Ian Sollom MP: speeches

Speeches

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said, and I certainly encourage those colleges on their path. As I will explain, my new clause will enable Skills England to support them more fully. Equally concerning is the need for effective cross-departmental co-ordination. Skills policy does not exist in isolation. Skills England needs to work with, among others, the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on future workforce needs, the Migration Advisory Committee on reducing reliance on overseas workers, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on green skills, the Department for Work and Pensions on employment programmes, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on priority sectors, the Department of Health and Social Care on workforce planning, and, following the Chancellor’s spring statement last week, the new defence growth board on critical skills for our defence industry.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  There are different options, and I will come to this issue later. Given the scale of cross-departmental working required, having Skills England sit outside a single Government Department is probably more effective. Moreover, such bodies can be held accountable effectively by Parliament, as we have seen with some other quangos. Indeed, I believe the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council will be set up as a statutory independent body when time allows, and I suggest that Skills England is of the same order of magnitude. Beyond the concerns about accountability and cross-Government authority, there are practical, operational risks to the approach laid out in the Bill. The Skills Federation warned in its evidence that “there is a key risk that transfer of functions from IfATE will become the key focus for the set-up of Skills England and less attention (and potentially resources) placed on achieving the overarching aims.” There is significant concern that the broader strategic purpose of Skills England could be lost in the rush to transfer operational functions. That concern was echoed by Lord Blunkett, who suggested that “there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.] The Government’s impact assessment also acknowledges risks, noting that the transfer of functions 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”, which “may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners.” In Committee, the Minister emphasised the urgent need to address skills shortages and said that delay “is not an option.” Although we share the Government’s commitment to addressing skills shortages urgently, I respectfully suggest that there is wisdom in heeding the warning that the University of Warwick gave in its evidence. Getting the foundations right is more important than hasty construction. In light of those concerns, I tabled new clause 1, which I proposed in Committee. It provides a constructive solution to many of the issues that I have outlined, and proposes a clear pathway for establishing Skills England as a dedicated executive agency within the Department for Education. As I said, my party ultimately believes that a fully independent statutory body with cross-departmental authority is the optimal approach, but we recognise the Government’s preference for the executive agency model, so new clause 1 works within that structure but provides essential safeguards. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would produce draft proposals for establishing Skills England within six months, lay the proposals before both Houses, secure parliamentary approval before establishing the agency, provide annual statements on the agency’s work, and evaluate its effectiveness 12 months after establishment. This approach strikes the right balance between allowing the Government to implement policy at their desired speed and ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny and meaningful stakeholder engagement. As I said, I tabled new clause 1 in Committee because I believe that parliamentary scrutiny is essential for an organisation with such far-reaching responsibilities. The Minister argued that the standard accountability mechanisms for executive agencies are sufficient. However, I contend that Skills England is not just another executive agency; it is central to the Government’s economic growth mission and to creating opportunities for millions of people. Standard executive agency protocols are built for “business as usual” functions, not for what should be transformative bodies at the heart of the Government’s economic strategy. Having a properly accountable Skills England, even as an executive agency, would ensure that employer voices remain central to standards development rather than being merely consultative; that technical expertise is maintained and developed across economic cycles; that Parliament maintains appropriate oversight for this critical area of policy; and, crucially, that political short-termism does not override long-term skills planning. In Committee, the Minister argued against new clause 1 on several grounds. First, she suggested that it would cause unnecessary delay in addressing urgent skills challenges. Secondly, she pointed to the existing accountability mechanisms for executive agencies, including framework documents and reporting requirements. Thirdly, she emphasised that Skills England is already operating in shadow form and is poised to take these functions when the Bill passes. Let me address those concerns. On the issue of delay, new clause 1 would require reporting and parliamentary approval within six months—a reasonable timeframe that would not significantly impede progress. As the Skills Federation noted, proper planning for the transfer of functions is essential for success, and parliamentary scrutiny would reinforce, rather than impede, the effective delivery of Skills England. The existing accountability mechanisms are indeed important, but they are surely insufficient for an organisation of Skills England’s significance. As the University of Winchester argued in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee, Skills England should be structured “to ensure and protect its regulatory independence from Government and other agencies.” The framework document and annual reports are important tools, but they are prepared by the Executive without any meaningful parliamentary input. Skills England’s current shadow operations are welcome preparation, but operating in shadow form, without parliamentary scrutiny or approval, only underscores the need for new clause 1. Important decisions about structure, governance and priorities are being made right now, without any oversight in this place. The Secretary of State indicated on Second Reading that the Government may review Skills England’s status in 18 to 24 months to consider whether it needs to be an independent statutory body, and the Minister confirmed that timetable in Committee. But why wait? Why create uncertainty about the future status of an organisation that needs to establish credibility with employers now? It is worth noting—as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), did in Committee—that the Government plan to put the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on a statutory footing “when parliamentary time allows”, according to their own documentation. This suggests that they recognise the value of key strategic bodies’ statutory independence, so why should Skills England be treated differently? New clause 1 offers a constructive path forward, building on the debates we have already had. Personally, I was disappointed that the Government opposed it in Committee, but I believe that the case for proper parliamentary scrutiny remains compelling. Although my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I ultimately believe that a fully independent statutory body would be the ideal model for Skills England, new clause 1 would work within the Government’s executive agency framework to add essential parliamentary scrutiny and accountability. The Minister assured us in Committee that Skills England will have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability. If the Government truly believe in those principles, they should welcome rather than resist proper parliamentary oversight. If Skills England is to be the cornerstone of our skills system for years to come, even as an Executive agency with the Department for Education, we must ensure that it has the transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight to withstand changes in political priorities and economic circumstances. I urge Members across the House to support new clause 1, which would strengthen the Bill and help ensure that the transfer of functions leads to better outcomes for apprentices, students, employers and the economy as a whole.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I would hope that better scrutiny and accountability in Parliament would help with delivering what is required, and holding the Government to account when it comes to keeping their promises. On the cross-departmental work that I mentioned, the lack of a published framework for Skills England as we consider the Bill is deeply concerning, and what we have seen so far suggests a structure that is heavily Department for Education-centric. Without statutory independence and appropriate seniority, Skills England will struggle to drive the cross-departmental co-ordination that Members on both sides of the House agree our skills system needs.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to my preference for an executive agency that fits what the Government want to do. That is the reason for my new clause, and I do not think that it need delay efforts. Ultimately, a statutory, departmental body would have more clout. On the basis of what we understand, at least, I think that the remit for Skills England is very different from the remit for IfATE when it comes to that cross-departmental working.

