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

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

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

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

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

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

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

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

“satisfied that it would be more appropriate”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Through this Bill, we are making a small number of targeted improvements that enable flexibility and support employers to engage in the design of standards in an appropriate way, by focusing their time and effort where it is most needed. Clause 4 amends a requirement for occupational standards to be prepared by a group of persons, by making it subject to a power for the Secretary of State to create and update standards in circumstances where it is appropriate to do so. Clause 5 does the same in regard to the preparation of apprenticeship assessment plans.

I can assure hon. Members that the default position will remain that in the majority of cases, groups of persons will prepare standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. Only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is more appropriate for them to prepare a standard or assessment plan than for a group of persons to prepare it will the Secretary of State do so. To ensure transparency, the Secretary of State will publish information about matters that they will take into account when making the decision to prepare a standard or assessment plan without a group of persons.

[Damian Hinds]

Why not just do that now? How hard is it to figure out the list of criteria that might weigh on the Secretary of State’s mind? Why must we have a statement about a future statement? Why can the Government not say now what those criteria would be, before the Bill completes its passage through the House of Commons?

[Janet Daby]

As I progress, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand more about why we have chosen this direction of travel. My understanding is that this is a response to an amendment from the Lords, and the Secretary of State is being as transparent and open as possible during the process. As I continue to speak, the right hon. Gentleman will understand why—

[Damian Hinds]

I may or may not.

[Janet Daby]

Indeed. I will endeavour to explain why a statement now is not the most appropriate thing. It is likely to be appropriate for the Secretary of State to use the power to prepare a standard or assessment plan in scenarios where using a group would be disproportionately onerous; where it would be unnecessary, because only simple corrections were required; or where it could create undue delays. That might include creating or updating standards to align with industry-recognised qualifications or statutory requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

That is exactly the point I was making. In some instances, the Government can say, “Look, there is already this formal official third party”—perhaps a royal society or some part of the medical profession—“so we do not need this.” I can see why the Government would write that into legislation, but Ministers’ intent clearly goes beyond minor amendments and beyond instances where there is that other group, to instances where they will proceed without drawing up a group of people, in the interests of time or because it is a new and dynamic field. It is precisely because the Government have not defined the circumstances up front that I am keen to put our amendment 4 to a vote. I want to encourage Ministers to think more carefully about how—perhaps in the framework or elsewhere—they might, in response to the Lords amendment, more tightly define the circumstances in which they will, and more importantly will not, use the ability to go it alone. There is definitely a risk of politics getting in the way of good process and of mistakes being made that we will live to regret.

[Damian Hinds]

Even for highly regulated occupations and professions, there is still the question of how to transpose that into a set of standards for, say, an apprenticeship. The question then is: who is the person, or who are the people, best placed to work that out? I am not saying that it is not necessarily Ministers, but I have not heard anything slam-dunk convincing that it is Ministers, rather than the professional body.

[Neil O’Brien]

Sometimes professional bodies overlap, even in the medical profession. When I was a Health Minister, I was acutely aware of that. For example, there are two different ways to become a dentist in this country—there are two different professional bodies that can accredit someone. Were there to be a dispute between them, it might well be sensible to convene a group of persons. I am sympathetic to at least the argument that where we have a big professional body, that is less of a problem, but the problem is that this is not limited to just those instances.

[Damian Hinds]

Unsurprisingly, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. More generally, in legislation one obviously tries to make language as tight as possible, but subtleties in language and meaning still matter in how it gets interpreted. The way the clause is drafted—that the

“Secretary of State may prepare a standard if satisfied that it would be more appropriate”—

does not sound like a tiny number of exceptional cases. It sounds like a judgment that could be made in every case: “Do I think it is more appropriate that I do it?”, or “Do I think it is more appropriate that we get somebody else to do it?” I just ask the Minister if the Government have considered using a different formulation in the wording. It could be something like, “That each standard must be prepared by a group of persons and then approved by the Secretary of State, unless it is necessary to do otherwise for the efficient operation or continuity of those courses and those qualifications.”

