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

Committee (1st Day)

13:00:00

Clause 1: Transfer of functions

Debate on whether Clause 1 should stand part of the Bill.

My Lords, I shall also probe whether Clauses 2 and 3 and Schedules 1 to 3 should stand part of the Bill. At Second Reading, we heard about the importance of skills development to boost economic growth, the gaps that employers face in finding the skills they need to fill vacancies, the continuing complexity of the skills landscape, and the ambition of the Government to meet these challenges. At this point, I thank particularly the Learning and Work Institute and the Association of Colleges for their advice and their perspectives on the Bill. On these Benches, while we accept that the Government have a real commitment to address these issues, we also believe that they need to give Parliament and employers much greater clarity on their plans. The Bill is clear in the door that it closes—the abolition of IfATE—but is silent on the door it opens; that is, Skills England and its powers and accountability. We are left with an interregnum, with the Secretary of State holding all the powers of IfATE and a few more for good measure. I will try also to explain the logic of my Amendments 32 and 33. Ideally, we would have liked to be debating a much clearer, more detailed Bill and have all the answers to the concerns expressed across the House at Second Reading. I note that in her closing remarks at Second Reading, the Minister committed to setting out the relationship between the Department for Education and Skills England in a publicly available format which will be updated periodically. Even the phrase “updated periodically” begs questions about the clarity and stability of roles and accountability. No doubt the Minister will give us further details on this today. My amendments suggest solutions on a sliding scale. At one end, we are proposing to stick with the status quo through the stand part notices for Clauses 1 to 3 and the associated schedules; from there, to different degrees of independence and accountability for a new body called Skills England; to, finally, although not in this group of amendments, accepting the Government’s proposals, but with a clear and rigorous reporting requirement to Parliament. At this stage, these are probing amendments. As we heard at Second Reading, there are genuine concerns about the transfer of IfATE’s powers to the Secretary of State, in terms of compromising the independence with which apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications, including T-levels, are accredited, and in diluting the voice of employers. These concerns are only amplified by later clauses which extend the powers of the Secretary of State beyond those of IfATE to prepare standards without employer input, and remove requirements for regular reviews of technical qualifications and third-party examination of standards. We will, of course, debate these points later in Committee. The proposed creation of Skills England as an executive agency within the Department for Education, rather than as an independent statutory body, although not part of the Bill, has raised questions about both its autonomy and its effectiveness. More broadly, our stand part notices seek to elicit from the Minister explanations on the following points. First, why does the Minister believe that this organisational change will be any more effective than the previous 12 changes in the past 50 years? Secondly, the impact assessment set out that the Government had considered both keeping IfATE as an organisation separate from Skills England and expanding its powers to take on Skills England’s full set of powers. My Amendment 32 attempts to reintroduce this as an option for the Government to consider. It would create an executive agency of the department, which would be called Skills England, and would focus on wider skills strategy, as well as keeping IfATE as an independent body for the accreditation of technical education qualifications and for its other responsibilities. That amendment has a lot in common with Amendment 21 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, although Amendment 21 would not retain IfATE, as mine would. One can make the case that it is more coherent to have everything in one place, but one can also argue that Skills England has a huge brief and should focus on some of the more urgent priorities, leaving IfATE to continue its good work in setting up clear lines of communication. It is hard to avoid the conclusions that the Government are knowingly diluting the voices of employers; that they want to have as much control as possible over these qualifications in future; and, importantly, that they are seeking to reorganise the structures to deliver skills reforms rather than getting on with “doing the doing”, which is much needed on the ground. The impact assessment sets out briefly the advantages of the Government’s chosen approach but says almost nothing about the drawbacks of losing an independent, employer-led organisation that the Government acknowledge does an excellent job. It would be most helpful if the Minister could explain in more detail the barriers to doing this and how His Majesty’s Government evaluated the shortcomings of this approach. Moving along the sliding scale, I turn to Amendment 33, which aims to commit the Government to introducing a draft Bill that would create an independent arm’s-length body, to be called Skills England. I note that organisations such as the St Martin’s Group, which represents employers, training providers and awarding organisations, have been clear in their briefings that it is “crucial that Skills England’s independence needs to be exerted in statute”. Given the independence that this would create from the department, we have assumed that IfATE would no longer need to exist. I hope very much that this is something to which the Minister can respond positively. In my Amendments 32 and 33, we stipulate that the chief executive of Skills England must report to the board of Skills England. It seems extraordinary to have to make this point but noble Lords may have noticed that the job description for the CEO of Skills England made no reference to the board; rather, they report to the relevant director-general in the department. Given the emphasis that the Minister put at Second Reading on the strength and operational independence of the Skills England board and its members, it seems a major drawback that the chief executive of the organisation, on whose board they sit, does not report to it. Could the Minister undertake to reconsider this? Finally, I turn to my Amendment 42, which I tabled, as the French might say, “pour encourager”. I am hopeful that the Minister will take my other amendment seriously as a way of actively demonstrating her commitment to the independence of Skills England but, failing that, this amendment seeks to sunset this legislation and give the Government time to come back with a Bill that addresses the concerns that we heard at Second Reading—and that we will no doubt hear more of in Committee. I beg to move.