• 31 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  In considering the transfer of functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, we face fundamental questions about the Government’s accountability and the future structure of our skills system. While modest in size, the Bill has far-reaching implications for that system, and for millions of learners and apprentices. It represents a significant centralising of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without providing proper mechanisms for parliamentary oversight or accountability. I have sat through many hours of debate on the Bill, during which Labour Members have extolled the virtues of Skills England, but let me emphasise again that the Bill does not actually establish that body, as many assumed that it would. It simply abolishes IfATE and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State, an approach that risks creating a governance vacuum in which there is no proper scrutiny or independent oversight. It is clear from the evidence received by the Bill Committee that I am not alone in having those concerns. The Association of Colleges, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the University of Winchester and the Institute of the Motor Industry all raised similar issues relating to governance and accountability in their written evidence submissions to the Committee. As was noted by many on Second Reading, skills policy in this country has suffered from constant reorganisation and restructuring. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has reminded us several times that Skills England will be the 13th skills body to be established in 50 years. Given that history, employers, providers and learners desperately need stability and clarity. In its evidence, the University of Winchester warned: “The transfer of power from IfATE to the Secretary of State for Education raises questions about the independence of the proposed Skills England regulatory body.” It also observed that in IfATE, at present, “employers and academics come together to ensure that the standard is industry relevant, current, and academically rigorous.” The Skills Federation raised similar concerns: “The clauses in the bill which transfer powers from IFATE to the Secretary of State risk shifting the development of standards further away from employer demand.” It also said: “Too much centralisation leads to a lack of focus on sector needs”.

• 25 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  T7. In the light of the recently announced 50% staffing reductions across integrated care boards, has the Secretary of State made any assessment of how those cuts to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough ICB will delay the delivery of essential new primary care services for my rapidly growing constituency, particularly in Northstowe, Cambourne and St Neots, where thousands of constituents are already facing unacceptable difficulties in accessing care?

