with officials if she needs to in order to reply.

We learned during the debate on clause 50 that, as well as existing schools, local authorities will be able to go to the schools adjudicator regarding school openings. Will a local authority be able to object to the published admissions number of a school in another local authority, or is it limited to schools within its own area? Possible answers are: yes, they will be able to object about another authority; no, they will not be able to; or, the Government have not decided yet. As drafted, the Bill does not tell us what the Government’s intent is.

I will now speak to our amendment 85 and clause 51. Local authorities can already establish local authority schools if there is really no one who wants to start a new school, although, as the Government’s notes to the Bill rightly say, the current legal framework for opening new schools is tilted heavily towards all new schools—mainstream, special, and so on—being academies. As we have discussed, clause 44 repeals the requirement to turn failing local authority schools into academies; clause 51 is effectively the other half of that shift away from academisation. It ends the rule that new schools must be academies and allows local authorities to choose to set up new local authority-run schools instead. Both changes will reduce the flow of new schools into the best performing trusts. For that reason, we think it is a mistake.

Ministers keep saying that they want greater consistency —that seems to be one of the guiding principles of the Bill—but in the long term the combination of clause 51 and clause 44 will leave us with two types of school. That will sustain the confusion that we talked about in previous debates, where the local authority is simultaneously the regulator and a provider in the market it is regulating. The schools system is currently a halfway house: more than 80% of secondary schools are now academies, but less than half of primaries are, so just over half of all state schools are academies, and most academies are now in a trust.

I understand why Ministers have moved to find a legislative slot, and I know that anti-academies campaigners and people who do not like academies will welcome the clause. My question is where this is taking us in terms of a structure for the system as a whole. The Minister will say, “We want the flexibility to set up local authority schools,” but the combination of clauses 44 and 51 means that, in the long term, we will continue to have two types of school, rather than continue the organic move of recent years toward a system that is clearly based on academies and trusts, and trusts as the drivers of overall performance. That became apparent during the Government’s announcement the other day of their consultation on the new intervention regime. Ministers are now talking about RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—as one of the drivers of school improvement, leading to lots of questions about where the balance is between RISE and trusts, and what happens where the advice of a RISE team contradicts a trust’s views about what should be done in the case of a school with problems.

We have rehearsed a lot of these issues before, but I am keen to get an answer from the Minister about whether, in the case of new school openings in a different local authority, another local authority would be able to send the question of that school’s PAN to the schools adjudicator under clause 50. I am also keen to get the Minister’s sense of the finality of the system. Are Ministers happy for us to have just local authority schools and academies in the long term, and do not think that that is a problem they need to address? Do they not have a vision for the final situation, or do they have some other vision that the Minister wants to set out?

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome clause 51 and its counterpart, not least because we desperately need new special schools. The previous Government approved fewer than half of the 85 applications from councils to open SEND free schools in 2022. This is a real part of unblocking that, so we agree with the Government. We tabled amendment 48 because a potential loophole is created in the now well-established rules on faith-based selection. Those rules apply to academies and will continue to do so, but under clause 51 not all new schools will be academies. The amendment would bring all new schools into line with the current established principles of faith-based selection for academies. It is a very simple amendment. I think the error was made inadvertently during drafting, and hopefully the Government will support it.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Debate between Ian Sollom and Neil O'Brien

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will begin by asking a question up front, so that the Minister has time to confer with officials if she needs to in order to reply.

We learned during the debate on clause 50 that, as well as existing schools, local authorities will be able to go to the schools adjudicator regarding school openings. Will a local authority be able to object to the published admissions number of a school in another local authority, or is it limited to schools within its own area? Possible answers are: yes, they will be able to object about another authority; no, they will not be able to; or, the Government have not decided yet. As drafted, the Bill does not tell us what the Government’s intent is.

I will now speak to our amendment 85 and clause 51. Local authorities can already establish local authority schools if there is really no one who wants to start a new school, although, as the Government’s notes to the Bill rightly say, the current legal framework for opening new schools is tilted heavily towards all new schools—mainstream, special, and so on—being academies. As we have discussed, clause 44 repeals the requirement to turn failing local authority schools into academies; clause 51 is effectively the other half of that shift away from academisation. It ends the rule that new schools must be academies and allows local authorities to choose to set up new local authority-run schools instead. Both changes will reduce the flow of new schools into the best performing trusts. For that reason, we think it is a mistake.

Ministers keep saying that they want greater consistency —that seems to be one of the guiding principles of the Bill—but in the long term the combination of clause 51 and clause 44 will leave us with two types of school. That will sustain the confusion that we talked about in previous debates, where the local authority is simultaneously the regulator and a provider in the market it is regulating. The schools system is currently a halfway house: more than 80% of secondary schools are now academies, but less than half of primaries are, so just over half of all state schools are academies, and most academies are now in a trust.

