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

Public Bill Committee, 13 March 2025.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Welcome, everybody. I call the Minister to move the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I welcome the opportunity to further discuss and scrutinise the Bill following Second Reading, and I thank the Committee for its time and expertise. I am also grateful to Members of the other place, who have already provided considerable scrutiny while also supporting the Bill.

I rise to speak to clauses 1 to 3. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which transfers statutory functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships—

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. I think the hon. Lady has got the wrong end of the stick on this one. She just needs to move the resolution of the Programming Sub-Committee.

Clause 1 - Transfer of functions

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Schedule 1.

Clause 2 stand part.

Schedule 2.

Clause 3 stand part.

Schedule 3.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

I will begin again, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to clauses 1 to 3. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which transfers statutory functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to the Secretary of State and makes minor and consequential amendments. It is our intention that functions currently delivered by IfATE will largely be exercised by Skills England on behalf of the Secretary of State. The functions are in chapter A1 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, and include the duty to map occupational groups, and the duty to approve and publish standards and apprenticeship assessment plans.

Under the terms of the 2009 Act, the Secretary of State will also have the power to delegate functions to other persons. We intend to establish Skills England as an executive agency of the Department for Education. Despite IfATE’s success in embedding employees in the processes for designing technical qualifications and apprenticeships, the wider skills system remains too fragmented and complex. It is insufficiently responsive to the present and future skill needs of the economy, and we have major skill gaps. Employers report that more than one third of UK vacancies in 2022 were due to skills shortages. To address this, and unlock the potential for skills that drive growth and widen opportunity, we will create a new and more ambitious organisation: Skills England.

Clause 1 will enable Skills England to take on and deliver functions currently delivered by IfATE, giving it some of the key tools it needs to tackle these challenges as part of its wider remit. Skills England will provide an authoritative assessment of skills needed in the economy, and use those data and insights to develop and maintain a comprehensive suite of technical qualifications and apprenticeships, as a result of some of the functions transferred by the Bill. It will then work with key stakeholders to ensure that the identified needs for available training are reflected in regions across the country. That will ensure that the system becomes more responsive and better able to quickly and efficiently supply the skills most needed by the economy.

Skills England will work closely with the Industrial Strategy Council, so that we have the skilled workforce needed to deliver a clear, long-term plan for the future economy. It will also work with the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure that growing the domestic skills pipeline reduces our reliance on overseas workers.

To summarise, clause 1 will enable Skills England to take on and deliver the functions currently held by IfATE, where appropriate, alongside other functions. That will address the fragmentation that is holding the skills system back and restricting improved workforce development and productivity gains. Without this clause, it would not be possible to transfer functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State so that they can be exercised broadly by Skills England in the service of employers, learners and others.

Clause 2 introduces schedule 2, which makes provision for the transfer of IfATE’s property, rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State. It will ensure the functional continuity of property, rights and liabilities, including the many contracts that are critical to the operation of the skills system. The transfer scheme that the clause makes possible will mitigate the risk of delay and a lack of service continuity, which is essential for a smooth transfer from IfATE to the Secretary of State and the subsequent creation of Skills England.

Without this clause, the co-ordination of the transfer of IfATE’s property, rights and liabilities to the Secretary of State would be less straightforward and more burdensome. Without a transfer scheme, each matter, including contracts and licences, would have to be considered and transferred individually, which would be more time-consuming and could have an impact on value for money, the continuity of services and the delivery of skills products. That could mean the reduction in the quality of service received by employers, learners and others with an interest in the skills system. The transfer scheme that the clause makes possible will mitigate the risk of delay and a lack of service continuity, creating the minimum possible disruption for system users.

Clause 3 abolishes IfATE and introduces schedule 3, which makes consequential amendments to existing primary legislation that are required as a consequence of abolishing IfATE. It essentially closes IfATE so that the Government can establish and empower Skills England. Skills England will build on IfATE’s work with employers in all sectors to shape technical education and apprenticeships.

Josh Dean (Labour, Hertford and Stortford)

I recently had the pleasure of visiting some fantastic apprentices at Hertford Regional college’s campus in Ware. I know that the college will be excited about the prospect of Skills England. Can the Minister say more about how soon we can expect it to come forward?

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

It sounds as though that college is doing excellent work. The Bill is part of the process of delivering Skills England. It is our intention, following the Bill’s Royal Assent, to make commencement regulations promptly to bring into force the provisions that transfer IfATE’s functions, as well as the powers to transfer its assets and liabilities to the Secretary of State and to deliver those services through Skills England.

Skills England will be very different from IfATE, as I have mentioned. It will bring IfATE’s functions together with others that are not currently in statute to identify skills needs and to work with regional partners to ensure that they are being met. By bringing together those different functions in a single organisation, we can make a more responsive skills system that acts fast on the evidence to address skills gaps, uninterrupted by organisational boundaries, administrative hurdles and imperfect data flows. That would not be possible if the key functions were split across Skills England and IfATE. Clauses 1 to 3 are essential to achieving that transformation, so I commend them to the Committee.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The Opposition have three main concerns about the Bill, which are all relevant to this group. First, there were good reasons why standards setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. As we heard from Members on both sides of the House of Lords, this Bill is a centralisation. Alongside other changes that the Government are making, it risks directly damaging the status of the qualifications.

Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprenticeships. Rather than fixing the problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years. The Government are abolishing IfATE, which was created only seven years ago. This is yet more reorganisation, rather than focusing on the real issues. IfATE will now follow a long list of predecessors, including the Manpower Services Commission, the Learning and Skills Council, the Skills Funding Agency, skills advisory panels, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, training and enterprise councils and more, into the lengthening history of skills acronyms. We have a bad history of institutional churn in this country generally, and particularly in this area.

Thirdly, we have real concerns that this reorganisation of the machinery of government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues that we face. Those concerns are in fact borne out by the Government’s impact assessment.

As the Minister just said, the first three clauses are all about abolishing IfATE. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which transfers functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State. It does not transfer them to Skills England, but to the Secretary of State.

The words “Secretary of State” appear, amazingly, 90 times in this short Bill. That is one reason why the Bill has come in for criticism from a number of different sides of politics. Instead of setting up Skills England as an independent body, which is what a lot of people—including many in the Labour party—assumed it would be, it is going to be part of the Department for Education.

In its briefing on the Bill, the Construction Industry Training Board noted that this was

“contrary to the previous characterisation of Skills England that was outlined in the…King’s Speech…and contrary to the vision for Skills England to be an independent body, established in law, with a cross-governmental role”.

Obviously, those two points are linked. If it is going to be cross-government, it is easier for it to be independent of the DFE rather than part of one Department.

The CITB makes an important point. IfATE existed to serve all employers, both public and private, and across every Department. In contrast, Skills England will be firmly part of the DFE. The chief executive officer of Skills England will be a job share between the two civil servants who currently run the post-16 skills bit of the DFE.

Likewise, the Institute of the Motor Industry, representing employers and professionals across the UK automotive sector, says in its evidence to this Committee that it has

“significant concerns about the abolition of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education…and the transfer of its functions to Skills England.”

Pam Cox (Labour, Colchester)

Did the shadow Minister note the submission from the Association of Colleges, which offered very strong support for the Bill? As it represents a large proportion of providers of this education, its views should be taken into account.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I saw that, and I wonder whether the hon. Lady noted in that submission the organisation’s pretty strong criticisms of the Government’s decision to cut adult skills spending. That is an example of what I was just talking about. Instead of addressing the real issues, we have reorganisation. I was not going to bring up the document from the Association of Colleges, but I am glad that the hon. Lady has.

Let me return to the Institute of the Motor Industry. Its evidence states:

“Without dedicated attention to the unique challenges faced by the automotive industry, Skills England risks creating further disconnection between education policy and real-world workforce demands.”

It talks about the risk of losing employer-led standards:

“Transitioning to Skills England could introduce additional confusion and delays, undermining apprenticeship approvals and disrupting funding streams critical to maintaining employer confidence.”

In fairness, that is what the Government’s impact assessment said. It stated that the issues around transition are likely to lead to delays, which will have a real-world impact. I will come back to that point in a second.

The criticisms from different people in industry of the move away from independence and employer ownership —those two things go hand in hand—take us back to the origin of IfATE. It was set up alongside the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. It was, in a sense, a quid pro quo. There was employers’ money and, in return, employer ownership of the system, for the first time. The move away from this being something independent and properly arm’s length to it being run by a bit of the DFE, by just some DFE officials, is a move away from that sense of employer ownership.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

Will the shadow Minister explain why he does not think that the rationalisation of unelected and largely unaccountable arm’s length bodies—quangos—is a bad thing? Why should the Secretary of State not be the person who is held accountable for post-16 skills education?

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

That is a perfectly good question. Of course, this Government are a big fan of quangos and have, I think, created—net—28 more quangos since it came to office. Some can be the right thing to do, so I am not necessarily criticising the Government for that. In this case—I cannot remember if the hon. Lady was around when we were creating the apprenticeship levy—the reason why it was made independent of Government and an employer-owned body was that we were, for the first time, creating something that is quite common in the rest of Europe, the apprenticeship levy.

The levy is intended to stop—to be blunt—good employers who invest in their workforce and the skills of their workforce being taken advantage of by those who do not. That meant doing something controversial, which in effect was requiring them to pay into the levy—in many ways, it is like a tax—but they could get their money back through the apprenticeship levy. However, in return for that big change, requiring larger employers to put their own money into skills, we wanted to ensure that the whole thing would be truly employer-led, rather than politician-led.

Of course, current Ministers are brilliant—this is not any criticism of them—but we legislate for the ages, not for whoever is currently the Minister. Ministers change, and sometimes there have been instances—I am horrified to tell the Committee—where politicians have foibles or funny ideas of their own, which are not necessarily reflected in the wishes of employers and what they want from the skills system. That was why we put the system more into the hands of employers.

Peter Swallow (Labour, Bracknell)

It is interesting to hear the shadow Minister speak about business’s view of the apprenticeship levy. When I speak to businesses in my constituency, they tell me that the apprenticeship levy was not flexible enough and was not working, and it was preventing them giving opportunities to young people. That is exactly why so many businesses have welcomed the changes that this Government are bringing in. Has he not heard the exact same from businesses in his constituency?

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Even before we set up the levy, I always heard employers expressing concerns about the idea of a levy of any kind. In many instances, they would prefer just to keep their money and not spend it on skills at all. The fact that they were not spending on skills is the reason why we brought in a levy—it was quite a contentious thing, and quite a centrist thing in lots of ways.

As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in its recent paper on the Government’s proposals to change the levy, the danger, if we start to make these things too open-ended, is that we completely collapse the concept. It notes what happened with things before, such as Train to Gain, where what we end up with is pure dead-weight—we get zero additionality.

To reduce the idea to absurdity, if we were to say that employers can spend the apprenticeship levy on whatever they like, there is no point in having a levy, is there? That is because we would have just gone around in a circle. There is no point taking money off people and saying, “You can do whatever you want.” The whole point of containing that expenditure to apprenticeships was, as well as wanting to prioritise apprenticeships, to avoid the very real problems that the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out with previous schemes such as Train to Gain, where we ended up with huge amounts of dead-weight. It did not work, and the amount of money spent by employers on such things went down.

