Technical and Further Education Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Education
Rob Marris
Main Page: Rob Marris (Labour - Wolverhampton South West)Department Debates - View all Rob Marris's debates with the Department for Education
Technical and Further Education Bill
Rob Marris ExcerptsMonday 14th November 2016
(8 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Justine Greening
I would like to make a little more progress. I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s long-standing interest and expertise in this area, but let me get on to the Bill itself.
Alongside our wider education reforms, the Government’s work on technical and further education over the past six years represents a firm foundation on which we can now build a really strong technical route in this country. The Bill serves to do exactly that. Part 1 focuses on technical education. It extends the role of the Institute for Apprenticeships to give it responsibility for classroom-based technical education in addition to apprenticeships. It will be renamed as the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. The measures take forward and support the reforms set out in Lord Sainsbury’s report and the skills plan so we can truly streamline the technical education system and ensure young people can follow clear routes to skilled employment. That will ensure that we have strong standards as part of an employer-led approach on technical education so that courses and apprenticeships develop knowledge, skills and behaviours in individuals that meet the needs of employers and improve overall productivity.
Rob Marris (Wolverhampton South West) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady may well know that those of us who have worked in factories and in similar jobs realise that often the people at the chalk face, as it were, know at least as much as employers about what skills are needed. How will we ensure the revamped institute includes workers or their representatives—as well as employers, of course—so that there is a rounded view of what is needed and what is appropriate for a particular skill?
Justine Greening
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have talked significantly about our plans to make sure that workers have more representation at the higher echelons of business. As the Institute for Apprenticeships becomes responsible for technical education, it will of course have employers at its heart, but it will also work with other stakeholders including, importantly, further education colleges themselves. We will make sure that the institute can truly deliver on our ambition for it to be at the heart of how we drive forward and improve standards in technical education.
Part 2 of the Bill puts in place protections for students for the first time and provides greater certainty for institutions by introducing an insolvency regime for further education and sixth-form colleges. It applies normal insolvency procedures to colleges. At present it is not clear whether or how colleges are covered by existing insolvency law, and the resultant uncertainty is bad for colleges and for students. The Bill will remove the uncertainty for all parties by putting in place a regime that allows for an orderly process in the very unlikely event of a college becoming insolvent. As I have said, we need to rectify the lack of protection for students. Crucially, chapter 4 of part 2 will put in place a special administration regime that will have the special objective of minimising or avoiding disruption to the studies of existing students at affected colleges. These measures will ensure that students can be protected if a college becomes insolvent.
As I mentioned earlier, the current programme of area-based reviews is already putting the sector on a sustainable financial footing for the future. Part of the review process is to encourage colleges to consider needs and provision locally. That will help to ensure that the right provision is available in the right places. The proposed insolvency regime and technical education measures also require certain delegated powers, and we will be providing more information about those to the House before the Bill goes into Committee.
Part 3 of the Bill, the title of which is “Further education: information”, includes a measure to amend existing legislation to ensure that, after the devolution of further education functions and the adult education budget to a combined authority, FE providers and others will continue to submit relevant information to the national data system. This will ensure the continued availability of relevant data that are needed to make intelligent and strategic policy decisions about investment in further education.
Six years ago, we inherited a system from Labour in which too many young people—often those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds—left school or college without the skills and qualifications that they needed to build a successful future. Our wide-reaching reforms have had a transformational effect on the education system in this country, and it is important that we now build on the work of my two immediate predecessors in this role, my right hon. Friends the Members for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove) and for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan).
We know that there is still so much more to do, which is why we are doubling free childcare for working parents of three and four-year-olds to 30 hours a week. We are also working hard to put our first-class universities on an even stronger footing so that they can continue to compete with the very best in the world. We are starting work on opportunity areas to ensure that the education system as a whole can work better to drive social mobility in those parts of the country where it has been stalled for generations, and we have doubled the previous Labour Government’s spending on school places and set out plans to make more good and outstanding school places available to more families all over the country.
The newly broadened remit of the Department for Education, with skills and further education back under one roof alongside schools, gives us an exciting opportunity to build on the excellent work that has already been done over the past six years, both in FE and in the wider education sector. In the end, education underpins how this Government want to create a country that works for everyone so that, irrespective of their background, people can get the skills that they need to take advantage of the opportunities in our country. This is not only good for individuals, but will ensure that we have the skills that our businesses and our economy need so that we can drive up prosperity across the country. The Bill will allow us to take the next steps to give the technical and further education route the status and the spotlight it deserves so that it can flourish as a genuine, high-quality alternative to the academic route, and one that leads to successful careers for those who choose to pursue it. I commend the Bill to the House.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
I start by associating myself with the well-wishes for the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles).
The Opposition do not intend to oppose the Bill’s Second Reading, but many questions remain for the Government to answer during its passage. We accept that the provisions on insolvency are necessary, but their necessity is a sad reflection on the circumstances facing providers under this Government. Further education helps 4 million people a year, playing a vital role in giving our young people the skills they need and supporting older learners into retraining and learning new skills. Since 2010, however, the sector has suffered a real-terms budget cut of 14%. I am sure that the Secretary of State will have seen the National Audit Office report on “Overseeing financial sustainability in the further education sector” and will know that 110 colleges had recorded an operating deficit by 2013-14—more than double the number that had done so in 2010, when her party took office—and that the number of colleges judged by the Skills Funding Agency to have inadequate financial health has more than doubled. However, in the face of that financial crisis, the Government’s solution is not the investment that the sector needs, but is simply a way to sweeten the bitter pill of insolvency.
I needed a second chance at education, and many of my Opposition colleagues have experienced the transformative effect that technical and further education can have on young people’s lives and on learners at all stages in their lives. That is why the Opposition see the Bill as a missed opportunity. Britain needs a highly skilled, highly trained workforce to succeed in the economy of the future, particularly following Brexit and given the productivity gap that we face.
Rob Marris
Does my hon. Friend share my bemusement at the Secretary of State standing before the House this afternoon extolling the transformational—that was the adjective she used—changes brought about by her Government and the previous coalition Government and extolling the high-quality work that has been done? Does my hon. Friend share my bemusement that, despite apparently hordes more skilled workers as a result of the changes introduced by this Government and the previous Government, this country’s productivity is still absolutely rubbish? If technical and further education were so fantastically transformed, productivity would have improved a whole lot, but it has not.
Angela Rayner
I absolutely agree that this Government have done nothing to provide technical skills. Colleges have faced dramatic budget cuts. It is audacious for Ministers to stand at the Dispatch Box and say what they have done when they have failed. In fact, the Government included the word “technical” in the Bill only as an add-on—it was not there in the first place.
I would be the first to say that an excellent academic education must be provided to all pupils from all backgrounds, but given that many will not go to university, other educational routes remain vital. That is why it is so important that further education is put on a sustainable financial footing. It is not too late for the Government to do that and to bring forward the changes that the sector needs. Next week, the Chancellor will stand at the Dispatch Box and deliver his first autumn statement. The Government could take that opportunity to ensure that the hundreds of millions of pounds that has been cut from the further education sector since 2010 are reinvested in colleges across Britain, in our future and in our best and most valuable asset: the people.