• 20 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I thank the Minister for her response. In the interests of time—and lunch—I will not go into detail. I wish to press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

• 20 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Third sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I rise to move new clause 1, which addresses fundamental concerns about the governance and accountability of Skills England. While the Bill as amended in the Lords does now make reference to Skills England, which the original Bill presented to the Lords did not, it still does not establish it properly as an organisation, define its powers, or provide robust mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny of its work. The Bill, as we know, simply abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers its functions directly to the Secretary of State, with only limited reporting requirements. The most recent evidence provided to the Committee reinforces those concerns, particularly the evidence from the Skills Federation, as was highlighted by the shadow Minister. New clause 1 remedies that by requiring comprehensive proposals for Skills England to be laid before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval. It would ensure that both Houses have a meaningful say in how the organisation is structured and operates. It would establish ongoing accountability through annual statements to Parliament and formal evaluation of its governance structure within the first year. The Government have positioned Skills England as transformative, and the Minister’s letter to peers, which was also shared with the Committee early this week, outlines hugely impressive ambitions for Skills England. I welcome those, as I think we all do. But the governance framework described in that letter is largely discretionary. The framework document that the Minister references in that letter, which has still not formally been published, will be finalised by agreement between the Department and Skills England, with no formal parliamentary input at all. We are being asked to approve a fundamental restructuring of the skills system without proper guarantees about how the body will operate or be held accountable. The skills system is simply too critical to proceed just on faith. I think Members on the Government Benches would be making the same arguments if they were in our position. I want to stress that the new clause is not about preventing the creation of Skills England; it is about ensuring it is established with the proper scrutiny and accountability that an organisation of such importance deserves. If the Government truly believe in Skills England as the vehicle to address our skills challenges, they should welcome the provisions for proper accountability in new clause 1.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  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. Question put , That the amendment be made.

• 13 Mar 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 10, page 4, line 32, at beginning insert— “Subject to subsection (6),”.

• 10 Mar 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  Last week the Department announced that colleges would receive only two thirds of the funding that they were promised for the 35,000 additional 16 to 18-year-old students enrolled last autumn, a decision that could lead to thousands of prospective students being turned away this September. That follows a cut in the adult skills funding. Can the Secretary of State explain how cutting promised funds will help to address skills shortages in the economy and help to deliver the Government’s growth mission?

• 5 Mar 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source

  More

  Q5. On Monday, the Prime Minister talked about creating defence jobs across the country as we rebuild our defence industrial capacity. Will he and the Government bring forward an urgent plan for skills in the defence sector, and does he agree with his Education Secretary that the strategy for defence skills should sit purely under the Department for Education, and not an under-powered Executive agency?