My Lords, I consider myself encouragée. We on these Benches have some sympathy with these wrecking amendments. We have never supported taking decision-making out of the hands of experts and into the hands of a Secretary of State, whoever he or she may be and however informed and enthusiastic he or she may be about colleges, further education, and technical and vocational qualifications. As I said at Second Reading—I do not apologise for repeating it—politicians are almost always university-educated and may have little understanding of or enthusiasm for the world of skills. I exempt our Minister from this because I know that she cares but, of course, there is no guarantee that she will not be replaced—not for some time, I hope—by a “here today, gone tomorrow” Minister with no knowledge of this sector. These posts do not last, as we all know. I speak with some knowledge. In the coalition Government, I was appointed Minister for the Olympics and Sport, having never had any interest in sport in my life. At school, I was a fat little bespectacled nerd who was always chosen last for any team. But, given the portfolio, I spent days and weeks of my life learning all there was to know about rugby league—thanks to my noble friend Lord Addington—cricket, hockey and other unmentionables in order to give educated answers to questions. But that is not the same as having a lifelong enthusiasm, and, because Ministers have almost always been educated—surprisingly enough—and can display an astonishing academic superiority, they may look down on practical achievement, as I discovered when I worked in Michael Gove’s team. We are disappointed, as we always thought of Labour as a party supportive of education in all its guises, yet it has brought forward the damaging VAT on independent schools Bill, which would make us the first country in the world, I believe, to tax education—shame on them—and now this damaging Bill to attack practical education. It is a sad day indeed. We are also bemused that this apparently is the skills Bill, yet there is no mention of skills in it. It might as well have been the flying fish Bill because there is no mention of flying fish either. Some of the amendments in this group try to remedy this, including Amendments 32 and 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which we broadly support. I will speak to Amendment 21 in this group in the name of my noble friend Lord Storey, who much regrets that he cannot be here today, to which I added my name. We are spelling out what is missing from the Bill—namely, the establishment of a new executive agency to be called Skills England. Our amendment sets out the conditions for Skills England to be established and the need for both Houses to agree proposals. Other, linked amendments have been regrouped for some reason—I had some work today to try to work out where the groupings have changed since yesterday; I am not quite sure why they were—but we still have the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to keep some of the duties of IfATE alongside the new body. As IfATE contains many real experts and champions, we feel this is a sensible move and we support it. We have very strong objections to the power grab by politicians over the experts who really care. We will seek to change this and to convince the Government of the harm that could be done to enhancing the much-needed skills of the country if this goes through unamended. I hope that our listening Minister will appreciate how much is at stake in the Bill and will take note of the very well-intentioned and well-informed amendments that have been tabled.

My Lords, I start by reminding the Committee of my educational interests, in particular that I serve on Pearson’s qualification committee, which includes its oversight of BTEC and other technical and T-level qualifications. I apologise that I was not present at Second Reading, but I had to be elsewhere. I have a number of noble friends who would have liked to have been here today but unfortunately are unable to be, particularly my noble friends Lord Blunkett, Lord Watson and Lady Morris. I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with all the considerable respect that I afford her and was reminded of the ill-fated Schools Bill. She is playing the same game that some of us played at her, with the stand part notices and trying to wipe clauses out, which we did successfully in the case of the Schools Bill. It is interesting to reflect on that, because there are a few lessons that the department perhaps needs to learn about introducing controversial Bills in the Lords. There is controversy, as we have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, who spoke more fruitily than I might have expected.