The Secretary of State could get the Chancellor to bring back the education maintenance allowance, which helped hundreds of thousands of young people from low and middle-income backgrounds to stay in education. The Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed that the EMA represented value for money for the taxpayer, boosted the rates of young people staying in education and improved attainment. I fear, however, that we will be left disappointed once again. After all, this Government have struggled to match warm words with policy when it comes to education.
Angela Rayner
I will be interested to see what the Secretary of State has to say about that. I find it absolutely shocking—
Angela Rayner
Absolutely shocking. We have seen the Skills Funding Agency lose nearly half of its staff since 2011, and we have seen continued and accelerating decline in the staffing of the National Apprenticeship Service and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills. Of course, all those bodies were threatened with further cuts under the “BIS 2020” project, which was overseen by McKinsey for the former Secretary of State. We found out about the details of that not from any ministerial statement, but through internal documents leaked to my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) and for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) in April. Perhaps the Secretary of State can take the opportunity today to clarify that that process is no longer ongoing, and what her plans are for the staffing of bodies transferred from the former Department.
Given that businesses will contribute to the apprenticeships programme through the levy, it would help if the Minister reassured them that they will not be short-changed or end up just paying in to cover for cuts rather than for a genuinely new and improved level of service. As welcome as the institute is, there is concern that it will not deliver if it is not resourced for the job. With all the challenges facing the further education sector today, with the hundreds of millions of pounds of funding lost, and with the sky-rocketing number of providers facing deficits or requiring direct intervention of the Government, now is the time for radical action to ensure that our further education sector is able to continue on a sustainable footing in years to come.
Rob Marris
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. We need to think about technical education not just for the jobs of tomorrow, but for the jobs of the day after tomorrow. I am considerably older than her and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) is a little older than me. When he entered the workforce, let alone when I did decades ago, many skilled jobs existed that do not exist now, such as in printing. Typesetting basically does not exist now. The world has changed and we have to equip the coming generation with not only the skills they need now, but the flexibility to adapt to what the workforce will look like, inasmuch as we can foretell that, in the next 30 years.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend makes a great point, although I do not want to get into the relative ages of Members here. But I look at my own children and think of the world of work ahead of them. We perhaps have an old-fashioned view of jobs such as engineering—engineers come in all shapes and sizes now, from digital engineers, sound engineers and construction engineers to the other types of engineer that we may know about. A key issue with the productivity gap we are facing in this country is the problem we have in applying technology and technological advances in small and medium-sized companies.
I want children from Manchester Central to have exactly those types of skills; they will therefore need literacy, numeracy and other academic qualifications but also education in digital engineering and many other technical areas. The combination of the two will be the route for so many, and for all jobs in the future—I firmly believe that. I look at my own son, who I think will want to be an engineer one day; he is highly technically able—he has great skills there—but is highly academic as well. I want him to have the option to do both right through till 18.
The Minister seems to recognise the issue here, as he has recently the launched degree-level apprenticeship scheme, which I welcome. However, the tiny numbers involved in that scheme can in no way make up for the tens of thousands already going through the university vocational pathway. I hope that he is not falling foul of the same ideological dogma that his colleague the Minister for Schools and a previous Secretary of State for Education perhaps fell for in trying to cut away entirely the university professional pathway into teaching. As the Minister will know, that has in no small part caused the recruitment crisis in the teaching profession; stripping away the university pathway to teaching has meant that teacher supply is now at crisis point. I know the Minister, and so know that he is a lot more pragmatic than some of his colleagues; I urge him to watch the situation carefully, and make sure that these well-trodden routes—both academic and vocational—into professions remain very much open for our young people.
I will touch on a couple of other points that have already been raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central raised resits. I concur with him entirely. We have to look again at the enforcing of required resits post 16. In many cases, less than 50% of children are passing those GCSEs the second time around. Many FE and post-16 institutions are struggling to get in the teaching skills needed to get children through GCSEs, as that is not something they are used to doing. The size and nature of the maths and English curricula make them increasingly difficult for some children to pass, and they are not necessary for the types of careers those children may want to go on to.
Like my hon. Friend, I entirely support the notion that children should do English and maths right through to the age of 18, but the Minister should clarify what will be required for resits. Will it be a level 4 or a level 5? I understand that it is a level 4 this year and next year, and will then go to level 5. We do not know what is happening; never mind parents and children, what are employers to make of that?
Finally, we should not have this debate without looking at the international comparisons for our funding levels for 16-to-19 education in this country. We compare really badly with our OECD competitors: we do well in terms of funding from five to 16, but then there is a significant dip in per-pupil funding. After that, funding goes through the roof for those who make it to higher education. We need a better and more consistent funding stream. The transformation we need in this area will be achieved only when we couple this sort of reform with funding.
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to speak in the debate and to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle). He is currently the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning—a job that I had many years ago. I have had a long association with the further education and post-16 sector. I taught in further education more than 40 years ago, and while I was teaching a basic statistics course I discovered that one of the major problems with education in Britain is the poor level of mathematics teaching. The students I taught had difficulty with basic computation, multiplication and division. I found that quite shocking at the time, but the problem has continued.
Some 20 years ago, the great Lord Claus Moser produced a report on numeracy and literacy, finding that more than 50% of the population was functionally innumerate. He illustrated that point by saying that 50% of the population did not understand what 50% meant, which is quite surprising—if not shocking. More recently, I asked the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), why we were having to recruit so many qualified engineers from abroad and he said that it was because our mathematics is not good enough to produce sufficient engineers. There is a serious problem.
Rob Marris
Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem with mathematics is down to English culture? It is still acceptable for people to say words to the effect of, “Ooh, I don’t do maths,” without that being seen by their interlocutors as an admission of abject failure. It is just seen as a bit of a joke. It is a cultural problem. This is about not only the education system, but our culture, particularly in England. It is appalling.
Kelvin Hopkins
I agree with my hon. Friend, but it is changing and I am optimistic about that. People such as me who are good at maths are regarded as being a bit of a geek, but what is wrong with being good at maths? In the country of Isaac Newton, Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Alan Turing, why should we be ashamed of being good at maths? That is being addressed, but we are still having to recruit thousands of engineers from abroad because people cannot do the maths to become engineers through our education system.
As I said, I taught in further education 40 years ago, but I also spent four years as chair of governors at the then Luton College of Higher Education when we were producing hundreds of qualified engineers doing ONCs, HNCs and then AMIMechEs and so on. They were good engineers and they could do the maths. It may just be that we have declined in some areas because the manufacturing demand is not as great as it was. We are now trying to pick up the manufacturing sector again and we are realising that we have missed out on maths.
I am happy to say that Luton College of Higher Education went on to become the University of Luton and then the University of Bedfordshire. The vice-chancellor is now Bill Rammell, a former colleague in Parliament, and its chancellor is Mr Speaker—the greatest honour of all—and I am absolutely delighted about that. I have also been a governor of the superb Luton Sixth Form College for 25 years. It does brilliant work and gets better and better every year.
Barnfield College is also in my constituency. A dozen or so years ago, it was the first ever general FE college to be given beacon status, but it went into serious decline and wound up almost collapsing into a state of failure a year or two back. It has now been picked up by its great new principal Tim Eyton-Jones and I am sure that it will be revived, but it needs Government support. It should never have been allowed to get into that situation. The neglect of colleges was criminal. Barnfield is now on the up and will be great again, but it needs the active support of Government, particularly in finance.
