Technical and Further Education Bill
Debate between Rob Marris and Gordon MarsdenMonday 9th January 2017
(7 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Technical and Further Education Act 2017 View all Technical and Further Education Act 2017 Debates 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.
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.