I am sorry.

Well, not fruity—more forthrightly than I would have expected. Is that better? There is some reflection to be had on that because if a House of Lords starter gets significantly amended, it is difficult to undo that anywhere else. I also think some learning from the Schools Bill is necessary in respect of the Secretary of State taking on significant powers without really consulting or properly engaging and not having time to do that. In the case of the Schools Bill it was a trio of ex-Ministers—the noble Lords, Lord Nash, Lord Agnew and Lord Baker—who did for it. We do not have a trio of ex-Ministers trying to do for this Bill, so I hope that is a relief to my noble friend the Minister.

13:15:00

In this case, I think we are all completely sold on Skills England and on the need for a body that takes on the IfATE functions but also has high-level discussions and co-ordinates thinking across government and with employers, trade unions, the combined mayoral authorities and all those stakeholders, including the Migration Advisory Committee, in the industrial strategy and the regional industrial strategies. I think we are sold on that, so we want Skills England to be a powerful, substantial body.

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. There is a lot of merit in giving that status to the body, and to its chief executive and chair, to be able to work across Whitehall with other government departments and other Ministers, and with mayors, leaders of trade unions and substantial employer bodies. Being subsumed within a division of the Department for Education, not even accountable to the Permanent Secretary, and, as the noble Baroness said, with the CEO not accountable to the board, is problematic. The Minister needs to reflect on it.

Incidentally, my understanding is that if Skills England became an executive agency, the department would be the awarding body for T-levels. IfATE is the awarding body. Organisations such as Pearson and the other contractors do the work, but the certification is sent out by IfATE. It is a nightmare to imagine a government department becoming an awarding body for an examination such as T-levels. It fills me with a certain amount of disquiet.

There is some merit in Amendment 21, but that is arguing for an executive agency. My preference would be for something closer to Amendment 33 in respect of being clear that we want a statutory body. Those are just things for my noble friend the Minister to reflect on. I would encourage noble Lords to not move their amendments and allow the Minister time to reflect, but it is important that she hears all our views on how important it is to set up Skills England to succeed.

My Lords, I very much support the intention and aims underlying the Bill; namely, to create a new and more effective UK skills system, with Skills England at its heart, to replace the current system—if you can call it a system at all—which is complex, fragmented, lacking in clear measures of success, and failing to deliver the skills we need. The King’s Speech spoke of a Skills England Bill and that promise is surely not met by a Bill which does not mention Skills England at all. It has required considerable ingenuity on the part of several noble Lords to produce amendments that do mention Skills England and are deemed to be in scope. The Bill focuses entirely on abolishing IfATE and transferring its functions—not to Skills England but to the Secretary of State—but it says nothing about the role, status and powers of Skills England, to which presumably these functions will in due course be passed, nor, as other noble Lords have mentioned, about how Skills England will combine the essentially practical, administrative and awarding functions it inherits from IfATE with its much broader and important role of aligning the skills system with the aims of boosting growth and spreading opportunity. I feel some sympathy for the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to remove Clauses 1 to 3 and their respective schedules, because they and other amendments address the fundamental issue of how Skills England is intended to work, how we are supposed to get there from here—I was interested in the point made by the noble Baroness about the interregnum—and what the transition plan is. I would prefer Skills England to be a statutory body, with sufficient authority and independence to fulfil its vital mission across the numerous government departments and other bodies involved and to bring together the demand challenges that employers face with skills shortages and so forth, given that the education and training systems are not delivering the skills we need to meet that demand. For those reasons, I have considerable sympathy for Amendment 21 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, and for Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which would ensure the establishment of Skills England, preferably as an arm’s-length body. It is frustrating that there are so many key aspects of skills policy that we need to talk about, as well as the role of Skills England in delivering that policy—I welcome the principle—but the Bill doesn’t enable us to discuss those things. I therefore hope that the Minister will shed more light on how Skills England is expected to tackle the current mismatch between employer needs and education provision, including plans for the comprehensive strategy for post-16 skills promised in the manifesto.