• 26 Feb 2025 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  I will come to the national statistics later in my speech, but those mentioned by the hon. Gentleman absolutely speak to the need for reform. The constituent I mentioned is far from alone, and it is not all one way, with paying parents often finding themselves let down by the CMS too. Another constituent has spent months battling the service after experiencing a genuine drop in income. Despite providing every piece of documentation that he has been asked for, he has been left waiting and waiting for an adjustment to his payment schedule. He said: “I received a letter that said my request was not valid. No explanation was given. The letter said I would be referred to an unnamed team that could help me. Almost two months later, I have received no contact.” That is just another story that embodies the failures at the CMS. I recently attended the parliamentary event hosted by Gingerbread, the charity for single-parent families, and the all-party parliamentary group on single-parent families. The testimony shared that day echoed many of the fundamental problems: enforcement failures, dehumanising customer service, the resulting financial hardship and, in too many cases, continued abuse.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  This evening I want to address a system that is failing thousands of families across our country: the Child Maintenance Service. In doing so, I hope that this House will send a clear message to every parent struggling with that system and every affected young person that their MPs are listening and that we are determined to act. I am pleased to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Andrew Western), is responding for the Government, and I look forward to working with him to achieve the meaningful transformation that families desperately need. Before my election last July, I confess that the Child Maintenance Service had not been on my radar as such an important issue. That changed almost immediately upon my taking office, as constituents came to me with accounts of their experiences with the CMS, and appeals for help. These were not isolated incidents or minor inconveniences; they revealed systemic failures, enforcement mechanisms that seem to exist in name only, loopholes exploited by those seeking to evade their responsibilities, inadequate protections for survivors of domestic abuse, and an impersonal bureaucracy that overwhelms those it should be there to help. Failures to correct even basic errors grind down those unfortunate enough to be let down by the system. I want to share one constituent’s story that exemplifies those failings. For nearly two decades, dating back to the days of the old Child Support Agency, she has fought for what her child should have been entitled to. In all that time, her ex-partner has made consistent payments for just six months. After courageously leaving an abusive relationship, she had turned to the CMS for support. Instead, she encountered a system powerless to act when her ex-partner began gaming the system. He claimed to be unemployed while there was evidence that he was working. Missed payments would coincide with birthdays and Christmas, depriving her of the means to make those occasions special for her child. He refused to engage unless she contacted him directly, knowing full well how traumatic that would be given the history of abuse. Her mental health, understandably, deteriorated. Yet in all her desperate calls to the CMS, rarely did she speak to the same person twice—someone familiar with her case and invested in its resolution. In her words, support consisted of someone “who read from a screen, then said they will transfer me to someone who can help but really just put me back in the queue.” She has spent years feeling that she is going around in circles, without receiving all the payment that she should have received for the care of her child. Madam Deputy Speaker, I hope that the Minister agrees that this falls well short of what vulnerable families deserve.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  Gingerbread’s report on fixing the CMS is excellent. It has a lot of pointers and a lot of excellent statistics about how single-parent families are being let down. I will come on to some of those now. The Government’s own child maintenance statistics paint a damning picture: 31% of all paying parents made no maintenance payments whatsoever, and a further 12% paid less than 60% of what they owed. Those are not just statistics; they represent thousands upon thousands of children going without. I therefore ask the Minister directly: how do the Government intend to strengthen the CMS’s enforcement powers to prevent systemic abuse? Further, following the recent consultation on improving payment collection and transfer, when can we expect to see the Government’s response? More than a million children nationwide depend on CMS arrangements. Many of those children and their single-parent families lack the financial security they deserve and need. That brings me to the wider issue of child poverty. That is an area that this Government claim to prioritise, yet it is hard not to question the depth of that commitment when they have so far refused to abolish the two-child benefit cap and when reform of the CMS seems barely to have featured in policy discussions. The evidence is stark. According to Save the Children, almost half of all children in single-parent families live in poverty, compared with one in four children in two-parent households. Gingerbread’s “Fix the CMS” report revealed that over 50% of parents not receiving their entitled maintenance struggle to pay essential bills. Nearly half cannot afford basic necessities for their children, such as clothes, shoes and school uniforms. It should be self-evident that any serious strategy to tackle child poverty must include fundamental reform of the CMS. What progress has been made on the Government’s child poverty strategy, and have they given appropriate consideration to reform of the CMS? The challenges for the CMS are numerous and complex, and they beg further questions. Will the Government consider reviewing the CMS funding formula to ensure that it truly reflects the cost of raising a child? Will they commit to amending service charges, including the 4% fee for receiving parents who use collect and pay, and the initial £20 enrolment charge? How can the Government improve staff recruitment, retention and training, to ensure that the workforce can properly support those who depend on this vital service? Those are just some of the questions that the Government must consider if they want to reform the CMS. The answers will not be easy, so I thank the Minister in advance for his response, and Mr Speaker for granting this important debate. Finally, I acknowledge the contributions and presence of all Members who have stayed for this debate. They understand the gravity of the issue. I hope the Minister is about to show us that the Government do too.

