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

Lord Hampton Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 22nd October 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, as ever, I declare my interest as a teacher in a state secondary school in east London. I thank the organisations that briefed us—there were a lot of them. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Beamish, on his excellent speech. I have to admit that I am rather sad not to be congratulating the noble Lord, Lord No Place—but that was maybe a good choice.

This is an interesting one. We get very little detail in the Bill, so this debate is more about a wish list than talking about the Bill itself. Through the Bill we get Skills England and its utopian dream: stronger, flexible, nimble, swerving, agile, breaking through barriers. This is less of an arm’s-length body and more of a job description for an England rugby fullback.

So here is the first question the Minister might like to answer. According to the Association of Employment Learning Providers:

“The remit of the IfATE had become bloated and not fit for purpose”.


Given the larger remit of Skills England, how will it remain nimble? Now that so much power will be vested in the Secretary of State, how is this agility going to work? I am not being flippant when I ask: does the department have the skill set for this new agile way of working?

As my noble friend Lord Aberdare quoted, in its first report Skills England said that over a third of the vacancies in 2022 were the result of skills shortages. It said that the qualifications landscape for employers was “opaque”; that, for learners, career paths were “not sufficiently clear”; and that the current skills system was not always equipping learners with the necessary skills.

There is work to do; we need to go back to fundamentals. We must not confuse skills with knowledge. Skills are practical abilities developed through practice and application. The knowledge-rich curriculum in schools has been to the detriment of skills. For too long, we have concentrated too much on getting the best maths results this side of Mars, while downplaying skills that employers want and need. By prioritising mathematics and engineering, the Government sought to boost innovation and competitiveness, but neglected the very sectors that have made the UK a cultural powerhouse: arts, music, design and literature. Obviously, an ability in maths and English is important, but not to the exclusion of everything else. The Empire is gone; there are no jobs for life.

As a teacher, I am constantly amazed that students can name every god in the major religions but cannot use Microsoft Office. Designing and populating a spreadsheet should be part of the basic maths taught in primary school. Every student should leave school having started at least one business, and I commend the work of Young Enterprise in this field. Every student should have the skills to build healthy work, social and sexual relationships, and again I urge the Minister to look at the work of the charity Tender if she does not know it. These are some of the many reasons why every child should be in school. Maybe by making the curriculum more relevant, we could tempt the abstainers and their families back into the fold—it might also be fun to teach—otherwise, I have no idea where the thousands of new teachers will come from.

I welcome the recent government Statement on the British film industry:

“Britain is open for business, and creativity is … at its heart”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/24; col. 317.]


That is great news given that successive Governments spent time downgrading creative subjects.

Can we say goodbye to Ebacc and Progress 8, which penalise schools and give them no credit for large amounts of high-performing creative subjects? Can the Minister expand on an answer she gave during Oral Questions earlier this afternoon, when she said that the “curriculum and assessment review” would be “creating space for … creativity”?

Qualifications are a mess. Apparently, Skills England will intervene “sometimes” in the award of technical qualifications. Clause 8 means that Ofqual may not decide whether there may be an accreditation requirement for approving technical education. Can the Minister explain the high-stakes qualifications and the specified technical education types? I am afraid that I still do not understand them.

I am member of the APPG on T-levels and I have chaired a conference on them. Time and again, we hear that they are too technical and that schools and colleges are struggling to find meaningful relations with industry. The Minister said in an answer yesterday that T-levels would be beefed up—great gung-ho language. Does she have more detail of the beef to be applied? I have taught both the unloved BTECs and V Certs, and friends of mine have taught unteachable V Certs. What will happen to those lower qualifications?

According to the CITB, each year 58,900 people either on a construction apprenticeship or an FE course fail to achieve their qualification or immediately progress into construction employment on completion of their qualification. The main reasons for this training wastage are the limited focus, the lack of alignment and the limited agility of the education system to meet construction employer skills needs, which are primarily at level 3 and below. Ultimately, this leads to low apprenticeship completion rates and unacceptable FE outcomes for the industry. The Minister mentioned the short qualification reform review; can she say how that is going?