My Lords, I want to speak to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Barran, raising the issues that arise from the fact that Skills England, for all the hype, is to all intents and purposes the DfE. As others have mentioned, it will not have a statutory basis of its own. It might have a grand name and have been billed heavily in advance by the Government, but it is not a non-departmental public body which would be legally separate from the department and staffed by public servants rather than civil servants; it will be created by simple administrative action rather than legal instrument, meaning that it is basically just the department. Executive agencies, of which Skills England will be one, are units of central government, perhaps administratively distinct to some extent but remaining legally very much part of it. What does this mean in practice? In some ways, it could be good. Potentially, it means a shorter feedback loop into Ministers’ red boxes, where responsibility for overarching skills policy rightly resides—there will be no room for excuses; the buck will stop with the Secretary of State for Skills England’s performance; and there will be no excuses for any failure of Skills England to work successfully across government departments and to corral Treasury to fund our skills system appropriately. However, that is the upside and, to be honest, I think there is potentially rather more downside from this change, because it is a misdiagnosis of where priorities need to be right now. A prerequisite for a successful skills system is a reasonable degree of stability and certainty necessary to get businesses to invest in training, and there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that our businesses are not investing enough in training their workforce—as we all know, we are spending less than half the OECD average. Instead, we have near-permanent policy churn in this area. Supposedly once-in-a-generation reforms take place nearly every Parliament, sometimes every other year, creating chronic instability in the policy framework for investment for skills. Now we have a massive machinery of government change with the abolition of IfATE, which was created less than seven years ago. Machinery of government changes are rarely worth the cost, disruption and distraction from other necessary priorities. This really is not what we should be debating right now. Machinery of government changes are no substitute for Ministers driving their teams hard, doing the difficult work of policy development and securing funding for skills from a very sceptical Treasury. I am worried, therefore, that we are losing focus on the real issues. To my mind, there are two very big areas where I would prefer us all to focus our attention right now. The first is securing clarity from the Government on their plans for the defunding of applied general qualifications. I appreciate that there has been considerable movement from the Government on this matter since they took office in July, but further clarity is still needed on which qualifications that were due to be defunded next year will now be retained and when providers will get that vital information. The second area I would prefer us to focus on is how we can end the confusion over the future of the lifelong learning entitlement, which has been delayed yet again in recent weeks and now will not start until sometime in 2027, and the provision by the Government of a clear statement as no one knows how the LLE will interact with their planned new growth and skills levy. These are two really important reforms and there is a desperate lack of clarity across our system on how they will work together. I would be very grateful if the Minister could help us with those two issues and take the opportunity to confirm that, in her mind, the LLE will still deliver the skills revolution that the last Government wanted from it and that Skills England will not quietly be asked to kill it off in the months to come.

My Lords, in rising to speak very briefly in this debate, I apologise for the fact that I was not at Second Reading. Most of the points that I sought to make have already been made. Therefore, I do not need to repeat them, save that I am sure that there is an absolute commitment in this Room that what we need is high-quality skills training and education and that no one would demur from that. The differences—or possibly the similarities—across the aisle are that we want to make sure that it is done effectively and as speedily as possible while ensuring it is done properly. I am very sympathetic to the view expressed by my noble friend Lord Knight about the consideration that might be given to a statutory body. Some noble Lords who know my history may know that I have not always been a great fan of everything being held in the hands of the department or the Secretary of State—obviously, it depends on the Secretary of State. In this case, we can afford, if we to make a move, to think about making the appropriate move. From the discussions that I have had, it seems that the appropriate move from where we are would be to a statutory body, for all the reasons that a number of speakers have outlined. That may well confer a greater sense not just of stability but of consistency, which is where we need to be if we are to carry with us young people, their teachers, their parents and employers, who are all extremely concerned, and to ensure that we have excellent skills provision and skills acquisition in this country.

My Lords, I too apologise that I was unable to be at Second Reading, although I have read all the contributions made by noble Lords, including those here, at the time. I add my general support to pretty much everything that has been said, including on Amendments 21 and 33. I have considerable sympathy with the proposal to get rid of Schedule 1, and specifically with those noble Lords who have said that we really need a statutory body. Just putting everything inside the Department for Education in an extremely unclear way is really unsatisfactory.