[Janet Daby]

The default position will be for a group of persons, and that will always be the default position of the Secretary of State. The reason for that would be to make factual corrections, drawing on—[Interruption.] Hon. Members have mentioned this as well. Creating new standards would also be necessary in emerging occupations where there is sufficient high-quality evidence that training would be required but the occupation is not yet at a point of maturity, and where employers are able to invest sufficient time to produce the standard in the first instance, as well as for straightforward adjustments in knowledge, skills and behaviours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I want hon. Members to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which there is a future Government unrelated to this one. Let us say that that hypothetical future Government have passed a Budget that is a bit of a turkey, and it has not done good things to the economy. That hypothetical Government are taking a bit of money out of apprenticeships to spend it on other things, which is giving that Government a bit of a problem. That hypothetical future Government might—because unlike the current one, they do not have good intentions—be tempted to try to prop up apprenticeship numbers, and numbers relating to other technical qualifications, by debasing standards. It would be a problem for that hypothetical future Government to have those independent examinations that clause 7 is getting rid of, because independent third parties would object to the debasement of standards. I will not labour the point.

Clause 7 would amend the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to remove the requirement for independent third parties to examine occupational standards or apprenticeship assessment plans before approval. Once again, the Secretary of State—there she goes again—would have the power to make such an arrangement. The policy document explains that the clause would mean that the position on third-party examinations would change from being obligatory to being optional, so clause 7 would make it possible for no third-party examination of a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan to be undertaken at all.

Once again, it is DFE maximalism and a move away from a super-rigorous, employer-led system. We want the technical education system to be like the Deutschmark rather than the Weimar currency, right? We want it to be like the gold coin that can be bitten down on. We want everyone to know that it is really good. All those things that might seem inconsequential or annoying to DFE officials are there for a reason. That is why there is independent assessment, and once again, it is being got rid of.

I will now turn to clause 8, which was the subject of great confusion and endless inquiry in the other place, with lots of very knowledgeable and learned peers trying to understand what the Government’s intent was, what would be going on, and what the point of it was. I have read it all several times and I am not sure we really ever got to the bottom of it. Perhaps the Minister will help us to get the bottom of some questions about it today. Clause 8 amends the 2009 Act to specify that, when the Secretary of State deems it appropriate, Ofqual would have the discretion to exercise its accreditation power for technical education qualifications.

In the other place, the Minister gave the example that:

“the Secretary of State may deem it appropriate to ask Ofqual to consider whether imposing an accreditation requirement on the qualifications in question could help maintain their quality and signal to the wider system that they are broadly commensurate with other accredited qualifications in terms of rigour. For example, the Secretary of State could use this power in instances where it is important to ensure that students who opt into and successfully complete high-quality technical education qualifications are in no way disadvantaged as compared to their peers who pursue academic qualifications.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC122.]

That raises a number of questions. At present, we have a guarantee of quality through a legally independent institute with a very high level of employer ownership. If we are worried that, under this new system, users will require additional reassurance, that begs the question of why we are making this change. More practically, if some, but not all, technical qualifications will be accredited by Ofqual, and so will have that status, what impact will that have on perceptions of all the others that do not have that status?

The Skills Minister in the Lords talked about this provision being needed to show that high-quality technical education qualifications are equivalent to academic ones. There will now be this third category of technical qualifications, which are the really good ones that are Ofqual-accredited, so what are the other ones? It seems to me, although they do not say this, that the qualification that Ministers have in mind is probably T-levels, and I do not know quite why they are not spitting that out. Peers did not, I am afraid, get to the bottom of this question, but I hope we can today. What type of qualifications are Ministers really thinking of using for this? Why we would suddenly need this now, once we move from IfATE to Skills England, in a way that we did not before? Will we not end up creating two tiers of technical qualifications, where some are Ofqual-approved and others are not? Will there not be a perverse consequence from that?

[Damian Hinds]

Clauses 7 and 8 are grouped, and I am sure there is a reason for that, but it strikes me that they are quite different, and I want to say a word about both.