In Parliament, I was for some years chair of the all-party parliamentary group on further education and lifelong learning—lifelong learning is also important—but I am now chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sixth form colleges and am pleased about that. Colleges in general, FE colleges in particular, have been neglected over decades. Colleges represent an abused sector of education, and one reason for that is that so many people in the political sphere have no connection with further education. They go to posh schools—grammar schools, public schools, whatever—and then to university. Indeed, some become special advisers—a former Spad is in our midst now—and then go into politics never having touched further education or understood what it is about.
Rob Marris
Does my hon. Friend recall the reorganisation of Government Departments in about 2007—sadly under a Labour Government—when the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills was set up? It took a week for the Government to realise that they had not put further education in either of the two possible Departments.
Kelvin Hopkins
There is another story, which may not be true, about what happened when incorporation was introduced in 1993. When the legislation was going through, the then Education Secretary was asked what was going to happen to sixth-form colleges and he said, “Oh, shall we put them in the FE sector?” It was a last-minute thought just to drop them into that sector. Sixth-form colleges are really schools and had they stayed with the local education authorities, we would by now have a lot more of them because LEAs would never have given away all the sixth-forms from their schools to create new sixth-form colleges because they were a different, independent sector.
Unfortunately, LEAs, and indeed, councillors are possessive about their institutions and do not want to give them away. I have experience of that, because when I was chair of governors of the Luton College of Higher Education, we had a battle royal to get that college into the higher education sector—out of LEA control and into the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council. The chief education officer threatened to sack the college principal for pursuing that avenue, and I had to intervene to say to the CEO publicly, “If you sack the principal, you will have me to contend with and I will fight you all the way.” He backed off and we got what became the University of Luton and, subsequently, the University of Bedfordshire. LEAs are, understandably, possessive and they are not going to give away their sixth-forms to move towards sixth-form colleges. Had they done that, our education system would be much better, but that is another story.
Lucy Powell
My hon. Friend is making some good points. I did an A-level in not just maths, but further maths. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”]
David Rutley
The Government have already put in place improvements to the national living wage and will do more in that arena. Productivity is about a lot more than wages. From contributions that the hon. Gentleman has made in previous debates, I know that he is fully aware of that, too. The situation is more complicated.
One in four jobs left vacant in 2015 were due to skills shortages. The CBI has found that one in five employers want candidates for jobs who not only have academic qualifications but can demonstrate other skills as well. So the Government must ensure that their efforts to close the skills gap inspire and motivate those who would gain most—those in training and businesses that need their skills. If we are to strive to achieve the greater parity of esteem that we have talked about and to get businesses actively involved in education and training, we need to motivate more young people who are planning to pursue the non-academic track to gain the skills that will transform their lives. Only then will we secure the prize of greater national productivity. Wages have a role to play, but so, increasingly, does motivating young people to want to acquire these skills.
The key to promoting technical training will be the Government’s drive to provide 15 clear routes to 3 million quality apprenticeships. These routes are set out in the post-16 skills plan, which was published in July. It is a strong plan; my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) deserves real credit for setting it out, and I join the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) in wishing him a speedy and full recovery from his current health challenges. Those routes—or “occupational categories” as they are called in the Bill—will signpost such sectors as construction, catering and hospitality, and vital ones such as engineering and manufacturing. The obvious, recognisable nature of these categories will give young people the assurance they need that apprenticeships are, and will be, focused on delivering identifiable careers and are relevant to their own fields of vocational interest. Relevance is absolutely key.
Confidence in these routes as genuine career paths can be bolstered only by involving businesses in their design. Fostering links between business and schools, and between business and the rightly reconstituted Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, has never been more urgent. The Government have taken the initiative in encouraging businesses to step up to the plate and to deliver employer-led technical education that addresses the skills gap. I hope businesses will now seize this opportunity—it is vital that they do.
The Bill should be seen as part of a process of going further in breaking down the barriers between education and business—between school lessons and work experience. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Minister about this. We need to get more young people out of school and into business, and more businesses into schools and further education. Indeed, schools themselves need to be made more aware of the options for, and the importance of, motivating young men and women in the classroom about wider opportunities to develop skills and career options.
No one in the House wants schools to feel they are being imposed on by the Bill; we want them to recognise the benefits of the Bill for the futures of the young people in their care. It is important to establish, as set out in part 3 of the Bill, an information-sharing relationship between the Department, schools, academies, colleges and other providers. Businesses, too, will need to find it easy to engage with education providers to be motivated to participate. Those relationships will need to be forged—in some cases, from scratch.
Fortunately, there is good practice—from existing schemes to introduce business skills into schools—to learn from and extend. For example, Young Enterprise and Enabling Enterprise provide teachers with opportunities to link up with business, and supply model exercises in flexible, transferable life and work skills. Young Enterprise already has relationships with over 50% of secondary schools. I shall be interested to hear—although this is not directly relevant to the Bill; it relates to the wider issue of what we can do to engage and motivate people—what role my right hon. Friend believes these schemes will play in this vital area of motivating more people.
There is much more that we need to do to close these skills gaps. In South Korea, for example, there is a clear difference between the skills gap among 55 to 65-year-olds, nearly half of whom are low-skilled, and among 16 to 24-year-olds, who have a much higher skills base. In England, however, about 30% of the 16 to 24-year-old age group and the 55 to 65-year-old age group are classified by the OECD as having low skills. It is clear that we are not closing the gap for the different age cohorts, and the Bill will be fundamental in taking that work forward.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely keen to move things forward on social mobility and to play his part in the party for the workers, which he has helped to articulate in recent years.
Rob Marris
The hon. Gentleman is extolling the party for the workers, so does he agree that workers and workers’ representatives, and not simply employers, should be involved in institutions?
David Rutley
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. The Prime Minister has already talked about how we should look at having workers on the boards of companies. Let us see how we can take that forward, and what role they can play.
My right hon. Friend the Minister has a role to play in taking the Bill forward, and he has helped to articulate it further. I wish him well in the work that he is doing. He has already done important work in securing extra funding for businesses that take on an apprentice who has grown up in care. That shows that he has real credibility in driving this agenda forward.
As Conservative Members seek to build a Britain that works for everyone, we must promote social mobility and open up young people’s horizons to new experiences and aspirations beyond their own backgrounds. The Bill is vital in taking that work forward. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister will also take the opportunity to learn ways to bring businesses into the classroom and help more young people get out into the world of work. The Bill is an important start, and I wish him well with it.
Robert Halfon
I will not give way because of the shortage of time.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Maynard reforms. We will implement those as soon as we possibly can, particularly with regard to the issue of maths for those with disabilities. We will inform the House as progress is made.
The hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) talked about the levy and technology. The thing is that if companies have apprentices, they do not pay the levy, and they get 10% on top. This is about changing behaviour and raising money to fund millions of apprenticeships in our country.
We have substantially grown apprenticeships, with 619,000 starts, which is why we have the levy. It will have an impact on employers with a pay bill of £3 million or more and help to fund the quantity and quality of apprenticeship training. We are dramatically reducing the number of technical qualifications available, ensuring even better quality for students.