13:30:00

Like many people—I think almost everybody—in the skills world, I was delighted by the emphasis that the current Government put on skills. It is absolutely critical that we improve our skills system and address the crying need for skills in many areas and for clearer pathways into skills training than we have at the moment. I admit that as I know altogether too much about how many different bodies we have had in the past and how much different legislation there has been, including some that I have been involved with, it was difficult for me to be totally optimistic that Skills England was it, but I think we should try very hard to make it so.

The countries that have the best systems in the world also have extremely stable legislative underpinnings for them. I give just two examples, one of which everybody in this Room is very familiar with, which is Germany, which has the BIBB—everybody calls it that, including the Germans—the Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung. It was established in its current form in 1970 and has not been touched since, but the basic system was set up by Bismarck in the 19th century. If we look at what I think is the very best system in the world, which is Switzerland’s, we see that it had one key Act in the late 19th century. They have amended it a little bit since then, but really not very much. It behoves us to get Skills England right so that the general praise that the original proposal elicited from people turns out to be justified and not simply an expression of hope tempered by experience.

I am somewhat nervous at the moment—even more than I was at the beginning, and the Bill has made me rather more so. The department is consulting widely on Skills England—I express my gratitude for the fact that I have been at some of those sessions—and indeed so it should be. But given that it is still in listening mode, is this really the moment to introduce a Bill which basically, once it passes, leaves all sorts of things in abeyance? That is the major issue I have. What happens once we have abolished IfATE? Suppose we want a new set of apprenticeship standards. Clearly, we go to the Secretary of State, who is named 51 times in Schedule 1 as having this new responsibility or this being replaced with that. This does not make one feel very confident about the next year or so for the life of improving skills—that is a terrible phrase, but improving skills is what we are about. Is a year, at least, of complete lack of clarity on who does what really the best way to start this off?

I too remember the Schools Bill, and the problem was solved by just letting it die. I do not think we can let this Bill die; I do not suppose the Government have the slightest intention of letting it die, and therefore we really have to improve it and get some concrete progress into the Bill so that we really can improve the skills landscape and the opportunities for our young people.

My Lords, I was at Second Reading. I am a teacher and an optimist, and I genuinely trust the Government. As the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said, we all desperately want this to succeed; we want the 13th iteration to be the Bismarckian iteration that actually cuts through and cuts down flab. We were talking about this and I said that it is like trying to amend fog. We have the sunshine coming through, but at the moment we cannot really see it. Amendments 21 and 33 seem like a sensible idea because there is a real worry about something going into a government department. I will talk about my amendments later but they are all about scrutiny. There seems to be less scrutiny rather than more once something has disappeared into a government department, which is slightly strange. If we could get Skills England to being a statutory body, out in the open and with more scrutiny, people would have a lot more belief in it.

My Lords, I share many of the concerns expressed by noble Lords. The Bill should by no means leave the House in the state in which it entered it. It is important that whatever body Skills England occupies has a great deal more status than the Government have proposed. I just do not think that what they have proposed will ever work in Whitehall. We need to take more care with the preservation of the relationships that have been established by IfATE, which make it work so well. I do not see anything in the transition proposed here that does that and, as I said at Second Reading, I would like to know what is going to happen to the Careers & Enterprise Company.