Clause 7 is about examination by independent third parties, which I think gives an opportunity to also talk about the overall principle of having independent evaluation of standards and making sure they are up to scratch. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes asked a question earlier, and we did not have the documentation to hand at the time, but I did not want to leave it hanging in the air. She asked specifically about whether the words that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, the shadow Minister, had used represented the exact phrase from the 2015 Ofsted report on the then apprenticeships regime. Helpfully, I have the precise words:

“Inspectors found that in a third of the 45 providers visited, apprenticeships did not provide sufficient, high-quality training that stretched the apprentices and improved their capabilities. Inspectors observed, for example, apprentices in the food production, retail and care sectors who were simply completing their apprenticeship by having existing low-level skills, such as making coffee, serving sandwiches or cleaning floors, accredited. While these activities are no doubt important to the everyday running of the businesses, as apprenticeships they do not add enough long-term value to the individual companies or tackle skills shortages effectively.

Some learners on low-level, low-quality programmes were unaware that they were even on an apprenticeship. As suggested by some learners during the survey, a question needs to be asked: are these apprenticeships worthy of the name?”

I mention that for two reasons. First, this was a question that came up. Secondly, it is very important not only that we pay close attention to this position at any one moment in time, but that we create a system that is self-regulating and that does not allow for standards to be eroded. Independence of the body setting the standards and independent third-party checking of the standards alongside leading employers, who will benefit from employing these people, is the surest way of doing that.

Clause 7 and the question about independent third parties examining occupational standards or apprenticeship assessments is a repeat of a debate we had on one of the earlier clauses. The probing arguments and challenges from us are the same as they were then. The Government say that third-party examination is not necessary in some sectors because, for example, in highly regulated occupations, the standard required is obvious—or, as the Minister said in the other place, because

“an external review would be nugatory.”

Is there not still some value in independent verification of that? And, if there is going to be verification, are not those in the sector the people best-placed to do it?

Let me turn to clause 8. It is difficult, because in this place one does not want to reveal not knowing something, but I am nonplussed by this clause because, to be honest, I really do not know what is going on. The clause is about Ofqual and about why, and in what circumstances, it may accredit a technical qualification if the Secretary of State says that it is all right for it to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said it seemed most likely that the Government have in mind T-levels, and asked whether they would just spit that out. That is one possibility. My worry is the opposite—actually, let us call it a question, not a worry, and make it a neutral term.

Ofqual already has a role in regulating T-levels—I was just reading the Ofqual page about how it is regulating the technical qualification element of T-levels. Now that the Government are saying that Ofqual can do that—if the Secretary of State says it is okay—does that mean that Ofqual might stop doing that, or that its approach for T-levels will be used for some other qualifications? That would not necessarily be invalid, but it would be a move away from the vision of Lord Sainsbury, who wanted a streamlining and simplification, and a broader understanding of technical and vocational qualifications, so that there would be an apprenticeship route and there would be a college-based route. Of course, there will always be some particularly specialist qualifications or students with special needs, for example, but for the majority of cases, the college-based route—these 15 routes—would be the T-level.

I wonder if, buried in this difficult-to-penetrate text, there is something that the Committee really needs to understand, but which, right now, I do not.

[Janet Daby]

I want to emphasise that no one is seeking to erode standards. We are seeking to improve the skills system. We recognise the need to move things on and to quicken up the process. This Government are entirely committed to doing that. We recognise the skills gaps and the need to ensure that people have the skills needed to get into the employment that they need. This is a Government who have a mission for growth and breaking down barriers to opportunities.

In clauses 7 and 8 we are seeking to move along the processes to make sure our system is more flexible and agile and can respond to markets, businesses and employers. In clause 8, in terms of Ofqual, we are not trying to create a two-tier system. The Bill would remove what is an unnecessary and blanket ban on the accreditation of technical education qualifications. There are of course then options for using the new flexibilities in accreditation, which will need to be considered in the interests of employers and learners. The Secretary of State will carefully consider when it may be appropriate for Ofqual to accredit technical qualifications.

