Neil O'Brien MP: speeches

Speeches

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

  More

  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?

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  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. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment proposed : 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.”— (Neil O ’ Brien.) 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 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.

• 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 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.

• 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 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.”

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

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

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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. 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

  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?

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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. Question put and agreed to. Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Examinations by independent third parties Question proposed , That the clause stand part of the Bill.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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?

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

  More

  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?

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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.

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

  More

  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”?

• 11 Mar 2025 · Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025 · Hansard source

  More

  I think the hon. Lady has already covered this, but is she happy to write to me about the level 7 apprenticeships?