I am absolutely ready to hear criticisms of, and improvements to, the idea of the levy. In a moment, I will talk about some of the challenges that will be thrown up by the Government’s proposals to move large amounts of money out of apprenticeships through the reforms to the levy.

Leigh Ingham (Labour, Stafford)

On the shadow Minister’s previous point, I spoke to businesses in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, and one pointed out to me that 90 pieces of paperwork were required, with multiple contract stages, just to get, for example, a plumber apprentice to take part in any scheme. The college in my constituency, which is outstanding and has a 72% completion rate compared with the national average of 58%, is doing strong work, but the businesses, in particular the small and medium-sized enterprises, are saying that the apprenticeship levy does not work for them and has excluded them from skills development. I am interested to hear what the shadow Minister has to say about that.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

As I said, I am absolutely ready to hear detailed thoughts and to have the detailed discussion about how one improves all these different things, and I am pleased that the hon. Lady’s local college seems to be highly successful in delivering these things. Every year, on average, twice as many people started apprenticeships under the last Government as started them under the previous Labour Government, so we did get a lot more of them, as well as higher quality. I do not know what the 90 bits of paper are, but I am absolutely ready to hear and to talk about ways we could improve those matters.

On the point about SMEs that the hon. Lady raised, that is exactly why last March we moved to 100% funding for SMEs—to make things easier for them. I agree with the hon. Lady: there is a lot to do to make it easier for SMEs to participate in the levy-led system. I am just not convinced that any of the concerns she raises will be addressed by shutting down IfATE or setting up Skills England. She might hope that they will be—I hope that they will be—but I do not see anything in this legislation that will fix any of the problems that she complains about. Obviously, we hope that collectively we will solve the problems in the system.

There are quite a lot of concerns—including concerns among those on the Labour Benches, which I will come on to—about the transfer of IfATE’s powers to the Secretary of State compromising the independence with which apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications, such as T-levels, are accredited, and diluting the voice of employers. As numerous people have pointed out, we would not and do not accept that on the academic side, where we have both independent exam boards and Ofqual creating and monitoring specifications and exams. This is yet another example of our treating the academic side—the route that most of us went down—differently from the technical side. As the Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out:

“The problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels like the second half is missing. The second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body…Being subsumed within a division of the Department for Education…is problematic. The Minister needs to reflect on it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC87.]

As another Labour peer, Baroness Blower, pointed out,

“the appropriate move from where we are would be to a statutory body”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC90.]

Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, said that giving Skills England legislative backing

“would…cement the body’s independence.”

In contrast, the Bill originally introduced by the Government did not even include the words “Skills England”. The very act of a further reorganisation, even if one thinks it is a good idea, is likely to further compound the effects of the Budget and the decision to move apprenticeships money to other things. I will just rehearse that for a moment. Obviously, the Budget saw a £40 billion overall tax increase and the largest part of that is a £25 billion increase in national insurance, which is squarely targeted on part-time and lower-income workers. It hits exactly the tier of the workforce that is typically the apprenticeship kind of tier. Of course, apprenticeships do not require payment of national insurance, but when we see lots of employers, as we do now, shedding jobs in that tier, that is inevitably bad for the number of apprenticeships.

That is compounded by what the Government want to do in terms of taking money out of apprenticeships. There has been some confusion about that, because safely before the election, Labour in opposition had the idea that it was going to let employers take 50% of the money from the levy and spend it on things that were not apprenticeships. Then, as the election drew nearer, that idea seemed to disappear and did not feature any more. Lots of people assumed that it was gone. Then I assumed it was definitely gone, because I asked the current Minister—whom we have here today—in Westminster Hall whether the 50% target still stood, and the Minister said that the policy was under review. Then a couple of weeks later, in oral questions, when we asked the Secretary of State whether the 50% target still stood, she said that it did, even though lots of people in industry think that that is not the plan.

This whole question about how much of the money will be taken out of apprenticeships and put elsewhere is shrouded in confusion. I would love it—I would be delighted—if the Minister could talk about that point today and tell us whether it is still 50%. It is a binary thing: it either is 50% or is not. I would love the Minister to tell us the answer one way or another. At the moment, the levy raises about £2 billion a year. If the Government take 50% of that money out, they might think that is a good thing. They might say, “Yes, we want employers to be able to spend a billion quid on other stuff.” But if they take all that money out of apprenticeships, one thing they will definitely have is fewer apprenticeships. They could say it is fine—

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

The shadow Minister references the number of apprentices, and he pointed to the previous Government’s record on that, but, in my constituency, apprenticeship starts fell year on year under the previous Government. Lots of young people have been completely disenfranchised, having had their apprenticeships end early without getting to completion. There has to be some kind of change so that we are not failing young people. There has to be a review of the levy, which employers have said is far too restrictive. The hon. Member’s points do not actually bear scrutiny when we get down to constituency-level data, do they?

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I give the hon. Lady the national-level data—I think I did already—because I do not have in my head the data for every constituency. At the national level, we had twice as many apprenticeship starts every year under the last Conservative Government as we did under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Lady might say, “That’s not enough; it should’ve been even higher,” and I would perhaps even agree with her. I would have liked the number to be even higher as well.

The hon. Lady said that numbers fell. What we saw was that, even though the overall number of starts was twice as high under the Conservatives as it had been under Labour, absolutely, the shift from frameworks to standards and to a higher quality of apprenticeships did reduce numbers. It did not take them down to where they had been under Labour, but it did reduce them. However, that shift was essential, and I do not think that anyone wants to go back from standards to frameworks.

There was a damning 2015 Ofsted report, which the hon. Lady will remember well, that found that quite a lot of people—a lot of learners—had been on an apprenticeship for more than a year and did not even know they were on an apprenticeship.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

rose—

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Such was the low level of quality—such was the total absence of any training or meaningful content in the apprenticeship. What we had was an abuse. What we had was employers being able to pay below the national minimum wage—below the rates even for young people—and, at the same time, not providing meaningful training and what all of us want, which is proper, high-quality apprenticeships. I do not think the hon. Lady is really going to argue for a move back to those previous frameworks—

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

rose—

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

But, as she rises to her feet, perhaps she will tell me if she does want to go backwards to frameworks.

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

That is not what I am rising to my feet to say. It is interesting that the shadow Minister points out the differential rates of pay between young people and older people, because we have just had the Employment Rights Bill going through Parliament, during which Conservative Members were absolutely incandescent that we might seek to raise the pay of young people, equalise it and recognise fair rates of pay regardless of age.

I am interested in that 2015 report. The hon. Gentleman said “a lot of people”; was that the actual wording in the report?

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I am not sure what the question is. Is the hon. Lady asking whether what I said about the 2015 report was correct?

Melanie Onn (Labour, Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes)

I was asking the shadow Minister to clarify the numbers. He refers to the report and makes a sweeping generalisation about it, so what exactly were the numbers? What is the accuracy of the report?

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Just to reassure the lady, the numbers are correct. Although I do not encourage people to use mobile phones in Committee, Sir Christopher, the hon. Lady can google her way to the 2015 Ofsted report. She can read it for herself and be chilled, as I was, by its description of the pre-reform system and the low level of quality that was being provided in it.

The hon. Lady tempts us off the topic to talk about wider issues. On those different rates, I would say that most systems around the world, including ours, have different rates of minimum wage by age. That is about making the so-called “bite” of the minimum wage similar for different ages. Different groups of people at different ages have different productivity levels and different typical rates of pay. Therefore, if a Government do not want to create large rates of youth unemployment—and most systems around the OECD do not—they end up with different minimum wage rates for different ages. That system has been there since the start; it was there when Labour created these things, and it was still there when we turned it into the national living wage, so none of that is novel.

I will say one thing about the Employment Rights Bill, since it has been brought up. We do not have the skills Minister herself with us, because, of course, she is in the other place, but I do just note that the Government have created a situation in which a lot of universities are facing industrial action—because the national insurance increase has wiped out all of the increases in fees, and one broken promise on fees is now being used to pay for another broken promise on tax. The Employment Rights Bill makes it easier to take industrial action. I think that a lot of universities, as employers, are dreading the impact. Having addressed that point, I will get back on topic.

I have mentioned some of the Labour peers and other bodies who have raised concerns about the loss of independence. I started to talk about the big problem created by the double whammy of the Budget and the decision to take money out of apprenticeships. That is potentially compounded by this Bill. The Government’s own impact assessment says that there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while IfATE’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State. The impact assessment states:

“The transfer of function from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the bill.”

It also states:

“This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways for career advancement.”

The Government are already doing two things that are not good for apprenticeships, and now the Bill is, in the Government’s own words, likely to lead to delays and be bad for starts.

Perhaps that is why, although the Government acknowledge that they have an internal forecast for the number of apprenticeship starts, they are refusing to publish it. Perhaps it shows that what the Government are doing will not be good for the number of apprenticeships. There may be another, more innocent reason, but either way we have not been allowed to see the numbers.

We have had a bad habit in this country of institutional churn, and that has a real-world cost. Baroness McGregor-Smith, who has been the brilliant chair of IfATE in the Lords, quoted one of the board members of IfATE, a very distinguished music producer, who noted ruefully that

“it took five years to get employers on side and to believe that IfATE could do really good things.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC103.]

And here we are, starting all over again. When we pull these things up by the roots, break all these relationships, break all the trust, change all the people around and move loads of people into different jobs, we lose something. We have done this so often.

A lesson from previous institutional churn, not just in the field of technical education but more generally, is that the less securely founded on an independent basis and on a legislative basis a new institution is, the more likely it is that a new structure will itself be repealed or replaced in time—setting the stage for yet more churn.

Clause 2 covers the transfer of property and staff from IfATE to the Secretary of State—not to some new external body. The challenge of managing that rapid transfer of staff into the Department while trying to keep the engine running as best we can is one reason why peers voted to delay the abolition of IfATE by one year. As Lord Blunkett, no less—a former Labour Education Secretary—put it:

“My fear…is that given the number of people currently transferable from IfATE…which nudges 200…there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.”

He went on:

“When two years ago I led on the learning and skills document that was a precursor to Skills England…we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]

He further noted:

“A Skills England that has no legislative backing and no parliamentary references but is down merely to the changing face of ministerial and departmental appointments is in danger of losing its birthright before it has got off the ground.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC99.]

This is a former Labour Education Secretary with a great deal of experience. He has been in politics for an awfully long time, and he has seen this churn. That is why he warns about Skills England’s lack of legislative backing and institutional independence. Skills England is in a sense is his baby—it is something he worked on.

Government amendment 1, which we will come to when we debate clause 11, seeks to overturn that short delay—only a short delay—that peers put in to allow for a more orderly transition, so that Skills England could at least get up and running in the Department before it attempted to onboard 200 new colleagues. I have seen many different machinery of government changes, and they always cause disruption.

Pam Cox (Labour, Colchester)

Will the shadow Minister acknowledge that an awful lot of preparatory work has gone on to establish Skills England already? Once the Bill goes through, we will be in a good position to set this up quickly.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Sure. A shadow form exists at the moment, but that does not change the longer-term point that if we do not give it its own legislative basis and make it independent of the Department, all the criticisms and concerns about the dilution of the employer voice and so on still stand. I am not having a go at those who are setting up Skills England.