I thank noble Lords for their broad enthusiasm for Skills England that we heard on this first set of amendments. I hope my response will reassure noble Lords not only that the intention behind the legislation is precisely to transfer functions from IfATE into Skills England—legislatively, that needs to be done via the Secretary of State—but that, furthermore, Skills England is already making an impact on the types of issues that have been identified in the debate. Legislation is important, but it does not always drive action. This Government’s absolute commitment to bringing the current fragmented landscape together has enabled us to make progress already, which I will outline for noble Lords. The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education has worked closely with employers to develop, approve, review and revise apprenticeships and technical qualifications. It is important to acknowledge IfATE’s achievements, most notably to develop and revise a suite of more than 700 high-quality occupational standards across sectors. However, despite IfATE’s success in embedding employers into 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 skills needs of the economy. To address this fragmentation and unlock the potential for skills which drive growth and widen opportunity, we are creating a single organisation—Skills England. On the point sort of implied by some people that Skills England is, in some way, just a figment of Ministers’ imagination, I reassure noble Lords that it is not just the Department for Education; it is already operational in shadow form. Noble Lords may remember its announcement by the Prime Minister in July, which was one of the earliest actions of this Government. It is already driving change in the way that skills gaps are identified and how key organisations are working together to fill them. On 24 September, Skills England published its first report, Driving Growth and Widening Opportunities, which provides an authoritative assessment of the key skills challenges that limit growth and opportunity, and an initial assessment of the skills needs in the economy. It also laid out its ambitions for the way in which it would operate, for noble Lords and others to read. Over the coming months, Skills England will continue to work closely with government departments and relevant stakeholders to expand on the initial assessments of skills needs within 10 particular sectors, both identified in the industrial strategy and because they need quick action. Skills England will continue to develop a detailed, consistent approach to skills measurement and cement its position as the single authoritative voice on skills needs in the economy, which should be addressed to support growth and opportunity. As I say, Skills England is already working across government. It is working with the industrial strategy advisory council to support the industrial strategy. Regarding when Skills England will broadly take on functions currently delivered by IfATE, it is our intention to lay commencement regulations promptly following Royal Assent to bring into force the provisions that transfer IfATE’s functions, along with its assets and liabilities. Skills England is already operational, and we are determined to ensure that there is no delay in enabling it to become even more effective. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, referenced the Government’s post-16 education and skills strategy, which we are currently working on. I talked about the broad principles of the strategy at the Association of Colleges conference last week. We will publish a broad framework for that relatively soon, with further detail at the beginning of next year. Skills England will provide an authoritative assessment of skills needs in the economy. It will then use those data and insights to develop and maintain a comprehensive suite of technical qualifications and apprenticeships. As I said, it is already working with key stakeholders to ensure that the identified need and available training are reflected in local and regional skills systems. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, who argued that it would be appropriate to run Skills England and IfATE concurrently, that would very much lose the benefit that comes from bringing those functions together so that the available training and qualifications that are developed exactly reflect the analysis that Skills England will be in a better place to do. Skills England will take on functions currently delivered by IfATE, delivering them alongside and in line with its broader strategic purpose. In doing so, it will ensure that the system becomes more responsive and better able to quickly and efficiently supply the skills most needed by the economy. We intend to establish Skills England as an executive agency of the Department for Education. In our debates on the Bill so far, and in Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, it has been suggested that Skills England should instead be established as a statutory body. I reassure the Committee that we have considered carefully the risks, opportunities and benefits of different models, to understand from the beginning how the organisation will be successful. Thanks to the progress that IfATE itself has driven, the system for developing technical qualifications and apprenticeships has matured since IfATE was established in 2017. However, as I said, at the same time we have seen a growing severity in the skills challenges the economy faces. We need Skills England to be a different type of organisation, to support the Government’s growth and opportunity missions. Working as an executive agency, Skills England will balance on the one hand the need for rapid action and independent objective analysis of skills gaps and on the other—this was the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson—proximity and clear links into central government to inform decision-making. This is an appropriate balance of independence and the ability to drive at speed what all noble Lords have argued is the impact that we need Skills England to have. Skills England will, as with any arm’s-length body, be subject to the highest standards of governance and transparency, including any relevant requirements for review. I will come to some of the questions raised on that in a moment. Clause 1 introduces Schedule 1, which transfers functions to the Secretary of State and will therefore enable Skills England to take on and deliver functions currently delivered by IfATE, alongside other functions as appropriate, in line with its strategic purpose. This will help address the fragmentation that is holding the system back and restricting improved workforce development and productivity gains. Clause 2 introduces Schedule 2, which makes provision for a transfer scheme to transfer IfATE’s property, rights and liabilities smoothly to the Secretary of State. It will ensure functional continuity of property, rights and liabilities, including the many contracts that are critical to the operation of the skills system, and it will set a firm basis for the operation of Skills England.

13:45:00

Clause 3 abolishes IfATE and introduces Schedule 3, which makes consequential amendments to the existing primary legislation that are required as a consequence of abolishing IfATE, as a significant step towards the full establishment of Skills England.

Amendments 32 and 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would create a statutory obligation to establish Skills England as an executive agency or to lay legislation to this effect within three months of the passage of the Bill. Her Amendment 42 has the intention of repealing the Bill a year after it gains Royal Assent if there is a delay in establishing Skills England.