A lot has been said about FE funding, but by 2020 more will be spent on FE and skills participation than at any time in our island’s history—£3.4 billion in the year 2019-20. My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) correctly described FE as a ladder of opportunity for young people.[Official Report, 20 December 2016, Vol. 618, c. 11MC.]
We are adopting the Sainsbury report, as has been suggested, and will put in place 15 high-quality technical routes to skilled employment. Those will be implemented by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, which will oversee the employer-led reforms.
We are proud of the university technical colleges. There is clearly a debate here, as some Members want those for pupils at 14 and some for education at 16. That debate will no doubt continue, but we allow flexible entry to UTCs in certain circumstances.
My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) asked about the role of business. We have created the Careers & Enterprise Company to boost businesses’ linking up with students in schools.
The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris) talked about representation. I am very keen for all kinds of organisations to be represented. I am a trade union member myself, and I am very proud that this Government give Unionlearn £12 million. It has an incredible fund that supports thousands of learners and apprentices. I very much hope that trade unions will be involved in the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. The institute will ensure that all technical provision, across both apprenticeships and college-based courses, matches the very best in the world.
Rob Marris
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Order Paper I have says that this debate can continue until 10 pm. Am I misreading it?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
No, indeed. The hon. Gentleman is technically absolutely correct that the debate can continue until 10 o’clock.
Technical and Further Education Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateDepartment: Department for Education
Rob Marris
Main Page: Rob Marris (Labour - Wolverhampton South West)Department Debates - View all Rob Marris's debates with the Department for Education
Technical and Further Education Bill
Rob Marris ExcerptsMonday 9th January 2017
(7 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 9 January 2017 - (9 Jan 2017)
Gordon Marsden
Mr Speaker, may I, on behalf of everybody in the Chamber, wish you, the Deputy Speakers—one of them is taking your place as I speak—and all your officials a very happy new year, and the same to all Members of the House?
The issue we are pursuing this evening is whether this will be a happier new year for apprentices and the new Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education. The Government will know that the Opposition have been broadly supportive of the process that they are bringing forward, although it was somewhat forced upon them when their original mechanism, which was to get many of these things through in the academies Bill, was shipwrecked—the academies Bill mark 2 proved to be no more popular with some of their Back Benchers than the academies Bill mark 1. We therefore got a fairly rapid notice of the Technical and Further Education Bill before Christmas.
Having said that, we had a good Committee stage and I want to pay tribute to the Minister for his conviviality and the constructive way in which he responded to us. Of course, as the old saying goes, fine words butter no parsnips, but I hope that by the end of this evening we will have at least a few parsnips buttered.
Rob Marris
I apologise somewhat for interrupting my hon. Friend’s magnificent speech. Part of the problem with the apprenticeship levy is that the Government are all over the place on it. I talked to a major supermarket chain that has employees in Scotland and whose payroll is of sufficient magnitude that it will have to pay the apprenticeship levy, but because of devolution there is no guarantee that, in Scotland, its apprenticeship levy funding will in fact be used for apprenticeships. That may be the case in Wales and Northern Ireland as well—I know not. This may go some way towards explaining the gap that my hon. Friend has put his finger on very acutely about where the money is going. The reason is that it is matter for the Treasury, which has not yet got to grips with devolution.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a very interesting and succinct point. If I were not constrained by talking about this amendment, we could have some very interesting conversations about how the devolution situation is panning out, but I need to stick to my last.
The other point that is germane to this amendment is the coming Budget. We now know that the Budget will be in the first week of March, so issues about what the rate and the threshold of the apprenticeship levy might be after its first year obviously come to mind. The former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, after much prompting and questioning during the previous Administration of David Cameron, said that
“the government will keep the apprenticeship levy under review.”
So, as we all know, it could go up and of course, theoretically, go down. The level at which it is set, and how much companies get back from it, will be crucial in deciding whether it is a success or a flop. Given that it is only eight weeks until Budget day, what conversations has the Minister had with the Treasury to make sure that it gets the balance right? The more we hear—I said this in May and say it again today—about how the levy will now need to fund the top-up, the devolved Administrations, English and maths at level 2, disadvantaged learners, incentive payments and non-levy payers, the more it seems inevitable that the Government will end up increasing it.
Rob Marris
I am a little bemused by this amendment, although I think I understand it. It seems to me that it would be desirable, certainly within England, if not within the United Kingdom, to have a national framework of standards such that the framework should not simply apply to qualifications that were obtained through a state-funded institution but be spread more broadly. Perhaps my hon. Friend could say a little more about his approach.
Gordon Marsden
My hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of a national framework. Various research reports over many years indicate that the privately funded training market has been exceeding the publicly funded one by considerable amounts, and that includes specialist management training, IT vendor qualifications, and project and programme management. The Government may need to look a bit more carefully at how this process is going to move forward. I absolutely agree about the need to have an overarching national framework, which we do not currently have.
Amendment 8 would ensure that the mapping of occupation groups had particular regard to people aged 16 to 24. This is crucial, because many apprenticeship training providers are reporting that, under the new levy system, employers are deciding to choose apprentices aged over 19 rather than 16 to 18-year-olds, particularly with regard to the new standards. Employers say that there is very little incentive left for them to take on younger learners, especially in the higher funding bands where a £1,000 employer incentive is a small fraction of the overall funding available. As the Minister will know, the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, which has, up until now, predominantly delivered apprenticeships to 16 to 18-year-olds, is seeing the majority of its business switch from this age group to older individuals.
If one looks at Lord Sainsbury’s comments and the skills plan commentary in relation to the changes in funding giving parity to older learners, one can see that the majority of apprentices in this age band are already 18, with little effort to change that through careers support. Perhaps that is the Government’s plan. If so, the Government need to be honest and to tell us that; if not, something needs to change as otherwise we are in danger of ending up with fewer apprenticeship opportunities for 16 to 18-year-olds.
I want to quote to the Minister some recent remarks of JTL, a training provider. About the new system, it says:
“Our employers say that under the new system when the traditional age differentials in funding rates are removed, they would sooner employ young people aged 19 and over. Some 16- and 17-year-olds aren’t allowed on site due to health and safety rules, and many of them have yet to pass their driving test, but the present funding makes it still worthwhile to take them on. Remove the incentive and employers will switch back to recruiting older apprentices.”
It went on to say—I hope the Minister will give this point careful thought, given the emphasis on STEM—that the
“so-called £1,000 incentive for employers to recruit 16- to 18-year-olds simply doesn’t work for STEM sectors. Our level three apprenticeships typically last four years, meaning the incentive equates to a mere £5 per week, which is of no interest to employers given the additional challenges of younger employees.”
That is a timely new year reminder to the Minister that the concessions he made after the Save Our Apprenticeships campaign, with which our party was very pleased to be involved—as he knows, the campaign involved a very broad range of people, whom he met and to whom promised changes—have not solved the problem. The concessions applied a temporary sticking plaster to the problem, and it remains to be seen how long it will stick. Coming on top of the continued lack of certainties about the new structures for apprenticeships and the delayed consultation, there must be concern about the fragility of the Government’s performance in the 16-to-18 area. In FE sectors, such as mine in Blackpool, we desperately need to get such young people skilled apprenticeships, which means looking for them now.