Leigh Ingham (Labour, Stafford)

On the point about independence, the chair has been announced as Phil Smith, the former CEO of Cisco. Surely that in itself is a sign of significant independence.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

A fantastic person—all good. It is like having NEDs—non-executive directors—in a Department; it is good to have external people. As I noted, however, the CEO of the organisation is literally not a civil servant; it is a job-share civil servant. They are people who currently work in the Department doing post-16 skills, so I am not sure about idea that this is an independent body. Can the hon. Lady tell me where Skills England is based? Physically, where is it located? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Is it in Sanctuary Buildings, by any chance? Sanctuary Buildings is none other than the headquarters of the DFE. Is this, in fact a desk in an open plan office that is part of the DFE?

The Government can bring in good people. It is good to bring in good people. The DFE has some good NEDs, by the way, but that is not the same as having an independent institution. That is why Lord Blunkett and other Labour peers are warning that the Government are making a mistake. Those are their words, not ours. Lord Blunkett has a lot more experience of those things than me.

All I would say to the Minister and to hon. Members on the Government Benches is, instead of overturning what peers have put into the Bill, this might be one of those times when it is more sensible to listen to people on their own side, people with some serious grey hairs and a lot of experience, people in their own party, who are advising them that they are making a mistake here. Instead of overturning what they have done, the Government should allow it to stand. The criticisms being made by people in the industry and people with experience in education and skills are serious. I hope that the Government will listen to them, rather than simply overturning what they have done and ignoring them.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

We are debating clauses 1 to 3 stand part and schedules 1 to 3. The Minister, in her opening remarks, talked a lot about the intention to create Skills England, how it will operate and so on. That is not in clauses 1 to 3.

The Bill is all about transferring functions from the independent Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to the Secretary of State in central Government. Colleagues may have seen the, as ever, helpful and pithy descriptive notes from the House of Commons Library. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which will transfer statutory functions from the institute to the Secretary of State. Clause 2 introduces schedule 2, which will allow the Secretary of State to make schemes for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the institute. Clause 3 will abolish the institute and introduce a schedule 3, which makes consequential amendments to the 2009 Act and other Acts.

The history of this sector is the history of many changes in the machinery of government and the creation of many quangos. There have been 12 in the past five decades. This one will be lucky—no doubt—13. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister helped us with some of the history and some of those previous bodies. I have a slightly longer list.

We have had industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission, and the training and enterprise councils known as TECs—but those TECs were not the same as another type of TEC, the Technical Education Council, which existed alongside the Business Education Council or BEC in the 1970s. The two would merge in the 1980s to give us, of course, BTEC, the Business and Technology Education Council. There were national training organisations, the Learning and Skills Council, sector skills councils, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, the Skills Funding Agency or SFA, which would later become the ESFA, or Education and Skills Funding Agency, and most recently LSIPs—local skills improvement partnerships—and IfATE.

Pam Cox (Labour, Colchester)

rose—

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I have missed one!

Pam Cox (Labour, Colchester)

The right hon. Member has missed one: the Statute of Artificers 1563, known as the Statute of Apprenticeships. We have been trying to do this for many centuries, and it is only right that each generation tries to do so. We are still not getting it right for our young people, hence the need for speed.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I am very grateful; who knows where this conversation might take us? Last time I looked, 1563 was not in the past five decades. The hon. Lady says that every generation should try to reform, and that may well be true. I do not know how many generations she calculates there are in a 50-year period, but as sure as anything, there are not 12, let alone 13.

Those many bodies over the years have been mirrored by a true panoply of qualifications and awards: traditional apprenticeships; modern apprenticeships; the YOP or youth opportunities programme; the YTS, or youth training scheme; City and Guilds; the TVEI, or training and vocational education initiative; the NCVQ or National Council for Vocational Qualifications; NVQs or national vocational qualifications, which are still in use; GNVQs, or general national vocational qualifications, which became BTECs and diplomas; the 14-to-19 diplomas, which are not quite the same thing as the Tomlinson diplomas; Skills for Life; traineeships; and all together between 100 and 200 recognised awards and organisations, excluding those that do only end-point assessments.

Peter Swallow (Labour, Bracknell)

rose—

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I have not forgotten another one, have I?

Peter Swallow (Labour, Bracknell)

I simply wish to say to the right hon. Member that it was not too long ago when he was on the Government Benches and presiding over the very system in question. As he has helpfully elucidated for everyone, we are dealing with an incredibly fractured landscape, which is precisely the challenge that the Bill proposes to address. In all frankness, given the fractured nature of the landscape, which he eloquently identified, should he not support any attempt to bring it together?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

Yes, but the Bill does not do that, and if the hon. Member thinks it does, I am afraid he is mistaken.

Some years ago, I used to sit on the Government Benches and was a Minister at the Department for Education, as the hon. Member said, and on many occasions I have had a close interest in these areas. There was a cross-party coming together in the early to mid-2010s, which resulted in the Sainsbury report. The noble Lord Sainsbury, as the hon. Member may know, is a Labour peer who devoted a great deal of his life and the work of his foundation, the Gatsby Foundation, to trying to improve something that in this country, historically and by international comparison, we have not been tremendously good at: technical and vocational education and training. The Independent Panel on Technical Education, which convened in 2015 to 2016, took a broad overview of exactly the fractured landscape that the hon. Member talked about. By the way, I have missed out the page of my notes where I was going to go through all the qualifications that someone could do at level 3 to age 18, which is a similarly sized list.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

Will the right hon. Member give way?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I had probably better go on a little, but I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I promise that the Committee will have a chance so to do.

Unsurprisingly, that panel found that the technical and vocational education and training landscape in this country was over-complex. The example of plumbing was given, with 33 different qualifications that a young person could decide to do. Moreover, the panel found that the system was not providing for the skills that the country needed and that the technical and vocational education and training had become “divorced” from the occupations that they were there to serve, with no or weak requirements to meet employers’ actual needs.

The Sainsbury report, published in April 2016, set out a blueprint for what would be a major upgrade and simplification of technical and vocational education and training, to address the productivity gap in this country—we talk about this sometimes; there has been a productivity gap every year I have been alive, and I am in my mid-50s today—and indeed a major social justice gap. Although it was a blueprint, it was also a redprint because it had cross-party support. It called for a fundamental shift in how we did technical and vocational education, with coherent routeways from level 2 through to level 5 along 15 different sector routes, three of which would be apprenticeship only, through to 35 different pathways mapped as specific occupations—specific needs of the economy and companies.

For the three routes that were not apprenticeship-only, there would be both an apprenticeship track and a college track, but critically, there would be common standards for both, with the same or equivalent knowledge, skills and behaviours. It was not an attempt to merge the academic and the vocational. The leading systems in the world—those that everybody looks up to for the quality of their vocational education—do not merge the two routes; they keep them separate, but both are just as exacting and high-quality.

Why is this relevant to today’s debate? It is because the independent IfATE was central to this vision. It built on the existing Institute for Apprenticeships, combining it with the college route and ensuring that employers had a central role in setting the standards, skills and behaviours that people would need. The Sainsbury report was clear that specifying standards is not a role for officials in central Government but for professionals working in the relevant occupations, supported by education professionals.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I, too, pay tribute to the work of Lord Sainsbury. Those points, which were inserted into what were then called the Sainsbury routes, drew on the experience of the best technical systems in the world, particularly those in Germany and Switzerland. What characterises those systems is the unbelievable level of employer ownership and the incredible constancy of the organisations, which are external to Government, that run them. The Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung has been around for, I think, 50 or 60 years. Are those not the characteristics of a good system—employer ownership and independence—and the things that Lord Sainsbury was talking about?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

My hon. Friend is right. If we take the full etymology, we can go back a lot further, to the creation of guilds centuries ago, which evolved into the modern system.

Laurence Turner (Labour, Birmingham Northfield)

I have enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s recapitulation of the history. In the last Parliament, I attended meetings of the UK shipbuilding skills taskforce, which was sponsored by the Department for Education, and considered these matters in respect of that industry quite closely. Employers and employee representatives were unanimous that the GCSE entry standard requirements should be removed in that industry, but the inclusion of that recommendation was blocked because, we were given to understand, it would not be supported by DFE Ministers. Does he share my concern that the independence of the current system is more claimed than real?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

No, I do not, but there is a definition of what an apprenticeship is. There are perfectly good reasons to have all manner of training courses, including entry-level ones, that do important things, but they are not apprenticeships. The shadow Minister talked about Germany. In our country, the minimum length of an apprenticeship is shorter than the typical length of one in Germany. The time off the job—the time in college—is shorter. As I say, we can add on other things, but we cannot stretch the definition of what an apprenticeship is indefinitely. I may come back to that later.

On the face of it, this is a simple Bill—it has 13 pages and is on a simple subject—so it should be fairly easy for a Committee to dispatch in a couple of Thursdays. I have no doubt that Government Members will take the opportunity to make speeches on this subject, and I am sure those will be rather good. Members may make what could be described as great speeches and what they say will be largely unarguable. I fancy that we may hear the word “mission” from them, perhaps even more than once. They will talk about the importance of skills in our economy, investing in the next generation, valuing every single person for what they can do and the value of joining-up across Government Departments.

That will all be correct, but it will be largely beside the point. To turn a great speech that includes those things into a truly outstanding speech in this Committee, they would have to explain why taking away the independence of the body overseeing the system that upholds the standards would make those entirely laudable and shared goals more likely to come about. I know of no reason to believe that it will, but I am keen to hear from anybody who has such an idea.

In the Labour manifesto, there were some very laudable aims. It said that it wanted to empower

“local communities to develop the skills people need”

and to

“put employers at the heart of our skills system.”

Labour said that it would

“establish Skills England to bring together business, training providers and unions with national and local government”,

in order to deliver its industrial strategy. The manifesto said:

“Skills England will formally work with the Migration Advisory Committee to make sure training in England accounts for the overall needs of the labour market”.

It mentioned a commitment to

“devolving adult skills funding to Combined Authorities…alongside a greater role in supporting people into work”,

and Labour will

“transform Further Education colleges into specialist Technical Excellence Colleges.”

There are different ways that those aims could be achieved, and I would argue that there are better ways. The Government could, for example, keep IfATE as the standard-setting and upholding body, and create a new, small body, possibly inside the Treasury, to assess the needs of the economy and allocate funds accordingly. They could also strengthen the powers of local skills improvement partnerships, working closely with devolved authorities and mayors, to ensure that what is delivered at a local level in individual colleges matches what the local economy needs. I would have probably chosen that architecture, but plenty of other variations are possible.

To be clear, the Bill does not do any of those things. It simply abolishes the independent body that convenes employers to set the standards and then uphold them, and it hands those powers to the Secretary of State. It does nothing else—I say that, but it is not totally clear to me what it does to Ofqual, and we may debate that when we get to clause 8. I suggest that the Bill presents two fundamental questions: first, about independence; and secondly, about who should set the expectations and standards in any given sector of work—should it be the employers in that sector or somebody else? We will come to that debate when we reach clauses 4 and 5.

Ultimately, this is about whether we believe enough in the phrase “parity of esteem” to do the things necessary to achieve it. As I said in the House the other day, parity of esteem is not something one can just “assert”, and it cannot be legislated for. We cannot pass a law to give something greater esteem. Esteem is in the eye of the esteemer and it can only be earned. In part, that comes from knowing that the qualifications of the technical and vocational strand in our country are just as rigorous and have the same integrity as the academic strand.