Additionally, Amendment 21, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would require the Secretary of State to lay a document before Parliament with draft proposals for the establishment of Skills England as

“a new executive agency responsible for the powers transferred under this Act”.

It would also require the Secretary of State to table a resolution concerning this document in both Houses and prevent the establishment of the executive agency unless these resolutions are passed.

I know that these amendments are aimed at ensuring that there is continuity in the work of Skills England and at providing certainty by placing that in the Bill. But I reinforce that Skills England is already operational in shadow form. It is already providing that authoritative assessment of skills needs and using that to inform decision-making across government. We are already in the process of establishing Skills England, including, for example, the recruitment of an independent chair and board. In accordance with standard procedure, when the cross-government process for the establishment of an executive agency has been completed, we will ensure that Parliament is notified about that.

I recognise the importance of Skills England being effective and held accountable as an arm’s-length body, which several noble Lords referred to. Skills England will have a published framework document setting out the arrangements for the Department for Education to monitor its strategy, performance and delivery. A framework document is a core constitutional document of an arm’s-length body, setting out the purpose of the body and describing the governance and accountability framework that applies between it, the sponsor department and the rest of government. This includes the arrangements for the sponsor department to monitor the body’s strategy, performance and delivery.

Skills England’s framework document will be introduced as soon as practicable, in line with HM Treasury’s published guidance. Obviously, the framework document will be cleared through all relevant approvals. I hear the concern of noble Lords and will try to ensure that we are able to provide, if not the final framework document, more information to provide reassurance about the status, accountability and governance of Skills England.

I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend’s flow, but is it likely that this framework document will address that issue of the Secretary of State becoming, in effect, the awarding body for T-levels? Does she have any reflection on how precarious that makes the Minister if things go wrong with being an awarding body, which they do? Sometimes that becomes a resignation matter.

Perhaps I could write to my noble friend with more details on that point. Currently, IfATE controls the licensing of T-levels, which is awarded to awarding organisations for them to develop and deliver. IfATE is not an awarding organisation but the contractor; that responsibility will transfer to the Secretary of State. It is the certification of T-levels that is delivered by the department. As I say, I will respond to my noble friend with a bit more detail on T-levels. I was attempting to provide noble Lords with some assurance about the governance of Skills England through its framework agreement. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about internal governance, Skills England will be run by a permanent CEO within a clear governance and accountability framework, and with a robust management structure at all levels. The CEO will be supported and challenged by an independent chair and a strong board with the experience and knowledge to support Skills England’s delivery. Once appointed, the chair and the board will help set the direction of the organisation, establish key relationships and provide important expertise on matters related to Skills England’s strategic aims and core functions. We are currently recruiting for these positions; we have received a large volume of very high-quality applications. In the meantime, I put on record my gratitude for the work of Richard Pennycook, who has been working as the interim chair of Skills England to support the creation of the new body. I understand the noble Baroness’s specific point in relation to the governance and the reporting arrangements of the CEO, and I accept her point about the reporting arrangements and the role of the board. Perhaps I could come back to her with more clarity on her point about the advert for the CEO and where we see that accountability going.

I apologise to the Minister but can she explain something? We are all talking about Skills England but there is no mention of it in this Bill. Can she explain why that is?