As I am sure the Minister knows, the AELP has raised the issue that a framework of only 15 routes across technical education might create an elitist system of education that denies many young people a work-based route to level 2 or 3. We remain concerned about that, given that so many young people in the service sector are not likely to be automatically covered. I know that there have been conversations saying that this is not really about apprenticeships, but about technical education. Whether it is about apprenticeships or technical education, however, young people in Blackpool and everywhere else need good training, whether from the service sector or the manufacturing sector. I would have thought that focusing on that would make a major contribution to this Government’s social justice agenda and even, arguably, to anticipating the impact of Brexit if controls on migrant labour are introduced. It is important to have a skills strategy that is inclusive, and this is a perfect opportunity to create such a coherent, inclusive strategy that covers a wide range of different abilities and aptitudes and that strives for excellence. That is what amendment 8 intends to do.
I want to talk briefly to amendment 9, which is about all apprenticeship standards needing to include a recognised technical qualification. As the Minister will know, it is not only we who have been concerned about this; a range of organisations—most recently, AELP—has been concerned about the omission of qualifications from some of the new standards. The investment in time and resource is leading to employer fatigue in some areas, and there is a lack of engagement. According to AELP, just under 50% of the current standards released still do not include a mandatory qualification. One alternative solution is our proposed amendment, which would make the whole apprenticeship, rather than simply its components, into a recognised qualification.
I want to move on to amendment 10, which I will group with amendments 11 to 16 and, indeed, amendments 18 to 21. Amendment 10 is about the need to change the title of “course document” to
“standard or technical assessment design specification”.
That would ensure that copyright was acquired only at a level equivalent to apprenticeships. It is argued that underpinning occupational standards and technical assessment design specifications that are the equivalent of assessment plans is all that is needed for Crown copyright. City and Guilds has specifically raised with us the issue of the imposition of acquired copyright in evidence, as have other groups.
We have tabled the amendments because there is concern that imposing acquired copyright is one of the most significant risks to the future vitality of the technical education market in the UK. I accept that this is a complex and technical area, but the Minister needs to look at it carefully. It is not simply a question of existing providers wanting to set in stone a form of protectionism; it is about intellectual property, and where intellectual property starts and ends. The concern of many providers is that there has been a degree of mission creep in that respect in the way in which the Bill has been drafted. From a pragmatic point of view, I must say that if the broader definition of what the institute has to do on copyright remains in the Bill, even more resources may be required to police it, and I have already mentioned that there is a lack of such support. We need to look at these important issues.
The concern that each technical level will have only one awarding organisation has been raised by both the Centre for the Study of Market Reform of Education and NCFE. NCFE has said that, as currently set out, with some of the technical levels going to only one awarding organisation, having one would be unfortunate, but—to misquote Oscar Wilde—to have two might be beneficial. That would provide competition and enable providers to switch quickly in the event of problems, without the multiplication issues that have caused problems and difficulties elsewhere. NCFE has said, more in sorrow than in anger, that the
“current proposals do not seem to recognise the great expertise in designing and assessing Technical and Professional Education qualifications that already exists within Awarding Organisations.”
Our amendments 11 to 16 are consequential on amendment 9. Under an exclusive licensing model, the licence holder for a particular qualification may assume a quasi-monopoly position for the duration of the contracts. That is one of the reasons why the proposals are designed to move away from that principle. It seems to us that the principle should be that there needs to be a rationalisation of the operations of awarding organisations, but not necessarily to the point of having single operators on a licence, given the monopoly and single point of failure issues alongside all the intellectual property rights and Crown copyright ones. I repeat to the Minister that this is a complicated area and I appreciate that it is not easy to get the balance right, but I urge him to think very carefully about some of the representations that have been made and, if he is not able to do anything about them tonight, to at least bring forward solutions in the other place.
The final area on which I want to comment briefly—I have talked about routes and all the rest—is the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. Amendments 18 to 21 would ensure that the QAA was included in the list of organisations required to share information, and that degree apprenticeships were fully covered by such a requirement. Ofsted should have the authority to inspect every apprenticeship. We welcome the growth in degree apprenticeships and expect many more under the levy, but some are not genuinely work-based learning and are a rebranding of more vocationally biased degrees. Stricter monitoring is therefore needed. We argue that the involvement of the QAA is very important in this respect. It is vital that apprenticeships are just that: proper apprenticeships, with which Ofsted and Ofqual need to be well and properly engaged.
I am aware that the Opposition amendments have had to be discussed in considerable detail and some are technical, but the broad thrust of what we are trying to do is: first, to ask the Government to act on their commitments in Committee; and, secondly, to go further than that and make the rhetoric around social mobility and widening participation a reality. The only way to do that is to improve the Bill with the amendments we have tabled this evening.
The Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills (Robert Halfon)
I think this is the first time that a lapel microphone has been used in this way—I appreciate that. I wish the House, and the many apprentices who worked over Christmas and the new year, a very happy new year. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for chairing the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) for his amendments—as ever, very thoughtful.
I will start by discussing new clause 1, but I just want to make the point that the hon. Gentleman talked about the completion of apprenticeships. Some 70% of apprentices complete and 90% get either employment or further training. We have nearly 900,000 apprentices, an all-time high and a record in our nation’s history, so we are making good progress. He talked about NEETs. He will know that between 2014 and 2015 the proportion of 16 to 18-year-olds in education or work-based learning increased to 90%, which is the highest on record. The percentage of NEETs fell to 6.5%, the lowest rate since records began. He talked about the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education appointments and went on, yet again, about Christmas. I have to say that IFATE is not just for Christmas, it is for life and we want to get it right. We want to ensure that the appointments we make are the right ones and are not made in haste. He sometimes says that we are doing things too quickly and at other times he says that we are doing things too slowly.
On new clause 1, as I explained in Committee, the institute will be required to report on its activities annually under schedule 4 to the Enterprise Act 2016, and the report must be placed before Parliament. That provision will also allow the Secretary of State to ask the institute to report on anything else she thinks appropriate, such as the information requested in the amendment. We think it would be an unnecessary and significant duplication of effort, as the information is already collected and published by the Secretary of State on the performance of the FE sector, which includes apprentices—I gave the hon. Gentleman some of the figures only a moment ago.
Much of that information goes far beyond the role of the institute. The institute’s core role from April 2017 is to oversee and quality assure the development of standards and assessment plans for use in delivering apprenticeships. Under the reforms in the Bill, college-based technical education cannot be held wholly responsible for, for example, job outcomes and wage rates of apprentices once they complete their apprenticeships. It is essential that the institute is aware of the impact it is making. We would expect it to make good use of the data on the outcomes made available to it through these public data sources and surveys, and to explain in its annual report how it has deployed them.
Rob Marris
I am grateful to the Minister for the work he does. He is very committed—whenever I see him he is wearing an “A” on his lapel to show his support for apprenticeships. Will he clarify one point in relation to new clause 1(2)(e), which would include in the report the satisfaction rates of employers? He will be aware that there is some concern that to reach the 3 million target there will be dilution. I am not saying there will be, but that there is concern that there might be. Is the satisfaction rate of employers currently collected —not for every employer, but through sampling—and published? If it is not, it would be very important for it to be published, so that the concerns about a dilution of standards could be somewhat allayed.