By the way, independence is not totally a left/right issue. There are plenty of people on the right of politics who share the Minister’s desire not to have independent bodies. There is a general “anti the quangos” strand, and I have some sympathy for that. By the way, a debate is going on at the moment about removing the independence of the national health service and bringing it into the Department of Health and Social Care. That can be argued both ways. On the one hand, it will be harder for the NHS to do some things, particularly what they call reconfigurations, when they become subject to political pressure. On the other hand, it can be argued that there should of course be direct control from a democratically elected Government over the most important institution in our country. However, I think an independent body for upholding standards in education is in a separate bracket.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the context in which this is happening matters? We are talking about getting rid of a prestigious and independent institution, and at the same time, T-levels will not do what Lord Sainsbury hoped they will do. They were supposed to replace the existing standards but, in fact, they will be just another thing in the alphabet soup. We are seeing apprenticeships being made shorter again, and we are going back towards shelf-stacking types of apprenticeships. The mood music is already pretty ominous, and that is against the backdrop of Ministers getting more power by taking this back into the Department and abolishing independence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an issue?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I do. Funnily enough, my hon. Friend anticipates my next paragraph. Any Government rightly want more young people to pass their GCSEs, get good A-levels, or start and complete apprenticeships. The truth is that the quickest way to have more people getting any qualification is to make it a bit easier, and there is plenty of history of that, I am afraid. The entry requirements or length could be reduced, the pass mark could be made lower, or the credits that count towards the outcome could be changed. One of the reasons we have independent bodies setting standards is so that that temptation cannot be succumbed to, and crucially, everybody can see that it cannot, so they can have total faith in the standards being upheld.

Essentially, the rationale for why there is an independent Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is the same one as why the Chancellor sets fiscal rules, or why Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent: it is specifically for the Government to keep themselves within certain tram lines. We do this for academic qualifications. I have asked the Minister this question I think three times, and I will ask it again today: it would not be acceptable, would it, to say, “I’m going to put the pass mark, standards and specification for A-levels in the hands of a Government Minister”? If that is not acceptable for A-levels, how can it possibly be acceptable for T-levels? And we still say that we believe in parity of esteem.

In the good, possibly great, speeches that we will hear from Government Members, one other thing they might say—in fact, they have already started to say it; they pre-empted me—is that apprenticeship starts have fallen since the peak, but that under this Government, they will rise. Well, of course they will rise. If we look at the time series over the last decade of apprenticeship starts, we are not comparing apples with apples; we are comparing apples with oranges, because we had major changes in what counts as an apprenticeship, with the move from frameworks to standards as well as the minimum duration and minimum time off the job.

In discussing the overall numbers, we should also mention that the falls were in the intermediate level and that there were rises in the advanced level, and especially in higher-level apprenticeships. If the specification is reduced, of course that will increase the numbers. To be fair, the Government are not waiting for Skills England. They have already been doing this, by bringing the minimum length down from 12 months to eight months. They have also announced what they are calling foundation apprenticeships, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what those are—they sound a bit like traineeships, but let us hear it—and crucially, whether they will count towards the number of apprenticeships that are being undertaken in the country.

At the heart of this is the question of independence, but there is a secondary question. If the body will not be fully independent—it will be part of the Government—what is the next best thing? If we want a body to work across Whitehall, linking up the industrial strategy, immigration and doubtless a number of missions, we have to think about where that will be most possible. I love the Department for Education—I do not want to get all sentimental, with everybody here, but I truly do. I think it is a wonderful Department; I love the people who work there and I loved the opportunity to work there myself. But if we want to get something done across Government, I have to say that, with the best will in the world, we cannot do it from a Department like the DFE. There are really only three places we can do it from—No. 10, the Cabinet Office and especially the Treasury—because those are the parts of Government, known as “the centre”, that have leverage over the other parts of Government to get things done. Therefore, if we are not to have Skills England as a truly independent body, I would argue that it is better placed in the Treasury or the Cabinet Office.

IfATE is legally established as a non-departmental public body, whereas Skills England, we are told, will be an Executive agency. As a non-departmental public body, IfATE has some independence from the DFE, because its functions and responsibilities have been set out in legislation, and that legislation has been approved by Parliament. Skills England will instead be a team within the Department for Education. Its functions and responsibilities are not laid out in this Bill and, to the best of my knowledge, will never be laid out in legislation that will be approved by Parliament.

IfATE decides how occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans get developed and approves them; manages the licensing of awarding bodies for T-levels; and commissions development of technical qualifications and approves higher technical qualifications. At the time of the King’s Speech, No. 10 said that a Skills England Bill would

“transfer functions from IfATE to Skills England”,

suggesting that Skills England would have a statutory footing of its own, but in transferring powers from IfATE and abolishing it, the Bill simply moves all its functions to the Secretary of State.

The shadow Minister has said that there are 90 mentions of the Secretary of State in the Bill. There is now a grand total of two mentions of Skills England in the Bill but, for both of them, we have our friends in the other place to thank. Originally, Skills England did not warrant a mention in the Bill at all. It now appears in clauses 9 and 12, thanks to amendments in the other place. The Committee will come, in time, to what was Lords amendment 7 and is now clause 9, and no doubt the Minister will say, “This sets out everything you need to know about Skills England.” In fact, it is only a requirement for a report to be made about what functions will be exercised; there is not a statement in the Bill of what those functions will be. It is legislating for us to be told at some point in the future what the Government intend to do.

The title of clause 9 is itself telling, because it refers to a report on

“the Secretary of State’s functions”,

not Skills England’s functions. It just says that the Secretary of State will tell us which of her functions she has decided to give to another body—Skills England. However, we need to bear it in mind that we are legislating here. This will be primary legislation—an Act of Parliament. It will not be there for the duration of one Secretary of State at the DFE or even one Government; it will be the law of the land. This Secretary of State or any future Secretary of State could simply change their mind about what the role of Skills England should be.

I have grave reservations about what the Government are seeking to do and what they really, ultimately, are seeking to do. As with so many things that we talk about in these Committee rooms, there is a lot of commonality in what we would like to see. We would like to see every individual in our country being able to fulfil their potential. We want growth in the economy; we want productivity gains. However, I have serious doubts that this new body, which is not even a quango, is the way to get there.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

Hon. Members have given me much to think about and feed back. I remind Opposition Members that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, a third of vacancies in our country are due to a lack of skills, and many people are in jobs for which they are underqualified. Young people need to know that when they undertake skills training, there will be a guaranteed job at the end of the process. We are committed to ensuring growth in this country. We want to get young people into work to ensure that they succeed and progress in life. We absolutely know that what we are trying to achieve with Skills England is the right thing to do.

I will attempt to respond to the various points that hon. Members have made. There have been previous arm’s length bodies with functions partially linked to those intended for Skills England, but none provides a direct comparison, given Skills England’s distinct remit.

Establishing Skills England is a manifesto commitment, and will support the delivery of the Government’s missions. As an Executive agency, Skills England will be subject to clear requirements on governance, transparency and accountability, and Ministers will be accountable to Parliament. The Government have put in the Bill a duty for the Secretary of State to publish information about matters they will take into account in deciding whether to prepare a standard or apprenticeship assessment plan without a group of persons. This new power will therefore be subject to the same level of transparency as existing powers being transferred from IfATE.

An Executive agency is a widely used model of arm’s length body. It has a clearly defined status and must be established and governed in line with official Cabinet Office guidance. Executive agencies are appropriate for the delivery of specialised functions separate from a primarily policy-focused Department, but within a policy and resources framework set by the Department, and for delivery of services to other parts of central Government using specialist skills. The Executive agency model will give Skills England the independence to focus on the delivery of its functions at arm’s length from the Department for Education, while ensuring sufficient proximity to the Department that Skills England can quickly and efficiently inform decisions on skills policy and delivery.

Skills England is operating in shadow form and is working extremely closely with IfATE, which also currently has a base in Sanctuary Buildings—the Department for Education. Following a vigorous recruitment process, in line with civil service guidance, we have appointed Skills England’s chief executive officers. Tessa Griffiths and Sarah Maclean have been appointed co-CEOs. They are senior leaders with long-standing experience in the public sector. Tessa and Sarah have been leading Skills England while it has been in shadow form, since last summer. They have driven the rapid progress that has seen Skills England start to deliver its important work ahead of the passing of this Bill. We do not believe in delay; we want to get on with establishing Skills England as an arm’s length body.

Skills England’s being run by CEOs at civil service director level is consistent with the approach taken by IfATE and other Executive agencies of the Department for Education. It is really important that I make those points so that there is a clear understanding of what is happening.

We considered, but ultimately decided against, expanding or otherwise retaining IfATE. We want to set Skills England up to build on IfATE’s work with employers, and to shape technical education and apprenticeships, but it will be very different from IfATE. It will have a much broader remit and will be more ambitious. It will bring IfATE’s functions together with others that are not currently in statute. We need to go further and do more to identify skills needs and work with regional partners to ensure they are being met. By bringing together those different functions into a single organisation, we will really be able to accelerate change. That will help the skills system to be more responsive to emerging skills needs. We need a flexible system that acts fast on the best available evidence to address the skills gaps that threaten to hold back our country. I am sure none of us wants to do that.

IfATE has worked with employers to design over 700 occupational standards. Skills England will build on that important work and retain a strong role for employers. But the skills system in England has matured since IfATE was created in 2017, and the scale and urgency of the skills challenge that we face means we need a new approach.

The Government are committed to delivering skills for the sector, as I have already pointed out, and we are listening to the needs of employers. This can be seen in our reform, growth and skills offer. Skills England will build on the work of IfATE and employers will continue to play a critical role in the design and delivery of apprenticeships and technical education. Indeed, that is already happening. The changes being brought about through the Bill have been designed in response to employer feedback and will simply mean that employers are not overburdened by repetitive and drawn-out processes, which we know can lead to disengagement.

I welcome the written submissions from the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Association of Colleges, JTL Training and the Royal Society of Chemistry. I thank those organisations for contributing to this important debate. I completely agree with the Institute of the Motor Industry’s view that Skills England must maintain an “employer-led ethos” with “strong industry collaboration”. That is why Skills England is already working, and will continue to work, closely with industry, while also building a clear picture of the challenges facing employers, including regional skills gaps, in order to support growth in our skills sector.

It is pleasing to hear the Association of Colleges, which represents more than 98% of further education colleges, express strong support for plans to establish Skills England and recognise the critical role that Skills England will play in the Government’s broader post-16 education and skills agenda.

Although many Members of the other place support the aims of Skills England, it is disappointing that peers voted for an amendment that would delay its full establishment. The Government are clear that employers need a fully formed Skills England now; they cannot wait. That is why we have tabled amendment 1 to overturn that amendment made in the other place.

Gaps in our economy are holding back growth and opportunity. We need the Bill to give Skills England the key tools that it needs to tackle them now, and not in 12 months’ time. Skills England has been operating in shadow form since July. Due to extensive transition planning over several months, it is ready to move fast to deliver the functions made possible by the Bill. Delay simply is not an option.