With regard to clause 7, in certain circumstances, obtaining independent third-party examination of new standards and assessment plans is unnecessary or duplicative, wasting time and resources; we may need to move things on.

[Damian Hinds]

If there is a blanket ban on Ofqual regulating technical qualifications, can the Minister explain why there is a page on gov.uk—unless someone has hacked it—entitled “Information on how Ofqual is regulating the technical qualification component of T Levels”?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that. Through clause 8, we are making sure that Ofqual can accredit technical qualifications where the Secretary of State deems it appropriate.

I thank Members for their contributions. Clauses 7 and 8 are essential in ensuring that Skills England has the flexibility to respond nimbly to an evolving skills system, and I therefore urge the Committee to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

We have gone through the grind of years of standards setting and years of trying to mobilise the sector to do this, and we have got some people’s hopes up. We have even got people on to doctor apprenticeships and then kiboshed them. It would be tragic if the Government do what they have said they will do. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot, and this amendment just gives us good evidence of the consequences of doing so.

[Damian Hinds]

Before I talk about clause 9 and amendment 7, if it is not out of order, may I ask a question relating to the previous clause? I do not want to relitigate the arguments, but I just want to ask the Minister to write to me or to the Committee—I do not know what the correct process is—because I am afraid that I still do not understand what the Government’s intent is with clause 8. I hope that that is possible.

Turning to—

[The Chair]

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, we are just debating amendment 7; we will debate clause 9 stand part separately.

[Damian Hinds]

Forgive me on that front as well, Sir Christopher. In that case, I have only two questions specifically on the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston rightly asked about the public sector workforce. Specifically for the DFE, what impact do the Government expect on the postgraduate teaching apprenticeships and on persuading graduate teaching assistants to become teachers?

[Janet Daby]

Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State’s report about the exercise of functions transferred from IfATE to include information on the impact on the provision of level 7 apprenticeships in England. The amendment would duplicate the duty in the Bill for the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the exercise of relevant functions on apprenticeships. What the amendment appears to be asking for is already in scope of the report, as described in clause 9. I also reassure Members that Skills England’s analysis and insights, which highlight skills needs in our economy, will reflect how far apprenticeships and other technical qualifications are meeting those needs on an ongoing basis.

I should be clear that Skills England will be an evidence-based, authoritative voice on skills, with a broad and ambitious remit to identify and tackle skills gaps. Although it will have a significant impact across the Government, and indeed the country, it is part of a skills system where priority skills policy, strategy and funding decisions remain for the Secretary of State and the Cabinet. Taking advice from Skills England, we will be asking more employers to step forward and fund level 7 apprenticeships. As I have said, we will set out more information shortly. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I apologise for my misreading of the groupings earlier, Sir Christopher. Clause 9 is the new clause inserted by the Government in response to the other place. It requires there to be a report on the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions and for the report to be made within six months and laid before Parliament. It will cover which functions are going to be done through Skills England and the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions on apprenticeships and technical education in England.

New clause 2 proposes that all the functions of IfATE go to Skills England. The obvious question is: why not? Why would they not go to Skills England? When we come to the debate on new clause 2, there will be an opportunity for the Government to explain that to us.

We have heard a bunch of times about how there has been all this preparatory work—that it has been a long time in the making, that Skills England exists in shadow form and that the Government thought about it a great deal. Why can they not tell us now which functions are going to go to Skills England?

On the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions, is it really right for the body itself to talk about what its impact has been? Should there not be some external validation to consider the effectiveness of the body? I have three questions for the Minister. We know that the report will be laid before Parliament, but what will its status be? Will Parliament be able to debate it? Will it be binding in some way? What if this Secretary of State or a future Secretary of State takes a different view, bearing in mind that under this legislation they would be allowed to? If they take a different view, will a new report be required and will Parliament have any say in that?

[Janet Daby]

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Power to make consequential provision