Robert Halfon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind comments. It is published. I think, if I am not mistaken, employer satisfaction is near 90%; it might be 88% or 85% or something like that. I am very happy to provide him with the information if he so requires.
I agree with the hon. Member for Blackpool South that the institute needs to consider the views of those who take an apprenticeship or a course in technical education. I am confident that it will do that. He will know—he pointed it out—that last week we published draft strategic guidance for the institute. In this document, which is now open for consultation, we set out that we expect the institute to establish an apprentice panel that will report directly to the board. I am pleased to say to the hon. Gentleman that it will be ready by April 2017, but the wider point is that we should not rush things. We need to get it right. The apprentice panel will be made up of apprentices from different occupations and experience. The panel will decide for itself which issues to focus on, and will challenge and make recommendations to the board. I am sure it will be a success. It will ensure that the views of apprentices are fed directly into the institute’s governance. It might not be exactly the right model in practice. I want to see how it works. I believe that the institute, particularly in its infancy, should have the flexibility and the freedom to decide the best way of gathering the views of an apprenticeship on an ongoing basis. Whatever model it adopts, I would expect the institute to do something similar for technical education students when it takes on this responsibility, but I want to see how the apprentice panel pans out.
Robert Halfon
My hon. Friend, who campaigns a lot on diversity and equality, is absolutely right. The proposal will benefit the people who need it most. Many people from disadvantaged backgrounds and with disabilities are prominent in further and technical education.
Amendment 5 addresses the Apprenticeship Delivery Board. The hon. Member for Blackpool South was a little unkind about the board. The board’s representatives include the chief executive of Channel 4, the Compass Group, the City of London, Barclays bank, Sunmart Ltd, Fujitsu, Wates construction, the Ministry of Defence and a significant retail sector member. As he said, there are three women on the board. They are doing important work. They advise the Government and work with businesses to encourage them to have apprentices. As far as I am aware, those people are not being paid. They do not have to do it; they do it because they want to serve our country. They have helped the Apprentice Ambassador Network. The chair, David Meller, is doing important work on that and running the board. I pay tribute to the board. I mean this kindly, but I would not be obsessed with whether or not the Prime Minister has an apprenticeship adviser. As far as I am concerned, the Prime Minister’s advisers are the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills, which is me, and my boss the Secretary of State. A new adviser for the Prime Minister will not change the course of history for apprentices in our country.
Rob Marris
Most of us would see the Minister as a journeyman or time-served Minister rather than as the Minister for Apprenticeships and Skills. He will forgive me for not researching this earlier, but I did not notice in the list he read out any trade union representation. Unusually for Conservative Members, he is an active trade unionist—or he was. Does he agree that it would be desirable to have trade union representation on that board to get buy-in from the workforce side?
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I am still a trade unionist. That is a good idea. The board is independent, but I will suggest it. I am very impressed and supportive of the work that Unionlearn does, which is why we have agreed to fund it by £12 million. It works to promote training and apprenticeships.
The institute will consult the Apprenticeship Delivery Board and other bodies but, as I have said, we do not need to straitjacket the institute with so much red tape that we stop it from being independent. The delivery board is not intended to have any special legislative standing or corporate identity. It would be unusual to name it in legislation, but the institute will consult the board along with others.
Amendment 6 would require the institute’s expenditure in any one year to exceed that raised by the levy. It is important to clarify that the institute will not have responsibility for the apprenticeship budget, which resides with the Secretary of State for Education. Although the institute is not a funding body, it will be asked to advise on the pricing of apprenticeship standards and allocation to funding bands. The institute’s operations will be funded by my Department and not from the levy funds. It follows that the institute should not be obliged to spend funds raised under the levy.
On devolution, which the hon. Member for Blackpool South mentioned, it will be up to the devolved authorities how they spend the money. If we were to tie the spending explicitly to the levy receipts, there could be adverse funding consequences for the programme as a whole. The budget for spending on apprenticeships in 2019-20 for England and the devolved Administrations totals in excess of £2.9 billion, whereas the projected levy income is £2.8 billion. Having certainty over the funding for apprenticeship training is preferable to linking the funding on a year-by-year basis directly to the wider performance of the economy.
Robert Halfon
Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I was not around for all the other times that have gone before. We have our differences, of course, but there is much cross-party consensus on the Sainsbury reforms, for example. Moreover, the apprenticeship levy is a fundamental reform to change behaviours—it is not just about raising money; it also changes behaviours. I believe that there is a new national conversation about apprenticeships and that things are changing, but the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. I think we are on the tip of something special, but a lot more work needs to be done.
Because of time, I will speak only briefly on some of the other amendments. On amendment 9, the hon. Member for Blackpool South raised some important points, but we feel that the amendment is unnecessary. The important feature of approved English apprenticeship standards is the move away from a reliance on a series of small and pre-existing qualifications making up an apprenticeship and towards a single end-point assessment. By not mandating qualifications in standards unless they meet one of these criteria, we are ensuring that individual employers have the freedom and flexibility to determine how to train their own apprentices to ensure they gain full competency. It is expected that the institute will continue with this approach.
The provisions on education copyright are very complicated, and I understand why the hon. Gentleman has raised them, but we do not think that the proposed provisions are necessary. Some of the concerns are covered by existing legislation, but we believe that the institute should have the right of copyright, and the bodies working with the institute will know that. We do not agree with the word “route” either because it could be confusing for employers. I want this form of training to be prestigious, and so I want the words “technical education”. I do not like the term “tech levels” either because it dumbs down a very important qualification.
Amendment 17 is on the power to charge for technical education certificates, and I should say that we also have a duty of care to the taxpayer. The institute will not make money out of this provision. It is all about giving it the power to do so if it so chooses and about having a duty of care to the taxpayer. It is for that important reason that we do not support the amendment.
On the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education and amendments 18 to 21, the organisations named in the provisions will all have an important role. The omission of the QAA reflects in part the changes being introduced in the Higher Education and Research Bill, which is currently in the other place. Amendment 20, which specifies that the term “apprenticeships” should include those offered by higher education institutions, is not required. I am clear that the term “apprenticeships” includes all apprenticeships offered at all levels, regardless of the training provider.
In conclusion, I thank the hon. Member for Blackpool South for his thoughtful new clauses and amendments on technical education and I thank other hon. Members for their contributions. I hope that my responses have reassured the hon. Gentleman and the House on their underlying concerns. I therefore ask that he withdraw new clause 1 and not press his other amendments.
Rob Marris
If you will allow me a little latitude, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to place my remarks on the amendments in context. I was recently speaking to someone who made a very good point about who is fitting all the kitchens and bathrooms in Poland. This person had experienced very good electricians from Romania working in this country. Our conversation was about Brexit and the skills shortage in the United Kingdom. Whichever side of the debate hon. Members supported, Brexit provides our country with an opportunity to try to address the skills shortages that we have had for decades and have relied for filling on importing workers.
Kelvin Hopkins
My hon. Friend is making very thoughtful points. He may be aware that there is now a fairly successful political party in Lithuania that is against emigration, not immigration, for that very reason.