With regard to whether employers can spend up to 50% of levy funds on non-apprenticeship training, I do not want to put a target or limit on flexibility. It will be led by what employers need and driven by Skills England analysis. We have already introduced flexibility through new foundation and shorter apprenticeships, and we will continue to work with employers to understand where future flexibility will be most helpful.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

The Minister says she does not want to set a limit, but there was a commitment from the Secretary of State that employers would be able to spend up to 50% of their funds on non-apprenticeships. That was a Labour commitment. If I understand her, it will no longer be up to 50%; it will be some other number. Or is she saying that it will be up to 100%? Which of those things is she saying?

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

What I am saying is that we have already introduced flexibility and we will continue to work with employers to understand where future flexibility will be most helpful. That will be worked through with Skills England. I am happy to get the hon. Member some further information.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

No, I think I have said enough on that point.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

But we are completely unclear.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. The Minister is not giving way. As the shadow Minister knows, in Committee people may speak more than once in a debate, so if he wishes to come back after the Minister has sat down, he is free to do so.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

We are not centralising regulation of technical qualifications akin to IfATE. Skills England will operate independently of the Department for Education and will continue to work with IfATE to develop occupational standards. Skills England will have a new and transformative role in the skills system and will work closely with, but not duplicate, the role of the Department or regulators such as Ofqual or the Office for Students.

Ofqual is an independent expert regulator of qualifications and assessments for England and makes judgments about the quality of qualifications, be they technical or academic. Ofqual already provides some regulatory oversight of technical qualifications to secure the standards of all qualifications, and it will play a key role in reviewing assessment materials ahead of approval. We are introducing the possibility that Ofqual can accredit technical qualifications in the same way as it is able to do for academic qualifications.

No redundancies are planned for IfATE staff. Trade unions have been fully consulted on the processes to ensure a smooth transition of staff out of IfATE, and will continue to be engaged. IfATE occupies sites in London and Coventry, and is co-located with the Department for Education at several sites around the country on a fair-use basis. We expect IfATE’s property licences to be transferred to the Department for Education at the point it is abolished. Decisions on precisely where Skills England staff will be located will be taken in line with the wider Government estates strategy and Places for Growth principles. Across all its offices, Skills England will forge close relationships with partners up and down the country.

Detailed transition planning has already taken place to ensure that the functions moving into Skills England from IfATE will transfer smoothly, with no breaks in service. We have an agreed approach to the continued delivery of technical qualifications and apprenticeships, and the implications for contracts, assets and liabilities have all been worked through. We are attempting to make this as seamless as possible.

The planned continuity in staffing and team structures will ensure that occupational standards, apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications will continue to be approved and T-level contracts will continue to be delivered, supported and monitored. This approach will also ensure that Skills England retains the vital links with employers and other partners that IfATE teams have previously established. Those insights will continue to inform the apprenticeships and technical qualifications that are needed, now and in the future. That work will be significantly enhanced by the closer links that will be created to the analytical and regional functions of the new organisation.

I urge the Committee to support clauses 1 to 3 and schedules 1 to 3.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

We have mysteries wrapped in mysteries here. As well as the lack of clarity about the future caused by the Bill, even in this debate on one group of clauses, we have had an extraordinary statement by the Minister. Businesses would like to know how, in just a few months’ time—next year—they will be able to spend a couple of billion pounds of their own money. This is employers’ money. Labour have oscillated between, “We will let 50% of this go on other things”, “No, we will not” and, since being in government, “We are reviewing this. This is not our policy any more.” On the Floor of the House, the Secretary of State has been saying, “No, it is absolutely our policy—50%. That is the number.” That is what she has told the House. Now we have another position—a fifth—on the spending of this money: “No, that is not the number any more.”

Employers will be jaw-to-the-floor agog at what is going on in the DFE. What is the policy? This is billions of pounds of employers’ money, in a difficult economic situation, being spent imminently, and yet the DFE cannot say—the Minister literally would not take a further question on it—what the policy is. What an extraordinary situation. What a shameful situation. Unbelievable.

We have been saying that, down the line, there might be some things to worry about in this transfer of power away from an employer-led and independent system towards the tender mercies of the DFE, but employers have got something to worry about right now. The Government do not seem to know what their own policies are. On that basis, I really do want to press clause 1 to a vote, and we will vote against it.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

We have been listening to businesses and employers, and they are absolutely telling us that they want greater flexibility in our apprenticeship systems and in how employers can spend their levy funds. We are reforming apprenticeships to deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers, including through shorter and foundation apprenticeships. I have attempted to answer the shadow Minister’s questions, but he is not satisfied. I have also offered to ensure that we get some more information. I want to make one more point: we are not putting a target or limit on flexibility; this will be led by what employers need.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I am not asking for a target; that is a complete mischaracterisation. I am asking for clarity on the Government’s own policy. The Government said that that they would allow employers to take up to 50% of the money and spend it on things that were not apprenticeships. Either that is still the policy or it is no longer the policy. Which of those two things is the truth?

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. I will make sure there is a written response.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Absolutely unreal.

Clause 4 - Preparation of standards

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 4, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(3B) A group of persons under subsection (3) must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(3B) When approving a standard under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable requirements of—

(a) industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and

(b) persons who may wish to undertake education and training.”

Clause stand part.

Amendment 5, in clause 5, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(6B) A group of persons under subsection (6) must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”

Amendment 6, in clause 5, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(6B) When approving a standard under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable requirements of—

(a) industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and

(b) persons who may wish to undertake education and training.”

Clause 5 stand part.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Clauses 4 and 5, to which our amendments apply, allow the Secretary of State to prepare, respectively, either a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan on her own. She can do that as long as she is satisfied that it would be more appropriate for the standard to be prepared by the Secretary of State rather than a group of persons. The Government say that a group of persons will normally be consulted, but the Bill does not specify who will be consulted when it refers to “a group of persons”. That lack of detail is concerning, and our amendments seek to rectify it.

In its written evidence to the Committee, the Royal Society of Chemistry said that it feels that

“some of the mechanisms put in place by IfATE should be retained. The concept of engaging with employers and other stakeholders in relationship to development of apprenticeship standards and technical qualifications is well founded and valuable.”

One of the central pillars of IfATE was its focus on employer and business needs to create and maintain suitable qualifications to equip people for the world of work. As such, we recognise the importance of keeping that focus to ensure that businesses can still trust the qualifications, so that they continue to invest in the future generation of employees.

The Bill, however, gives very wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State without maintaining those clear external links and the accountability that they help to provide. That is potentially damaging to the status of these qualifications. Amendment 3 states:

“A group of persons under subsection (3) must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”

Amendment 4 says:

“When approving a standard under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable requirements of—

(a) industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and

(b) persons who may wish to undertake education and training.”

I will not read out amendments 5 and 6 because they just repeat the same things in relation to clause 5.

One would think that the amendments are pretty uncontentious, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept them. It is not at all obvious to me why they would be any problem, but the Minister in the Lords seemed resistant to these ideas, arguing that this would be a “constraint in the system” that would slow down “groups coming together”. It is not at all obvious to me why it would slow things down.

The power to make standards and assessment plans alone is not something that we would ever accept for academic qualifications. The Secretary of State would not be allowed to write the national curriculum for, let us say, GCSE Geography and then take on the role of the examining boards—OCR, Cambridge Assessment or whatever—and turn it into a specification. We would not accept it if she took on the role of Ofqual and was in charge of marking her own homework and deciding whether the standards were comparable to similar things. Yet, under the Bill, that is exactly what we will be able to do on the technical side. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out earlier, this is another difference in parity of esteem between the technical and academic sides. The Secretary of State will be able to be judge, jury and executioner in this legislation.

When asked for an example of when the Secretary of State’s power to go it alone and write things herself will be used, the skills Minister told peers that it could be used to

“update standards for emerging or rapidly developing occupations, such as those in the digital sector.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC108.]

Personally, I do not find that very reassuring. Having seen Governments and civil servants struggling with the implications of new technologies, it might be an example of where there is more cause to work with others who know the industry well rather than go it alone. I am not sure that that is the example that I would pick to show why this is a good idea. The Cross-Bench peer Baroness Wolf noted:

“I was staggered when I was working as an expert adviser in government to discover, for example, that most people in the apprenticeship division in the DfE had been in their jobs for only a couple of years. There were some wonderful people, but there was no real collective memory of why things had gone wrong before. That is why you have to make it clear in legislation that, as Skills England goes forward and as, particularly in this context, its apprenticeship functions go forward, it has to involve everybody, even though it takes longer”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC104.]

All of this matters because the framework document, which has now been published and which I have here, is at best vague and at worst silent on the involvement of employers. There are some vague statements in the section on aims. It says that employers will be engaged in the preparation of standards and so on, but it does not say how. The rest of the document does not refer to this. The section on the responsibilities of the chief executive focuses just on their role as the accounting officer, in relation to the board and in relation to their responsibilities to the Department for Education. There is no mention of employers. There is no explicit reference in the section on the purposes of the new agency; there is just the reference that I have mentioned. If I were an employer, I might be concerned by that. We have this strange proposal that the Secretary of State will just be allowed to write everything herself, whenever she believes that it is advantageous to do so.

With our amendments, we are not trying to stop that, although we are very sceptical about it. We are just trying to specify the sorts of people who will be involved. It is our way of encouraging the Government to be much clearer than they have been, in the framework document or anywhere else, about how they will maintain IfATE’s focus on involving employers in drawing such things up; that was really its purpose. Our concern is to ensure that politicians who have some foible of their own—some idea or bee in their bonnet—do not impose what they want without listening to industry. That might not be current Ministers; it might be future Ministers. That is why we tabled these amendments. Perhaps the Minister will reassure us on that point, and perhaps she will even accept the amendments.

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Labour, Lewisham East)

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Labour, Lewisham East)

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I may or may not.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

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.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

The Minister talks about using this power where there is “undue delay”. What is an undue delay? What would be too long, roughly?

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

One reason why we have this Bill is because we recognise that the skillset is changing very quickly, and we in England need to keep up with that. Therefore, we must ensure that there is no delay so that people have the skills to get into the jobs that are required. We have a skill shortage and we need to respond, and the Bill enables us to do that. We want to avoid delays so that the standards can be set and things can be done in a manner that enables people to undertake the training they need.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

The Minister is worried about undue delays, but what is the timeframe for an undue delay? Is she worried that something will be held up by a week or a month?

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

If the shadow Minister will bear with me, I will present an example scenario, from which I hope he will recognise that there could be delays in some niche situations. Scenarios in which it is likely to be appropriate for the Secretary of State to use the power to prepare a standard or assessment plan are those where using the group would be disproportionately onerous; where it would be unnecessary, because only simple corrections were required; or where it could create undue delays, as I have said. That might include creating or updating standards to align with industry-recognised qualifications or statutory requirements.

For example, the dental hygienist occupation is regulated by the General Dental Council. That means that competence is tightly defined and does not need to be separately considered by a group of persons approved by IfATE. However, the current legislation means that a group of persons must be in place to prepare the standard, despite that being unnecessary and duplicative. With regard to assessment plans, the nuclear industry provides an example of where there is strong support for apprenticeships but limited capacity to engage in the development of multiple training products simultaneously.

As I have outlined, clauses 4 and 5 make crucial changes to bring flexibility to support employers and other experts to engage in the design of apprenticeships and technical education in a proportionate way, by focusing their time and effort where it is most needed. I therefore ask the Committee to support these clauses.