Overall, this Bill is to be welcomed. Skills England talks a great fight, and if it can truly deliver the skilled workforce that this country so desperately needs, it will have achieved something monumental. However, this Government need to be brave, for Skills England can thrive only in an education system that is as agile and relevant as Skills England itself.

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

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 21st November 2024 Grand Committee

I too remember the Schools Bill, and the problem was solved by just letting it die. I do not think we can let this Bill die; I do not suppose the Government have the slightest intention of letting it die, and therefore we really have to improve it and get some concrete progress into the Bill so that we really can improve the skills landscape and the opportunities for our young people.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I was at Second Reading. I am a teacher and an optimist, and I genuinely trust the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, we all desperately want this to succeed; we want the 13th iteration to be the Bismarckian iteration that actually cuts through and cuts down flab. We were talking about this and I said that it is like trying to amend fog. We have the sunshine coming through, but at the moment we cannot really see it.

Amendments 21 and 33 seem like a sensible idea because there is a real worry about something going into a government department. I will talk about my amendments later but they are all about scrutiny. There seems to be less scrutiny rather than more once something has disappeared into a government department, which is slightly strange. If we could get Skills England to being a statutory body, out in the open and with more scrutiny, people would have a lot more belief in it.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I share many of the concerns expressed by noble Lords. The Bill should by no means leave the House in the state in which it entered it. It is important that whatever body Skills England occupies has a great deal more status than the Government have proposed. I just do not think that what they have proposed will ever work in Whitehall. We need to take more care with the preservation of the relationships that have been established by IfATE, which make it work so well. I do not see anything in the transition proposed here that does that and, as I said at Second Reading, I would like to know what is going to happen to the Careers & Enterprise Company.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, the interesting Library briefing on the Bill contains the following paragraph:

“Unifying the skills landscape to ensure that the workforce is ‘equipped with the skills needed to power economic growth’, by bringing together mayoral combined authorities and other key local partners, large and small businesses, training providers and unions”.


That brought joy to my ears. In this question about determining standards and all the other things that need to be done, we have a wealth of experience and expertise within trade unions of various kinds. My own experience, of course, is in education, but there will be other unions covering other sectors. It is important, when we are thinking about this, to ensure as we move forward with skills that we take account of those people who are either delivering the training or have themselves done the jobs. The best way to hear that voice may well be through the trade unions. I therefore commend to the Government listening to trade unions and having trade unions in the conversation.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 2 and 6, to which I have added my name. The great thing about following so many intelligent noble Lords is that I have little to say. In particular, my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith talked about the employer, which is important for everybody. I have been playing bingo with words and phrases and “clarity” has come up many times. With due deference to my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I am going to repeat myself: we need clarity; employers need clarity; teachers need clarity. This is my second bite at the cherry and I am not sure whether I declared my interest as a teacher at first. Everybody needs clarity from the Bill and these amendments give more rather than less, which is vital.

[Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)]

My Lords, it is great to see the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, with us, because his voice has enormous stature in these discussions. These amendments are all to do with the creation of standards. My noble friend Lord Storey added his name to Amendments 2 and 6, but we are broadly supportive of all the amendments in this group. It is vital that in any work-based qualification the voice of employers is heard loud and clear. I should perhaps have declared that I worked for 20 years for City & Guilds on what we always called “vocational qualifications”, because while some were technical, some were craft qualifications. I always regretted the fact that we had taken over the word “technical” to cover all those myriad work areas.

Of course, employers may not be expert in teaching or assessment, as we discovered in spades when we were developing national vocational qualifications. Employers had wonderful, grandiose ideas about all the things that they wanted to assess, but when we got the colleges and City & Guilds with them, they realised that if they wanted staff to know about fire, they could not actually create a fire for every member of staff to have a real experience of dealing with fire. Assessment bodies had their place, as well as the colleges.