Rob Marris
I am not surprised about that. In the last Parliament but one, I had the joy of visiting Lithuania with what was then the Trade and Industry Committee, and that was the sort of issue we talked about. In those days, Lithuania was already starting to import labour from Moldova—outside the European Union—because so many Lithuanians had come with their skills particularly to the United Kingdom and Ireland to ply their respective trades, and I specifically mean trades.
What my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Gordon Marsden) has sought to do from the Labour Front Bench is to beef up the Bill in two ways. One is to introduce even greater confidence in the new system that we will have, and part of that confidence building means moving towards national standards. This partly addresses the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) about parity of esteem. We talked earlier this afternoon about parity between mental and physical health, but in this case, we are talking about parity of esteem between the vocational and the academic.
Having been a semi-skilled worker for a number of years as a professional driver and a bus driver, I faced a fork in the road. Was I going to go down the vocational route—I had my eye on being a plumber—or was I going to go down the academic route with an eye to being a lawyer? I went down the academic route and I became a lawyer. I do not regret that at all. One reason I did so related to esteem or lack thereof, and another reason was that lawyers get to work indoors whereas plumbers sometimes have to work on building sites outdoors—and I do not like the cold. I am talking about quite a while ago, and the money was better in law than it was in plumbing. I am not sure whether that remains the case nowadays.
We live in a capitalist society. Part of what needs to be done to move towards parity of esteem in a cultural sense is the sort of thing that the Minister has attempted to do during his tenure of office and through this Bill; and, frankly, in a capitalist society, part of it is about paying people more. If we want parity of esteem, we should start paying people equal amounts of money—and pay plumbers as much as lawyers. Given that we live under capitalism, we are moving towards that because of skills shortages.
On new clause 1, I quite understand the Minister’s point that some of the information is already published as a result of the Enterprise Act 2016, but I believe that building this into the Bill as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South has proposed, would be helpful for sending out the right message about confidence. It is the same with new clause 2, so that the representative panels can become more representative when they are put in place. I welcome the Minister’s assurance this afternoon that those panels will be in place by April, and I hope they will have a breadth of representation that should, I think, be built into the Bill. I asked the Minister a similar question in a slightly different context about the involvement of trade unions. This is not just a tit-for-tat along the lines of “You have the bosses there, so we have to have the workers there,” although that is important; it more about getting buy-in to the new regime from all sections of our society to build towards addressing the skills shortages that we will face, as I have said, under Brexit.
Under Brexit, there is no mistake about it: the price for staying in the single market would be free movement of labour and people; and the UK population has said that it is not up for that and does not want free movement of people or labour. We will therefore not be in the single market, but we will not have free movement either, because there will be restrictions—whether Members like it or not. We should use these circumstances in a positive way, so that local people can train up for jobs and so that we do not keep poaching skilled people from abroad—whether from Lithuania, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) mentioned, or elsewhere. For that, we need national standards.
When it comes to confidence, we need proper advice. Careers advice in England has certainly been, to say the least, patchy over the years. I remember when my Government set up Connexions, which was not exactly a resounding success—certainly not in the west midlands. I urge the Minister to think again about new clause 4, which is all to do with building confidence. That is particularly clear in paragraphs (b) and (d) of new clause 4(3). These highlight the fact that the Secretary of State should seek to
“ensure that such information, advice and guidance may be taken into account by relevant authorities and partners to meet the needs of local or combined authority areas”
and to
“monitor the outcomes of such information, advice and guidance for recipients.”
It is part of confidence building that we have a regime that is sensitive to local labour markets, which will change greatly from April 2019 when we are out of the European Union.
This Bill is part of the Government—surprisingly, given what is not happening in other areas—showing a bit of foresight, on which I congratulate the Minister. If only we had such foresight about Brexit ramifications for other areas of public endeavour; we do not, but this Bill is a step forward and part of that jigsaw. I am not saying that this is why the Minister has sought to introduce the Bill, but I do think we should look on it positively in that way, and I think that new clause 4 would help to build confidence in the new system, by ensuring that it would be reflective and flexible.
In referring to amendment 9 and others that my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South said were in a sense under its umbrella—amendments 10 to 16—the Minister talked about employers having freedom and flexibility. Amendment 9 deals with “recognised technical qualifications” and these are connected, certainly for England as I said, with national standards. We need those standards as part of the confidence-building measures, but also to make sure that we get the right people with the right skills—in a sense, workforce planning.
This country is pretty poor at workforce planning. The one area where we could have excellent workforce planning because the number of employees is so enormous and they almost all work for the state is in healthcare delivery, yet it is absolutely appalling. We do not have enough doctors trained here; we do not have enough dentists trained here; we certainly do not have enough nurses trained here; we do not have enough professions allied to medicine—whether radiographers or phlebotomists and so forth—trained here. Yet this is the one area of workforce planning that the Government could get right. I do not mean that only this Government have singularly failed. Under the coalition Government, things went backwards when some nurse training places were shut down. Figures on the number of employees working in the NHS in England alone are so huge that we could take social trends into account and do some pretty good workforce planning on the kind of skills that will be needed in five years or the 10 years that it takes to train a doctor, and so forth.
Arguably, we have been absolute rubbish at this since 1948. Having national standards is important not just for confidence, but for workforce planning. That is why I again urge the Minister to have another think about the import of amendment 9, if not its wording. It is all very well having flexibility and freedom for employers. These were the sort of words that the Minister used—he will correct me if I am wrong—when he explained why he thought amendment 9 was unnecessary and invited my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South to withdraw it. In my view, however, the Minister should have another think about that, because I believe that national standards are important. Again, I draw on my own experience. When I qualified as a lawyer, I took a national exam that had to be taken by all those seeking to become solicitors in England and Wales. For most of us, if we passed, that led to what was, in a sense, the equivalent of an apprenticeship. It was called “articles of clerkship”, and it involved two years in a solicitor’s office. What had been a national exam taken by everyone who wished to be a solicitor in England and Wales then became a moderated Law Society final exam. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) will remind me what it was called. [Hon. Members: “Legal practice course.”] Yes. It became a legal practice course, and standards went down. I say that having talked to people in post-secondary institutions at the time and having trained articled clerks who had experienced the later system when national standards no longer existed.
National standards are not, of course, a guarantee of quality output, but they can be used by any Government, legitimately and properly, to ensure that we have confidence in the system and to ensure that those who undergo an apprenticeship process and emerge from it fully qualified have a qualification that is worth their having as individuals, and worth our society having.
Robert Halfon
Qualifications may be mandatory in an apprenticeship standard if that is a mandatory requirement set by the regulator. They include qualifications that are recognised as a legal requirement—that is, licence to practise—that are required for professional registration, or that are used in a hard sift when apprentices are applying for jobs in the occupation related to the standard and would be disadvantaged in the job market without them.
Rob Marris
I thank the Minister for that clarification. In a sense, he has made my point for me. There will be some national standards in certain fields of endeavour, which he has helpfully specified. However, I think that there is a contradiction in his position, a contradiction from which I do not think I suffer.