Amendments 3 and 5 would prescribe in legislation a particular type of person to be included in a group of persons to prepare a standard or an assessment plan. These matters were raised several times in the other place. Our position remains clear: specifying criteria in primary legislation would introduce new and unnecessary constraints on the structure of groups, prioritising the expertise of certain types of organisation above others. It would make the process for forming groups slower and more onerous, reducing the speed with which important skills gaps are plugged. Delays are not in anyone’s interest, not least learners or employers.

The existing legislation does not include criteria on how a group is formed to prepare a standard or an assessment plan, or who specifically should form part of a group. Different expert voices have a role to play in different circumstances. IfATE is under an existing duty to publish information about matters that it will consider when deciding whether to approve groups of persons responsible for preparing a standard or an assessment plan. That, in effect, shapes how a group is convened and which types of organisations most commonly participate. This ensures that groups are inclusive and independent, and the existing duty is being transferred to the Secretary of State unchanged. Flexibility is essential to ensure that a group of persons always reflects the particular circumstances that require it to be formed.

Amendments 4 and 6 would create a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the reasonable requirements of industry and those who may wish to undertake training when considering whether to approve a standard or assessment plan, where it has been developed by a group of persons. The Secretary of State is already subject to a general public law duty, which requires them to take into account all the relevant considerations before taking decisions relating to the functions for which they are responsible. There is therefore already a requirement that, when executing the functions described in the Bill, the Secretary of State considers and balances the needs of different users of the system, such as those outlined in the amendments. In fact, the public law duty is broader than the factors listed in the amendments, and it includes consideration of value for money and quality.

I assure Members that the consultative approach taken by IfATE to developing standards will not change as a result of the Bill transferring functions to the Secretary of State. New standards and those that have undergone material revisions will continue to be published online for comment from any interested parties before approval, and existing duties to publish information about matters that will be considered when approving groups and standards will transfer from IfATE to the Secretary of State unamended.

Amendments 4 and 6 are therefore duplicative of existing duties on the Secretary of State, which will be fulfilled by Skills England. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston not to press the amendments.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I can hear that there is a case for some of the Minister’s arguments. Where there are only minor or technical changes, I understand the point about not needing a group of people. However, I have not heard anywhere in the Minister’s comments, or in the other place, any sense that there would be some great delay or problem introduced by talking to people in industry. That shred of evidence has never been produced during this process.

But it is clear that the Minister’s intent is not just that. This will be not just be about situations where there are minor or technical changes or a very clear third party body, as in the dentistry example. There are other examples, including the tech sector, where we hear the comment, “We want to be able to do things really quickly.” I can see the attraction politically of a dynamic young Minister wanting to come up with some new whizzy thing. That is exactly where problems come in. We also heard the example about the nuclear industry, where it was said, “The industry is not able to participate in drawing up the standards for itself. Therefore, we will just crack on with it without them.” What a curious argument, and it is not a reassuring one, particularly for something as serious as the nuclear industry.

I am keen to press our amendment 4 to a vote. I hope that Ministers will reflect further on the whole run of what the Government have been doing on apprenticeships. Combined with what is happening with IfATE, that is causing a lot of concern.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

It might be helpful for the hon. Member to know that where an occupation is regulated, the requirements for assessing competence are tightly defined and cannot be deviated from. For example, for the paramedic apprenticeship, where the occupation is regulated by the Health and Care Professions Council, it is not necessary for a group in such circumstances to prepare a standard, and the process for producing an assessment plan would therefore be significantly sped up by not requiring a group of persons to form and undertake the work. Existing legislation means that a group of persons would still need to be in place in such instances, which is unnecessary and duplicative in practice.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Labour, Lewisham East)

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.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

This clause could be drafted very differently. It could say that where there are only minor or technical amendments to be made, or where we have a clear judgment from a single professional body about what is needed, the Secretary of State can prepare a standard. But that is not what it says—it just says that they can prepare the standard

“if satisfied that it would be more appropriate”.

There is no constraint on this other than the Secretary of State’s judgment—not even any lists of instances or types of things that it would apply to.

The Minister has just given us another good example of that: she says that the Secretary of State might want to create a standard when there is a new industry. Why on earth would they not want to speak to some people in an emerging sector, be it technology or anything else? It is a very strange argument to make for the open-ended nature of the clause as drafted.

We have all made our point. The Minister understands the argument we are making. The Government clearly want the power to be more expansive than we think is sensible. I am keen to press amendment 4 to a vote for that reason, and we will have to agree to disagree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 6 - Reviews

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

Clause 6 amends the requirement to review technical education qualifications, standards and apprenticeship assessment plans at regular and published intervals by removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted.

There is no change to the broader review requirement. The Secretary of State will still be required to maintain arrangements to review approved technical education qualifications, standards and apprenticeship assessment plans with a view to determining whether they should be revised, be withdrawn or should continue to be approved. Removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted will allow the Secretary of State to determine when reviews of technical education qualifications, standards and apprenticeship assessment plans should be carried out based on need, rather than a fixed review point.

The clause will allow the Secretary of State to review technical education qualifications and over 700 high-quality occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans more frequently where occupations evolve quickly, such as in digital. That will ensure that technical education qualifications, standards and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept up to date, coherent and relevant. It will also allow the Secretary of State to take a targeted approach to reviews, tackling issues such as low achievement rates and out-of-date knowledge, behaviours and skills.

Without the clause, technical education qualifications, standards and apprenticeship assessment plans would need to be reviewed at published intervals rather than based on need. That would prevent resources being deployed effectively to ensure that technical education qualifications, standards or apprenticeship assessment plans are kept relevant and up to date as required.

For example, training providers and assessment organisations have reported difficulties with delivering the installation and maintenance electrician and domestic electrician apprenticeships. Both are focused on critical occupations in priority sectors and in delivering the Government’s home building target. In such instances, revision of the standards and assessment plans is likely to be needed before a fixed review point. The clause means that issues can be addressed quickly to support improved delivery of apprenticeships for the benefit of delivery partners and learners, and I commend it to the Committee.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

This is one of the strangest bits of the Bill. It is pretty baffling why the Government do not want to regularly review the approval of technical educational qualifications. Without rigorous independent oversight, there is obviously a risk that standards for technical qualifications could be lowered or might not stay as relevant as possible.

In its written evidence, the Royal Society of Chemistry stated:

“We have concerns about the removal of structured reviews of standards. The very nature of sectors such as science mean the skills required evolve quickly. Not reviewing the necessary skills that apprentices need to carry out roles will be detrimental to the workforce and certainly narrow the opportunities for those apprentices in the long term.”

We also have concerns about the clause, which deletes the requirement that things are updated “at regular intervals”. It is not the most arduous requirement of all time on Government, but regular reviews are not just a bureaucratic exercise. They guard against complacency and stagnation, and ensure that technical qualification standards stay fit for purpose. Without that, there is a risk that they become less and less relevant to the needs of employers and learners.

This also sets up a slightly strange conflict. Are the Government not placing an undue burden on those who are directly involved in the design and delivery of standards to act as their own assessors? That lack of external scrutiny could lead to a decline of trust among stakeholders, both learner and employer.

I do not understand, from what the Minister has said, why the Government think that this level of scrutiny is too much. The requirement is to update things “at regular intervals”—it does not say “every two weeks” or “every six months”. It says regularly. This is not a wild bureaucratic requirement to keep things up to date. I do not understand why this is a thing that must be zapped. As far as I can see, the only golden thread running through DFE legislation at the moment is a sort of maximisation of the power of officials and the minimisation of any constraints on them.

I do not understand why the clause is necessary. I understand that in some areas, the review might be very light touch—there might be a review and the decision is not to do anything. On Second Reading, the Minister committed to publishing information about the intervals for review. What will they be? What is the plan? If we are getting rid of the requirement for regular reviews, how often will they be? What is the process of review going to look like? Independent reviews can provide very valuable feedback to policymakers and training providers, which may not necessarily be obvious to Ministers who do not follow the ins and outs of an industry every single day.

Clause 6 risks eroding the quality of and confidence in technical education qualifications. By removing a statutory requirement for independent review, we risk reducing the rigour that that brings, as learned bodies such as the Royal Society of Chemistry have pointed out. I just do not understand what problem Ministers are trying to solve by getting rid of a simple and basic requirement to review things regularly.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

The Secretary of State will still be required to maintain arrangements to review approved technical education qualifications, standards and assessment plans, with a view to determining whether they should be revised or withdrawn and whether the qualification should continue to be approved. The current approach to review is rigid and burdensome, given the volume of standards available. More than 700 high-quality occupational standards are now available following the introduction of the first in 2014 and IfATE being established in 2017.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

The Minister says that this is an excessively onerous requirement. Could she give us some sense of the volume of work required as a result of this section in the 2009 Act? What does “onerous” mean? How many are having to devote how many man hours to doing what? How many people are employed purely to do what? What is the evidence that this is “onerous”?

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue a bit further, I will explain.

The current approach to review is too rigid and burdensome, given the volume of standards, assessment plans and technical education qualifications. It fails to recognise the differences in starts, achievement rates and rapid changes in skills needs, such as digital. Originally, it was expected that reviews would be carried out every three years, but with the proliferation of standards, assessment plans and technical education qualifications to review, IfATE was unable to maintain that cycle. Therefore, clause 6 will not remove the requirement of the Secretary of State to conduct reviews, but will allow them to be more targeted by prioritising reviews that are most needed rather than working to set intervals.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

The Government’s argument is that the requirement to review—they do not have to rewrite, just review—qualifications every three years is excessive. I wonder whether that is really excessive in the eyes of most of the users and employers involved in these schemes. Elsewhere we have seen bureaucratic collapse, with the Office for Students halting the accreditation of new higher education institutions. That is not a good thing. It is a problem that needs to be fixed, rather than an excuse to get rid of that requirement. It is the same with clause 6. The Government are making a mistake on this, but we will not vote against it.

Clause 7 - Examinations by independent third parties

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause 8 stand part.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

Clause 7 amends the 2009 Act to substitute a requirement for independent third-party examination of all new standards and assessment plans for a discretionary power for the Secretary of State to make arrangements to do so. The default position will remain that the Secretary of State will make arrangements for independent third-party examination of new standards and assessment plans prior to their approval. The clause will provide an alternative approach in certain circumstances, where obtaining third-party examination is duplicative or not necessary.

We envisage scenarios where the Secretary of State is not likely to make arrangements for an examination. For example, in highly regulated occupations in the health sector, where the regulatory requirements for occupational competence must be reflected in the occupational standard and assessment plan, third-party review would be duplicative and an inefficient use of resources. Similarly, where a regulator is directly supporting the development of the occupational standard and apprenticeship assessment plan and can assure themselves that they will meet regulatory requirements, an independent third-party examination also becomes redundant.

The option not to arrange an independent third-party review may also be deployed where employers place a high value on a professional body’s mandated qualification or key skills and behaviour learning outcomes, and the occupational standard adopts this very closely, such as the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development and human resources standards. In such cases, an external review would be nugatory. That is also the case for emerging or highly specialised occupations, such as in the nuclear industry, where the group of persons preparing the industry represent the totality of interested parties. Without the clause, third-party examinations of all new standards and assessment plans would continue to be required in every instance, the delivery of which would not benefit the content but would act as a drain on time and resource.