I understand why Ministers have moved to find a legislative slot, and I know that anti-academies campaigners and people who do not like academies will welcome the clause. My question is where this is taking us in terms of a structure for the system as a whole. The Minister will say, “We want the flexibility to set up local authority schools,” but the combination of clauses 44 and 51 means that, in the long term, we will continue to have two types of school, rather than continue the organic move of recent years toward a system that is clearly based on academies and trusts, and trusts as the drivers of overall performance. That became apparent during the Government’s announcement the other day of their consultation on the new intervention regime. Ministers are now talking about RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—as one of the drivers of school improvement, leading to lots of questions about where the balance is between RISE and trusts, and what happens where the advice of a RISE team contradicts a trust’s views about what should be done in the case of a school with problems.

We have rehearsed a lot of these issues before, but I am keen to get an answer from the Minister about whether, in the case of new school openings in a different local authority, another local authority would be able to send the question of that school’s PAN to the schools adjudicator under clause 50. I am also keen to get the Minister’s sense of the finality of the system. Are Ministers happy for us to have just local authority schools and academies in the long term, and do not think that that is a problem they need to address? Do they not have a vision for the final situation, or do they have some other vision that the Minister wants to set out?

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome clause 51 and its counterpart, not least because we desperately need new special schools. The previous Government approved fewer than half of the 85 applications from councils to open SEND free schools in 2022. This is a real part of unblocking that, so we agree with the Government. We tabled amendment 48 because a potential loophole is created in the now well-established rules on faith-based selection. Those rules apply to academies and will continue to do so, but under clause 51 not all new schools will be academies. The amendment would bring all new schools into line with the current established principles of faith-based selection for academies. It is a very simple amendment. I think the error was made inadvertently during drafting, and hopefully the Government will support it.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Debate between Ian Sollom and Neil O'Brien

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Sollom]

Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome the new requirement on local authorities to offer family group decision making, which gives those who care for children, including family members, the opportunity to be involved in putting together that plan for their welfare. The provision strengthens the right to hear the child’s voice, which as we heard in the evidence session is important.

We have a few concerns. As the provision is currently laid out, it might be a little ambiguous. There are lots of different models of family group decision making around, so we would like clarification from the Minister about the principles and standards that are set out in regard to what it actually looks like in practice. Cases where there is domestic violence or coercive control can be hard to identify, so we would like guidance on the principles around that.

We would also like to encourage local authorities to probe into what family group decision making should look like and who should be involved. One example that came to us from the Family Rights Group was of Azariah Hope, who was a care-experienced young parent very frustrated about how she was not offered a family group conference because the local authority presumed that she did not have a family or friend network to draw on.

Amendment 36 strengthens the right for the child to be involved, but still gives the local authority the power to decide on the appropriateness of who should be involved. We would like to hear more from the Minister about what those principles and standards should be for taking family group decision making forward.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As this is the first amendment on the first day of our line-by-line consideration, I will briefly say that although the Opposition have lots of serious questions about the second part of the Bill, there is much in part 1 of the Bill that we completely support.

In fact, a lot of the Bill builds on work that the last Government were doing. To quote the great 1980s philosopher Belinda Carlisle, we may find that

“We dream the same thing

We want the same thing”.

It may not always seem like that, because we are going to ask some questions, but they are all about improving the Bill. A lot of them are not our questions, but ones put to us by passionate experts and those who work with people in these difficult situations.

The relevant policy document sets out why it is so important to get this clause right. It highlights the number of serious case incidents, which was 405 last year, and the number of child deaths, which was 205—every single one a terrible tragedy. Around half of those deaths were of very young children, often under 2; they are physically the most vulnerable children, because they cannot get away.

Our amendment 18 seeks to make clause 1 work in practice. It reflects some, but not all, of the concerns that we heard in oral evidence on Tuesday from Jacky Tiotto, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The clause states:

“Before a local authority in England makes an application for an order…the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting”.

In general, those meetings are a good thing, and we all support them—the last Government supported them; the new Government support them. They are already in statutory guidance.

However, we have two or three nagging worries about what will happen when, as it were, we mandate a good thing. The first is about pace. As I said in the oral evidence session, I worry that once family group decision making becomes a legal process and right, people will use the courts to slow down decision making, and that local authorities will sometimes worry about fulfilling this new requirement—although the meetings are generally a good thing—when their absolute priority should be getting a child away from a dangerous family quickly.

A long time ago, when I used to work with people who were street homeless, I met a woman who was a very heavy heroin user and a prostitute. She was about to have—[Interruption.]