Amendment 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South, would insert the words “state-funded”. I found the Minister’s argument persuasive when he explained why he thought that the amendment should not be passed. I may have misunderstood what he said, but he seemed to be saying that he wanted a more overarching model that would encompass privately obtained qualifications. I agree with him. I merely suggest that, if amendment 7 is not accepted, it would be logical to accept something along the lines of amendment 9, which would not limit the requirement to state funding but would provide for national standards, not just in the broad but restricted field defined by what the Minister helpfully read out a moment ago, but more widely. I think that that would be better for confidence, better for our economy and better for the people—many of whom will be young—who will acquire those qualifications. I therefore ask the Minister to think again.
A similar issue is raised by amendments 18 to 21, which relate to the involvement of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education. They, too, seem to me to relate to the ability of employers and prospective apprentices—and, in the case of young apprentices, their families—to feel confident that the system will deliver a qualification that our country needs and that involves enough training to ensure that those apprentices are likely not only to end up with jobs but to contribute to society as we would like them to. That returns me to the workforce planning issue to which I adverted earlier.
The Minister and the Government ought to think again about those amendments. They may not want to accept the exact wording, but I should like them to include the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education in the list of agencies that will have a role to play in the planning, the maintenance and perhaps even the raising of standards. That would be desirable.
Rob Marris
My hon. Friend is much more familiar with the Bill than I am. On the clarity that he seeks to introduce by this amendment, does he share my concern—perhaps he does not, because he knows the Bill better—that it is not clear in the Bill what an education administrator is? I know that he or she will be an officer of the court and that they will carry out certain functions. Training is central to what we are talking about on the Bill, yet I cannot see anything that says there has to be certain qualifications for an education administrator. It is a bit fuzzy.
Gordon Marsden
As usual, my hon. Friend is perceptive. If we had the time and if it was within the scope of this amendment, I would acquaint him with the debates in Committee during which we discussed that matter at some length. Although we have not moved any more specific amendments in that area—obviously, this is something for the other place—the Minister needs to reflect further on what, if anything, needs to be put in the Bill to answer perfectly legitimate and important questions such as the one my hon. Friend has just asked.
There are a number of effects that the invocation of these education administration powers may have on students, but that is precisely the point of the amendment: to ensure that whatever impacts these powers have in practice, they are assessed within the local circumstances of the colleges in which those changes are needed.
Let me turn now to amendment 2, with which I hope the Minister will have some sympathy. Again, if he not happy with its structure, perhaps we can juggle with it. The amendment would give the court the power to suspend student protection action by the office for students for the period of insolvency in which the education administrator has responsibility for the management of an FE body.
The Association of Colleges is particularly keen to see amendment 2 addressed. It is concerned that the insolvency regime is being introduced at the same time as a separate protection regime takes place in higher education under the control of the new office for students—that Bill has entered its Committee stage in the other place only today. We have some sympathy with its belief that the Government have missed an opportunity to introduce a joint legal regime, covering both further and higher education corporations. However, we are where we are, and that is the basis on which this proposal is being put tonight, so this Bill needs to be amended to remove duplication between the HE intervention regime and the FE regime. This affects colleges that want to maintain or develop their HE provision, which is an important part of the system and which involves up to 150,000 students. I feel strongly about this because it affects my local college, Blackpool and the Fylde College, which has up to 1,000 students.
We have two Government Bills creating two separate control systems with two sets of obligations on colleges. Ministers will say that special administration and the OFS powers will be used only in exceptional cases, but, inevitably, colleges will have to prepare for the worst. If they have higher education provision, they will need to boilerplate—double insulate—their finances to satisfy the organisations with which they deal. This could make it a lot more expensive to run HE provision than it needs to be. The purpose of the amendment is to confirm that the OFS regime will be suspended during a special administration.
I wish to speak briefly to amendment 3, which addresses the need to ensure that staff who are employed by an FE college continue to accrue statutory teachers’ pension scheme and local government pension scheme obligations during an education administration. This issue has been raised not just by the Association of Colleges, but by the University and College Union. Colleges employ large numbers of staff and not all of them are teachers. In addition to caretakers, catering staff and cleaners, they employ learning support assistants, IT technicians and administrators. On Second Reading, we made a point of emphasising that, just as with universities, it is not simply teachers, administrators and bureaucrats who keep these institutions going. The same is true of FE colleges. We would be appalled if, as a result of any of these issues, people’s pension rights or their potential pension rights were affected.
We believe that there are more than 70,000 people in colleges who are not teachers and who are eligible in law to membership of the local government pension scheme. There is some evidence that the Bill has raised concern among those running local government pension schemes and that it is already resulting in additional financial demands on colleges. We do not think that it is the Government’s intention to use the process to renege on debts to the LGPS, because that would simply pass on the costs to all the other employers, including councils themselves, but colleges have no choice in law about whether to offer LGPS membership. The fact is that they do provide access to decent pensions for 70,000 people, and the purpose of the amendment is simply to clarify that staff employed by an FE college continue to accrue those obligations and that the Government will ensure that any additional debt accrued is covered. That would ensure that statutory TPS and LGPS pension obligations are suspended but that employed staff can continue to accrue entitlements, but that that does not result in penalty interest, which is written into TPS and LGPS rules once they recommence.
In case the Minister thinks that this is only a hypothetical issue, it is worth making the point—the UCU has done so—that there are already real concerns about pension scheme deficits in certain colleges, and that the regulation, if the issue is not addressed, could cause alarm with lenders and raise interest rates, which could of course negate the stated aim for the introduction of insolvency regulations and preclude the increased confidence in the insolvency scenario that the Government and we are very keen to see.
Rob Marris
May I assure my hon. Friend that the Minister is well aware of that scenario, because my local college, the City of Wolverhampton College, has a big pension problem, and when I have discussed it with him he has been extremely helpful in trying to resolve it?
Gordon Marsden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because he has provided a specific example of precisely the issue that has led us to table the amendment.
Amendment 22—I give notice that we will be pressing it to a vote—would ensure that further education bodies with a track record of accruing assets publicly could not be transferred to a for-profit private company. We had a significant discussion about that in Committee. For the benefit of those who were not in Committee, and indeed those who were, I will try to summarise it as briefly as possible, because I think that the principle is extraordinarily important.
The current situation raises some significant questions about what would happen to the transfer of assets. The information states that assets should be transferred only to charitable bodies, and it is on that point that I wish to focus my remarks. Where the bodies are not charities, assets must be transferred in accordance with the charitable purpose of the trust. It then links to a list of prescribed bodies to which assets could be transferred, including sixth-form colleges and governing bodies. The point that I am making is that it is expected that all transfers should be made to charitable bodies, but that is not the same as saying that that is required.
When colleges were incorporated in 1992, it took them formally outside the aegis of local authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) spoke eloquently about that in Committee. We have to take into account that the asset base in many cases was built up with local authority support and funding over 20 or 30 years. I reminded the Minister in Committee about my own local college, Blackpool and the Fylde College, which he has visited. He went to the Bispham campus, which has buildings and elements that go right back to the 1950s and ’60s. When the Building Colleges for the Future process took place in 2000, we did not get the new college that we hoped we would for a variety of reasons to do with where we were in the food chain. Nevertheless, I am illustrating that the estates of many buildings we are talking about have been accrued either on an active financial basis or by the ceding of land by local authorities and other organisations.