Clause 8 enables Ofqual to determine whether there should be an accreditation requirement in relation to approved technical education qualifications or those that the Secretary of State is considering approving, where the Secretary of State has notified Ofqual that it may do so. At present, Ofqual is prevented from making determinations on accreditation for technical qualifications. That means that, in respect of accreditation, technical qualifications are treated differently from academic qualifications. The clause will change that and ensure greater parity by enabling the Secretary of State, if it is desirable, to create a route to accrediting technical qualifications.

Clause 8 provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to determine, should it be deemed appropriate, that an exception could be granted to Ofqual being prevented from accrediting approved technical education qualifications. That would also apply in respect of technical education qualifications that the Secretary of State is considering approving. It will mean that Ofqual could exercise its power to determine whether an accreditation requirement should apply to technical education qualifications, subject to appropriate consultation. The Secretary of State could use that power, for example, when they determine that there needs to be a consistent tool to secure quality across academic and technical qualifications when they are taken by the same cohort of students. Without this clause, Ofqual would be unable to accredit technical education qualifications that are approved or pending approval, even when the Secretary of State and Ofqual take the view that it would be advantageous for the skills system, employers and learners.

I commend clause 7 and 8 to the Committee and ask that they stand part of the Bill.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Labour, Lewisham East)

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Labour, Lewisham East)

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.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

So far in the debate on clause 7, we have not heard any examples of the requirement for an independent assessment causing a long delay. I thought the Minister would give us an example of the introduction of such and such a qualification being delayed for a year because of the requirement to get an independent view on it, or qualification x being introduced 18 months later than it should have been because of the requirement for an independent examination of whether it was legit. If she has examples of any such problems, I am happy to take an intervention from her.

The requirement for independent bodies is quite a big safeguard to remove. We have the same safeguard with double belt and braces on the academic side, but for some reason it is not needed on the technical side. I do not know why, but as ever, it is not going to go to the ball.

If the Minister has any examples of the requirement causing big delays and being so awful that she has to be nimble, swashbuckling and able to bang all these things through, I would love to hear them. So far, we have heard no such examples, either in the other place or here. For that reason, I am keen to vote against clause 7 stand part.

Clause 9 - Report on exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 9, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

“(c) the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions on the provision of level 7 apprenticeships in England”.

The Government are completely reversing the direction of apprenticeships policy. Where we lengthened apprenticeships, they have cut the length of an apprenticeship to eight months. By abolishing IfATE and bringing it in house at the Department for Education, they are eroding independence and employer ownership. Where we grew higher apprenticeships, they are planning to abolish many or maybe even most level 7 apprenticeships, which have been carefully built up over recent years. Amendment 7 would require a report on those level 7 apprenticeships.

For decades and decades, politicians have stood up and said that they wanted to make apprenticeships, and technical education generally, more prestigious. Parity of esteem—we have heard that speech a million times. The last Government did things to push in that direction. We have already talked about the move from frameworks to much more rigorous standards, with independent examinations at the end. That was part of it, and the other part was the growth in the number of higher apprenticeships. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went up from just over 3,000 in 2010 to 273,000 last year. That is a huge increase.

We have already mentioned the things this Government are doing that are not good for apprenticeship numbers: the £25 billion increase in national insurance at the Budget and the potential move of 50%—or some other number—of apprenticeship levy funds into other things. It is perfectly legitimate to argue that that is desirable, but it will not be good for apprenticeship numbers—once we find out what that number is.

To address the gap that Ministers are creating with the Budget and their decisions on moving money out of the apprenticeship levy to other things, the Government are doing two things. They are doing shorter apprenticeships; as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out, that is an echo of the old traineeships that did not work out so well. They are also trying to redistribute money from level 7 apprenticeships into other things, and they have repeatedly refused to rule out doing the same thing to level 6 apprenticeships.

The level 7 apprenticeships that the Government are planning to axe account for about 9% of apprenticeship spending, and about 7% of all starts. They are not a huge part of the system, but they are a big part, and a lot of good things will potentially be lost by abolishing them. Over the last seven years, almost 123,000 people have started a level 7 apprenticeship—that is a postgraduate level apprenticeship—with 24,000 people starting one in the last full year of the Conservative Government. It was ramping up quickly.

Of those who answered the Department for Education’s own apprenticeship evaluation in 2023, 48% of level 7 apprentices were first-generation students; their parents had not been to university. They were the first generation in their family to get university-level postgraduate qualifications, in their case not by going to university but via the apprenticeship route. We finally made it a highly prestigious route; we really did treat level 7 apprenticeships the same as university degrees.

Somone could go all the way to the top of the ladder using apprenticeships rather than going to university, and yet the Government were initially talking about axing pretty much all of them. The rhetoric seems to have been slightly tempered, and I hope we can temper it further. But they are still looking at axing some prestigious things, hence amendment 7.

Restricting level 7 apprenticeships will disproportionately impact on public services. For example, nearly half of chartered management apprentices, who are nearly all at level 7, work in the public sector. Dan Lally, the head of skills and employability at Sheffield Hallam University, said level 7 restrictions will

“disproportionately impact on public services…We are meeting vital skill gaps in disciplines such as Advanced Clinical Practitioner...these are NHS workers, civil servants and local authority employees. A high number of our L7 apprentices...come from the areas of highest deprivation”.

To give a specific example within public services, level 7 apprentices are absolutely central to the NHS’s own long-term workforce plan. Last year, we saw the Government’s very disappointing decision to cancel the level 7 doctor apprenticeships. Aside from the fact that we have taken out a route to the top professions for a group of people who might otherwise not be able to access them, it means that there will be a shortfall of around 2,000 medical places a year by 2031. The long-term workforce plan set out the need for 15,000 medical school places by 2031, of which 13% were going to be through apprenticeships. But the students who have already started on the medical doctor apprenticeship have been left in limbo.

That is the Government’s statement of intent: they have already done in the level 7 doctor apprenticeship, and I am concerned that as part of the review, which is about to be published any day now, they will do something similar to nurses. Again, the NHS workforce plan proposes to increase the total number of nurses by 170,000, so that the number reaches 550,000 by 2036. The plan set the ambition that 28% of nurses would come through the apprenticeship route—so about 50,000 of that 170,000. Of those, around a quarter—23%—of NHS nursing roles are at “Agenda for Change” band 7 or higher, which typically requires a master’s degree or equivalent. We would therefore expect around 11,000 of those extra nurses to be coming via level 7 apprenticeships. Getting rid of them would create a big hole in the NHS’s workforce plans. These are all specialist nursing qualifications that we need, such as school nursing, health visiting, advanced clinical practice and community nursing.

Like the NHS, local government makes substantial use of level 7 apprentices, including for the extra town planners that the Government say are needed to deliver on their housing targets. Deborah Johnston, the deputy vice chancellor of London South Bank University, says:

“Over half of the employers we work with…on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of increased demand and reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful.”

Outside the public sector, the professions are also worried. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that axing level 7 apprenticeships will lead to work leaving the UK altogether. It says that

“removing Level 7 apprenticeship funding will mean that fewer UK training roles are created. Instead, organisations are likely to turn to offshoring to replace UK training roles”.

The Chartered Management Institute states, of its profession, that

“cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships would risk creating gaps in leadership and technical expertise at a time when business and the public sector need them most.”

I have been contacted directly by firms that are worried about the abolition of the solicitor apprenticeship, which is a great way into the law, particularly for people from less privileged backgrounds, but more generally for people who do not want to run up a large amount of debt at university and instead want to earn and learn. One firm that is really worried about this—Bolt Burdon Kemp—told me:

“This will really impact social mobility into sectors like law, accountancy, and consulting. The traditional route into law is expensive and therefore without the apprenticeship scheme many would not be able to afford to do so. We also believe it will have a wider detrimental impact on the reputation of apprenticeships.”

That is right: by putting what might seem like the top of the pyramid on the system, we add to the prestige of the whole system. British Airways used to talk about the halo effect of Concorde: it changed the airline’s whole brand and the way it was seen more generally. Level 7 apprenticeships, as well as being useful and remunerative in their own right, also change the way apprenticeships are seen, in a way that all politicians have wanted for decades.

Similarly, Attwells Solicitors says:

“Reducing funding to level 7 apprentices runs the risk of removing opportunities into professions where a qualification equivalent to a master’s is mandatory”.

The firm adds:

“Reducing funding for level 7 apprentices will likely impact diversity and social mobility in professional careers such as Law…Apprenticeships help break down barriers into not only Law but all career paths which could be inaccessible to young people without them”.

Indeed, many of the areas where we currently have level 7 apprentices are things we are short of nationally. That is why the Campaign for Learning has called for a skills immigration worker test before defunding level 7 apprenticeships, so that we do not simply go from investing in British workers to importing workers from other countries to fill the hole. That is exactly the same point as was made by the Institute of Chartered Accountants: if we do not invest in people here, the work leaves, or we have to bring people in from elsewhere.

We think it is a big mistake to cull level 7 apprenticeships to fill a gap that the Government are creating through their own policies. Not only are those apprenticeships vital across the public sector, but they are a vital way into the professions for people who will otherwise struggle to enter. They are the capstone of the drive to make apprenticeships truly prestigious and to make them ladders that people can use to get all the way to the top.

To be self-critical for a moment, for some time we had a target of 300,000 apprenticeships, and I could see in Government how that created pressure to debase standards to hit a number. That happens all the time. Communist China would set a target to produce more nails, and billions of tiny, useless nails would be produced. Then a target would be set to produce a greater weight of nails, and people would produce a few massive nails, which would also be useless. Targetology is always dangerous; if we do not have the right institutions and the right independence, the short-termism of politicians can become a dangerous thing.

With level 7 apprenticeships, the situation is particularly frustrating because they have taken a lot of time and effort to set up, and a lot of hard labour has gone into them. Some of them have been real labours of love, particularly from professions where they think, “We do not want us all to be from very privileged backgrounds. We want someone who grew up on a council estate still to be able to be a solicitor, or to be whatever they want to be.”

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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—

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

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

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Labour, Lewisham East)

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.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

It seems like a strange argument, in response to a clause that requires the production of more evidence, to say, “It is all fine because Skills England will be so evidence-led.” That is the entire point of our amendment. I do not think the Government want to talk about what they are planning to do on level 7 apprenticeships, nor did we hear any attempt to describe what will, or will not, be done as part of the review from the Minister. Sometimes the silences in these discussions are as telling as everything else.

Quite a few of the organisations that are warning about the axing of level 7 apprenticeships also make the point, which I think is true, that this proposal will not do what Ministers hope. I think Ministers hope that it will move the resource to level 2 and 3 apprenticeships, and there is a perfectly good argument for trying to do more at those levels. That is why we brought in the 100% funding for small and medium-sized enterprises, for example, and we could go much further on that.

However, as numerous organisations and academics have pointed out, if we kibosh level 7, the first place that the money will probably go to is level 6. That is why we keep asking Ministers, without ever getting an answer, to rule out doing what they are planning to do to level 7 to level 6 as well. That is where the real money is; I think it is about 36% of all the funding, compared with 9%. I might be wrong about the exact numbers, but it is roughly that. If the Government actually want to prop up the system and offset some of the other things that they are doing, they probably will go after level 6 apprenticeships. But whenever we ask this in the Chamber or elsewhere, and say, “Will Ministers rule out kiboshing level 6 apprenticeships in the way that they are with level 7?”, we never get an answer. I invite the Minister again today to rule out axing level 6 apprenticeships in the way that they are doing with level 7.