I was working for City & Guilds when the first national vocational qualifications were established. NVQs were going to revolutionise the “skills” word with a very easy to understand grading, which would have enabled parents, teachers and everybody to understand exactly where the vocational system was in relation to the academic one. Alas, where are they now? Why do we have local skills improvement plans and partnerships if they are not to be used for all the skills they have in this brave new world? I think it is important that the Secretary of State must set the priorities for LSIPs and review them regularly to ensure that their priorities are reflected in national strategies for the creation of standards, so I think this set of amendments has a great deal to commend it.

--- Later in debate ---

Debate on whether Clause 6 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, reluctant as I am to join the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in the bonfire of the clauses, I rather took against Clause 6 and was advised by the Table Office that this was the best way to discuss it. During the word bingo I have been playing, we have had “flexibility”, “agility”, “lean”, “speed”, “quick”, “quicker”, “responsive”, “speed”, “momentum”, “rapidly developing”, “fluidly” and “speed” about five more times.

In Clause 6, taking away the fact that we will be reviewing approved technical educational qualifications “at regular intervals”, the Government are getting terribly excited. It is like someone at new year who is going to join the gym, going to play tennis and going to run around the block every time. Then, gradually, the pie shop starts calling, it rains—yes, I am speaking for myself—and it becomes a little more flabby. The trouble is that there is this great enthusiasm—the Minister will be running around and talking to everybody—but, as my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith said, it took five years to get IfATE. What will happen in five years?

In the Bill, we are mistaking consultation, scrutiny and review for rigidity and delay. We need more clarity, reassurance and scrutiny. By taking out looking at education qualifications at regular intervals and taking out the publication of information on standards and apprenticeships at regular intervals, we are putting a cloud of suspicion into this when we really need clarity. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I thank everybody who took part in this short debate. It is always quite exciting to see the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, describe herself as baffled—in my short career here, I have not seen that yet. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and I talked about how there is no third-party examination and there is a conflict of interest. It looks like Skills England is not only marking its own homework but writing its own exams.

I did not join the Minister in her strength of feeling that she had got it absolutely right, because it is all based on need, but, again, who defines need? It is the Secretary of State. We are losing this clarity—this is a trust issue again. But I am sure that some conversations can be had between now and Report, so I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

Clause 6 agreed.

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

Lord Hampton Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 26th November 2024 Grand Committee

[Lord Johnson of Marylebone (Con)]

My Lords, I add my support for Amendment 36 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Like other amendments, it calls for—among other sensible things—a report, in this case on levels of investment in skills by employers.

If you have believed the CBI over the past few days, you would think that the investment climate for business had taken a turn for the worse in recent weeks, with what it is calling the “triple whammy” of increased employers’ national insurance contributions, the higher national minimum wage and various changes in labour market rules. The CBI feels that there is a palpable sense in the business community that the UK is becoming a more difficult environment for investment. Of course, skills are very much part of that picture. There is a clear risk that our levels of investment in skills, which are already running at half the levels of our peer group in the OECD, will suffer further if this climate of paralysis in the UK with respect to business investment is allowed to continue.

On the uncertainty that noble Lords have alluded to with respect to big government policy, notably the development of the growth and skills levy and the future of the LLE, these things may become compounding factors that risk current low levels of investment in skills dipping even further. Clearly, we cannot afford that as a country, so I believe it is vital that the Government take steps as rapidly as possible to lift the policy uncertainty that will potentially blight levels of investment in skills over the current year and accept the amendment, which will provide a healthy baseline against which we can measure progress in this respect in the months to come.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

My Lords, I have a tactic nowadays of speaking towards the end, when everybody else has said it better than I can. I just want to add that I have put my name to Amendment 18, and I agree with Amendment 23 and pretty much everything that includes the word “reporting”.

I am slightly concerned that our positions became entrenched in the last day in Committee, and that nimbleness is seen as being reduced by reporting. There is a lot that we do not know and a lot that we need to know. In my own profession of teaching, we have to teach with the door open and, at any time, somebody senior could come in, observe your lesson and give you formal feedback. At the very least, you get one formal observation a fortnight and—let us face it—we all work better with that kind of incentive. Skills England needs to be held to account; otherwise, we are looking at it being held to account by Henry VIII.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)]

My Lords, quite rightly, the noble Baronesses have raised the issue of how we can ensure continuity of provision while transferring functions under the auspices of this Bill.