• 26 Feb 2025 · Child Maintenance Service · Hansard source

  More

  I absolutely agree; that is exactly the sort of reform we need to see in the system, and I will come to those points later.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill because, while acknowledging the importance of reforming the delivery of skills and technical education, it fails to establish Skills England as a statutory independent body; because it centralises decision-making power in the hands of the Secretary of State; because it provides for the abolition of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education without ensuring a legally defined replacement; and because it lacks provisions to ensure that Skills England is directly accountable to Parliament.” The Government are right that our skills system needs reform. The Liberal Democrats agree with the Secretary of State that our current fragmented and confusing skills landscape lets down learners, frustrates businesses and holds back growth, as she made clear in her foreword to Skills England’s first report in the autumn. I and my hon. Friends on the Liberal Democrat Benches share the ambition to build a high-skill, high-productivity workforce that can meet our economy’s needs, and reform is essential for that ambition to be realised. Like many in the sector, we were encouraged to hear the Government prioritising that last July in the King’s Speech, with the statement: “My Government will establish Skills England which will have a new partnership with employers at its heart”, but the Bill before us does not establish Skills England at all; it simply abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers the functions directly to the Secretary of State. We need a strong, independent skills body with proper parliamentary oversight and genuine employer engagement, but this Bill delivers a centralisation of power in the hands of Ministers. There are examples of bodies that combine independence and strong democratic accountability for the most critical policy areas. The Office for Budget Responsibility has statutory independence while being directly accountable to Parliament through the Treasury Committee. Its leadership is subject to parliamentary approval, its reports must be laid before Parliament and it has clear statutory duties to ensure transparency. The Climate Change Committee similarly has a clear statutory basis that ensures it can provide independent advice while being properly scrutinised by Parliament, yet the framework proposed for Skills England—or at least the draft framework for illustrative purposes, which is all that we have seen so far—falls far short of those models. Despite promises about working across Government, its governance structure is heavily Department for Education-centric. There are no formal mechanisms for co-ordination with other key Departments; there is no cross-departmental board representation; and there is no clear structure for aligning with bodies such as the Migration Advisory Committee, just aspiration. Are we to assume that the Government think that skills policy is not so critical to their mission that it warrants a stronger framework than the one we have seen? This matters profoundly when we consider the scale of cross-Government co-ordination required. Skills England must work with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on future workforce needs; with the Migration Advisory Committee on reducing reliance on overseas workers; with the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on green skills; with the Department for Work and Pensions on employment programmes; with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on priority sectors; and with the Department of Health and Social Care on workforce planning. Particularly in light of recent developments, Skills England must also support the Government’s strategy for defence and the critical industries and skills that we will need for our defence. As proposed, though, it will lack even director general status, meaning that it will struggle to drive the co-ordination of skills that the system so desperately needs.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I have looked beyond the AELP briefing, thank you very much. This is a critical area of Government policy, and it is important to get it right from the start. That is just a difference of approach. As my noble Friend Baroness Garden said in the other place, this looks like an innocuous little Bill, but there is so much more to it than meets the eye. It represents a fundamental shift away from employer leadership in our skills system towards ministerial whim, a shift away from statutory independence towards departmental convenience, and a shift away from proper parliamentary accountability towards rule by regulation. The Government may argue that this is just an enabling Bill to pave the way for Skills England, but that is precisely the problem. It enables the wrong thing—it enables centralisation when we need independence, it enables ministerial control when we need employer leadership, and it enables opacity when we need accountability.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I agree. That cross-departmental and cross-industry working is a critical reason for the need for a truly independent body. The implication for standards development is also concerning. Where we have had employer-led trailblazer groups setting standards, the Secretary of State can now bypass employers entirely. In limited circumstances and for minor changes, that will have the benefit of speeding up the review process, which has been frustrating for employers. There are, however, no safeguards to prevent ministerial control becoming the default approach. Instead of giving businesses a structural role, maximising responsiveness, the Bill makes engagement merely consultative. That speaks to a broader point: Skills England’s credibility with employers will be key if those employers are to buy into the Government’s skills vision for the country. Has the Secretary of State not at least considered the possibility that the proposed structure, whereby programmes can be driven at her whim or those of her successors, undermines that much-needed credibility from the start? The Government’s own impact assessment worries that there will be a “slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process” caused by this new approach, and it reveals who will pay the price. It is adult learners, who make up 48% of apprentices and often face the greatest barriers to retraining; learners from our most deprived communities, whose achievement rates are already eight percentage points lower than those from affluent areas; and learners in regions such as the north-east, where apprenticeship starts are already lower and where every reduction in opportunity has a disproportionate effect.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I am going to finish now. Learners and employers deserve a properly independent Skills England with the authority and accountability to drive real change. I urge the Government to think again and bring forward legislation that delivers the genuine reform that our skills system needs.

• 25 Feb 2025 · Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] · Hansard source

  More

  I point out that I represent St Neots, which is not Cambridge, and many employers have spoken to me about their concerns about Skills England and the lack of clarity on its future. We cannot support this Bill. That is not because we oppose reform—we desperately need it—but because centralising power in the hands of Ministers, removing proper scrutiny and weakening employer involvement in our skills system will make things worse, ultimately. Learners, employers and our economy deserve better than this overcentralisation of power.

• 11 Feb 2025 · Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting) · Hansard source

  More

  I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.