I am very keen that we put this amendment to a vote. It is not good enough to say, “We are so evidence-led”, but then do something that is hasty, secret and is being advised against by many experts in the sector.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

Will the hon. Member give way?

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I would be delighted to. I hope that we will get an answer on that point about level 6: is the Minister going to rule out kiboshing level 6 in the way that she is doing with level 7?

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

I just thought I would help the hon. Member with his questions. Level 6 apprenticeships are indeed a core part of our apprenticeships offer, supporting growth and opportunity. We are reforming the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills offer to deliver greater flexibility for learners and, indeed, employers. Decisions on training and funding through the levy in future will be guided, of course, by Skills England.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I thank the Minister; I think that very clearly did not rule out the Government doing exactly what are doing to level 7 apprenticeships to level 6. It was not quite phrased in that way, but clearly Ministers are keeping their options open.

Given that Ministers are clearly looking to keep their options open, not just on level 7 but on level 6—which is very concerning, a backward step, and a real wrecking ball to a lot of the cross-party progress that has been made on apprenticeships over the past decade or more—I am even more keen that we have at least the report on the impact of what they are doing to level 7, so I am keen to put this amendment to a vote.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

Clause 9 contains a duty for the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament, within six months after the closure of IfATE, a report setting out which functions of the Bill are being exercised by Skills England, and the impact that the exercise of functions transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State has on apprenticeships and technical education in England.

As I indicated on Second Reading, it is anticipated that the functions being transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State relating to the development, approval, review and revision of apprenticeships and technical education qualifications will largely be exercised by Skills England, operating as an Executive agency. It is after having listened to, and acted on, the contributions made by peers in the other place, and their calls for greater transparency, that the Government have introduced this duty in the Bill. We have noted the broad support for Skills England throughout the passage of the Bill, and recognise that there is considerable interest in understanding exactly what it will do once it is fully formed.

This reporting requirement is in addition to a broader set of expectations placed on all Executive agencies, which Skills England will be required to meet, to provide transparency about their work and accountability for their performance. The reporting arrangements of Executive agencies are clearly defined. They must produce an annual corporate plan and an annual report, both of which will be published in respect of Skills England, subject to any commercial considerations in the corporate plan. Guidance dictates that corporate plans should include matters such as key objectives and performance targets, and assessment of current and recent performance against those targets.

Furthermore, governance arrangements for Skills England will be set out in a framework document, which is a core constitutional document that must be produced in line with guidance from HM Treasury. Skills England’s framework document will be agreed between its board and Ministers. Once finalised, it will be published online, and Ministers will deposit a copy in both Houses. Without clause 9, there would not be a requirement set out in legislation for the Secretary of State to report transparently on exactly which functions in the Bill Skills England is taking on.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Clause 9 has been included because of the level of disquiet about the Bill in the House of Lords. There was literally not even a mention of Skills England in the Bill when it was introduced. We will return to this issue when we debate new clause 1 from the Liberal Democrats, and our new clauses 2 and 3, in which I seek to put Skills England on to a statutory footing, or at least to put more of a clear legislative framework around it than we have currently. All we have at the moment is this report, which is pretty thin—I will not vote against clause 9 standing part, because it is better than absolutely nothing—and the framework, which, again, is very thin.

To be honest, it is less me who should worry about that and more Ministers, because I do not get from the proposals any great clarity on what they hope Skills England will do or how it will operate. Some degree of protection could be offered not just for employers, but for Ministers. This could offer some degree of insulation from these choices, so that the process does not become entirely politicised, but we have not yet got that. I hope that this report will be positive and the making of it will encourage the Government to clarify their thinking on what they are trying to achieve and how these new institutions in the DFE will work.

We will return to this issue on new clauses 1 to 3, so I will rest my remarks there, other than to ask the Minister for a sense of what she really sees as the big opportunity. It is very easy for Ministers to say, “We are going to bring everything together, it will all be in one place and we will have a great, coherent view over the whole system.” That is hard to object to in principle, but what are they minded to do as a result? Is there a big opportunity? Is it some new category of qualification, or some overlapping of qualification? They say they are going to look at everything together, which the DFE already does. There is a Department that can give an overarching view, and there is the centre of Government that can bring together the views of all the different Departments, so what is it that Ministers really hope Skills England can offer?

The Secretary of State will provide this report six months after Royal Assent, but I am interested in hearing from the Minister what she sees as the big opportunity. Other than saying, “It will be more joined up and we will look at everything together at a high level,” is there a specific thing that Ministers are hoping to do off the back of that machinery of government? This is a big thing; the Government’s impact assessment says that it will lead to delays and a fall in starts. Ministers could say that that is acceptable because there is some big prize at the end of the road, but what is the big prize?

I will not repeat all the quotes I have read out from former Labour Ministers and Labour peers in the other place worrying about what one of them called the lack of the second half of this Bill—the lack of the bit where we get to the setting up of Skills England. In particular, Lord Blunkett said that this was not quite what he expected. He thought that we would have what was promised in the King’s Speech—a Skills England Bill to set up the new, independent Skills England as a proper arm’s length body. I will not rehash all those things here, but I encourage the Minister to give us a sense of what she thinks the big opportunity is going to be, and what she will do as a result of the creation of Skills England.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Labour, Lewisham East)

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.

Clause 10 - Power to make consequential provision

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 10, page 4, line 32, at beginning insert—

“Subject to subsection (6),”.

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 9, in clause 10, page 4, line 34, at end insert—

“(6) For 6 months after the day on which this Act is passed, a statutory instrument to which subsection (5) applies may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”

Clause stand part.

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

Amendments 8 and 9 address a fundamental concern that we have with the Bill, which is the lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny. As drafted, clause 10 gives the Secretary of State sweeping powers to make consequential provisions through regulations. While statutory instruments containing regulations that amend primary legislation would require the affirmative procedure, all other regulations would be subject merely to the negative procedure. Amendments 8 and 9 together would ensure that, for the critical first six months after the Act passes—the period when the most significant consequential regulations are likely to be introduced—all such regulations would require the approval of both Houses of Parliament, regardless of whether they amend primary legislation.

The Committee should be concerned about this, because the Bill already centralises considerable power in the hands of Ministers, as we have discussed many times today. We know that the Government’s intention is for Skills England to be an Executive agency of the Department for Education, but without the safeguards that the amendments provide, Parliament would have limited oversight of the implementation of the transfer of IfATE’s functions to Skills England. That matters most during the transition period, which stakeholders as well the Government’s own analysis highlighted as being fraught with risk.

We have been given little detail about the governance structures of Skills England, its operational independence or its accountability mechanisms. Given that uncertainty, ensuring robust parliamentary scrutiny of the regulations that will shape its operation is not unreasonable.

The six-month period suggested in the amendment strikes a sensible balance and does not permanently encumber the regulatory process. However, it ensures that those critical early decisions about how the functions will operate receive proper scrutiny from both Houses. The amendments are about good governance. If the Government are confident of their approach to Skills England, they should welcome and not resist scrutiny.

I think we all agree that the skills system is important for our future. It would be disappointing if such fundamental changes were made without proper parliamentary oversight.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

This is an extremely sensible amendment, which we welcome. Although I am not a liberal, one of the great strengths of the liberal tradition is its knee-jerk suspicion of centralisation. The Bill represents centralisation in many different ways. It takes lots of brakes off, and we keep hearing in our sittings that, “We must get rid of this or that form of scrutiny because we must move quickly.” The hon. Gentleman is right to be nervous about that and about the lack of limits to the consequentials off the back of the Bill. I support the amendment and hope that the Government will accept it.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

I will speak to amendments 8 and 9. Clause 10 makes provision for the Secretary of State to address any consequential effects that the Bill may have on other legislation. The Department recognises and takes seriously the important role that Parliament has in scrutinising consequential amendments. That is why it has made every possible effort to ensure that schedules 1 and 3 capture the existing legislation in scope for consequential amendments, and that existing legislation passing through Parliament this Session takes account of the provisions of the Bill.

As well as existing primary legislation, clause 10 will allow the Secretary of State to address any consequential effects this Bill may have on other Bills passing through Parliament this Session.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I have a specific question. Skills England does not bring the whole skills sector together. There are other excellent bodies, for example, the Migration Advisory Committee, which has a skills component. Other bodies, such as the Construction Industry Training Board and the Engineering Industry Training Board, impose levies and have not been merged into Skills England or abolished. The Government have rejected the Farmer review’s recommendation to merge the CITB and EITB. I therefore wanted to check something with the Minister. My understanding is that the Government could use clause 10 to abolish the CITB and the EITB. I do not see any reason why they could not do that. The Minister may want to get advice about that—I appreciate that I am putting her on the spot. There is nothing to stop such large changes being made off the back of clause 10. That is one reason why we are keen on the amendment. One sees Henry VIII clauses and one cannot quite imagine how they would be used, but that is a problem because we never know what will be done under them. Will the Minister check whether my understanding is correct that the Government could do such big things off the back of clause 10? If that is not the case, I would be delighted to hear it.

Janet Daby (Labour, Lewisham East)

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Skills England is in communication with the Migration Advisory Committee and others as well. It has a broad remit as well as having a relationship with the CITB. I feel that we might be swaying outside the purpose of the Bill. I am happy to get further information if the hon. Gentleman feels that he needs some. In terms of the merger of the CITB and EITB, there are good reasons why that merger is not favoured by the Government.

As well as existing primary legislation, clause 10 will allow the Secretary of State to address any consequential effects that this Bill may have on other Bills passing through Parliament this Session. However, it is always possible that further changes may be necessary. It is therefore prudent to provide a failsafe should anything have been missed. Without it, there is a risk not just to the coherence of the legislation, but to the functioning of the system for employers and indeed learners. Should such a circumstance arise, any amendments to primary legislation will be made through the affirmative procedure.

The necessary consequential amendments to secondary legislation, which cannot be made on the face of the Bill, will be made through the negative procedure, as is customary. We have already identified amendments to secondary legislation that are needed—for example, repealing the provision in the Apprenticeships (Miscellaneous Provisions) Regulations 2017, which empowers IfATE to charge fees in relation to evaluations and apprenticeships assessments.

Amendments 8 and 9, tabled by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, would require regulations making consequential provisions that are subject to the negative procedure by virtue of clause 10(5) to instead be subject to the affirmative procedure for a period of six months. Given the limited and uncontroversial nature of the necessary changes, the negative procedure balances sufficient parliamentary oversight while enabling changes to be made without unduly taking up parliamentary time or risking the coherence of the skills system for learners and employers.

As Members of this House will be aware, the affirmative procedure requires debate and the approval of both Houses. That would mean that consequential amendments to existing secondary legislation would take longer, which could delay the implementation of the Bill and create incoherence across the statute book until the necessary changes are made. There is a strong precedent for delegated legislation under the negative procedure to be used to make consequential amendments to delegated legislation, and therefore the amendment seeking affirmative resolution is not necessary. For the reasons I have given, I commend the clause to the Committee and ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

I thank the Minister for her response. I am afraid I am not satisfied that that is sufficient and would like to push the amendment to a vote.

Written evidence reported to the House