I reflect that coming back 14 years—probably 16 years —after the last time when I was responsible for doing any government legislation directly, there are some important improvements in the way in which Governments are expected to lay out the impact of their legislation, with the development of impact assessments. Of course, such things also provide grist to the mill for those who look at them and say, “Well, you’ve identified that there is potential concern about delay, and that must mean that the delay is going to happen”. The point of an impact assessment is that it enables, quite rightly, the Government pre-emptively to identify potential risks that could result from the transfer of functions and property from IfATE to the Secretary of State and think about how those risks can be mitigated. We are confident that that they can be, so I hope I can provide noble Lords with some reassurance about that.

I should also like at the outset to repeat assurances that I provided to noble Lords at last week’s session. We will ensure that the practical transition of functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State will be designed so that standards or apprenticeship assessment plans that are in the process of preparation or approval at the point of transition 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 and, as rightly identified by the noble Baronesses opposite, learners perceive no interruption. The transition scheme that is being developed will be designed to ensure the minimum possible disruption for stakeholders.

I note that Amendments 25 and 26 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to place on the Secretary of State a duty to lay before Parliament a report on the timetable for the creation of, respectively, endpoint assessment and new technical education qualifications. As the noble Baroness said, Amendment 24 seeks to place on the Secretary of State a duty to lay before Parliament, within six months of Royal Assent, a report on mechanisms for employers to apply for the approval of new technical education qualifications and to appeal the removal of approved status for existing technical qualifications.

Skills England will undertake ongoing engagement with employers and other key stakeholders to identify skills needs that are not being met through the existing suite of technical qualifications and apprenticeships. This engagement will help identify where new standards should be produced and where existing standards and/or apprenticeship assessment plans should be updated, ensuring that the system responds quickly. With that in mind, Amendment 25 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would, to some extent, frustrate the Bill in enabling more effective prioritisation of the preparation and updating of apprenticeship assessment plans. We intend for the functions transferred to the Secretary of State to focus on where there is greatest need for a new or updated plan, informed by feedback from employers and other key stakeholders.

We also anticipate that plans in development at the point at which the functions transfer will continue and be finalised by the Secretary of State. Standards approved by the Secretary of State will be published, as is the case in the current system, as the basis for new technical qualifications to be developed. Awarding bodies will then, as now, submit applications for new technical qualifications to be approved in line with standards and reflecting employer demand. IfATE is currently responsible for the approval of technical qualifications; its function is being transferred through this Bill. Responsibility for decisions on the withdrawal of approval from technical qualifications will also transfer through this Bill, which includes a duty to publish information about matters taken into account when deciding whether or not to withdraw approval.

We would argue that Amendment 26 is also unnecessary as it would duplicate existing transparency, which will occur as a matter of course through the Secretary of State’s routine engagement with Parliament and through the establishment of Skills England as an arm’s-length body. As I have outlined previously, Skills England will report on delivery in line with standard practice, including as set out in its framework document and in a manner consistent with other executive agencies.

I turn to Amendment 24 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Placing on the Secretary of State a requirement to report on mechanisms for employers to apply for the approval of new technical education qualifications and to appeal the removal of approved status for existing technical qualifications is unnecessary. It would give employers an additional role in the approval of technical qualifications, which would risk undermining their central focus on highlighting skills needs and, as appropriate, preparing standards that reflect those needs. Where there was clear evidence of continued employer demand, it would be unlikely in practice that approval status would be removed—unless, for example, other significant issues had been identified in relation to the successful delivery of the qualification.

I hope I have provided some assurance that we do not expect a delay due to the transfer of functions in this Bill. We have already put mitigations in place and we will, in relation to the approval of—and the withdrawal of approval of—technical qualifications, continue to follow the current arrangements.

[Lord Hampton (CB)]

Before the Minister sits down, can I ask for a bit of clarification here? The Minister has described Skills England as an arm’s-length body a couple of times today. I apologise if everybody else knows this, but can you have an arm’s-length body within a department? I thought that the definition of an arm’s-length body was that you cannot.

[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.