It is because, as with all executive agencies, the process for setting up Skills England as an executive agency does not require legislation, but for it to hold the functions that enable it to operate in the coherent manner I described, the functions currently held by IfATE need to be transferred to and delivered by Skills England as an executive agency of the DfE. It is the route through the Secretary of State that enables that to happen. I reiterate my earlier point: Skills England might not appear in the legislation in this place, but it very much appears on the country’s skills landscape. Notwithstanding the significance of the scrutiny that this place is able to give, as well as the concerns about Skills England’s longevity, that is probably more important than whether it is in a Bill. The passage of the Bill provides an opportunity for both Houses—as we are doing today, in fact—to consider the approach we are proposing, which is to move away from the current, narrow IfATE model. Creating any further requirement for parliamentary approval before Skills England operates fully would frustrate the intentions of the Bill to enable a smooth transfer and the delegation of functions to Skills England; the efficient and orderly closure of IfATE; and the ongoing work in the service of employers and learners. I assure noble Lords that the practical transition of functions will be designed to ensure that, where standards or apprenticeship assessment plans are in the process of preparation or approval at the point of transition, these will continue. Similarly, approval decisions for technical qualifications that are part-way through the process will also continue. It is our intention that employers and other stakeholders perceive no interruption in that work. The noble Lord, Lord Johnson, asked about the progress on the review of level 3 qualifications. Briefly, let me say that we will, as I have said all along, make public our decisions on the review of those qualifications; they are due to be defunded in 2025, before Christmas. I have talked in the House about this Government’s commitment to the lifelong learning entitlement. We will now be introducing it for courses starting from January 2027, precisely to ensure that it has the impact that the noble Lord rightly identified that it can have for lifelong learning. I hope I have set out the intentions behind Clauses 1 to 3. For these reasons and those that I outlined on the remaining amendments, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, will not press her stand part notices and amendments.

I thank all noble Lords who contributed to this debate and the Minister for her remarks. I hope she heard loud and clear that no one in this Committee is arguing about the Government’s ambition for skills reform; rather, we are all rooting for success in this area. This is not about what the Government are trying to do but more about how they are trying to do it. I was struck by the almost unanimity of view about the importance of greater independence from the department for Skills England. It was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Knight of Weymouth. He triggered what I think is the ex-ministerial version of PTSD—I call it PLSD, or post-legislative stress disorder—by talking about the Schools Bill, but I will forgive him this once. Importantly, it was also raised by my noble friend Lord Johnson, who talked about the importance of credibility with employers, which need stability in our system, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, who rightly mentioned the importance of bringing students, families and others on this journey. I was also struck by the constructive tone of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and the aspiration to make this the best it can be to deliver for our country. However, as the noble Baroness went on to say, there is a lack of confidence that this approach will deliver without that independence. Ironically, it is almost the fact that, as the Minister says, Skills England is already operating when the Bill has not even passed. It is just kind of happening within the department. There will be a framework published, but without any potential to input to it. It feels like DfE marking its own homework, which is not a healthy place to be. I did not feel a lot of movement in the Minister’s remarks. I am sure that, when she looks at Hansard, she will note the strength of feeling across the Committee but, for the moment, I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part.

Clause 1 agreed.

Schedule 1 agreed.

Clause 2 agreed.

Schedule 2 agreed.

Clause 3 agreed.

Schedule 3 agreed.

Clause 4: Preparation of standards

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 4, page 2, line 3, at end insert— “(3ZA) A group of persons in subsection (3) may be an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”

My Lords, I first apologise to my noble friend the Minister and the Committee that I will not be able to stay until the very end of the debate. I have a medical appointment in Sheffield for one of the many ailments that seem to be striking me down at the moment, but maybe I will be in better shape next Tuesday.

14:00:00

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to Amendment 1, and rejoice that, after so many years of seeking consensus with the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, we are at one at last. She is certainly right in not wanting to remember the Schools Bill, but I remember the last technical education Bill. The problem from all sides of the House on that occasion was that we began to realise that we were doing anything except actually dealing with policy, so the House could debate the Bill so long as it did not affect the ongoing development of the policy. I fear that we are back here again with this legislation. It is not, as was described in the debate on the first group, that anyone is against Skills England and the development of a co-ordinating body that can do the job of pulling together all the players and ensuring that policy and delivery can be aligned; it is about whether Parliament has any part to play in development post the framework document.

We will come back later in the Bill, probably on Tuesday, to some of the issues that have been touched on, but the amendment that I am moving is relevant to the specific way in which Skills England will operate in taking on some or all of the functions of IfATE. My fear, which I expressed briefly because we had a very short timescale at Second Reading, is that given the number of people currently transferable from IfATE, full- and part-time, which nudges 200, given the macro job that Skills England will need to do and given the way in which the policy framework was at least touched on on 24 September—I pay tribute to Richard Pennycook for being able to pull that together with the department—there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.

When two years ago I led on the learning and skills document that was a precursor to Skills England—we had a different name for it, but it is the same thing—to bring people together to do the overview and to determine how, where and when different sectors and devolved agencies would be able to play their part, we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards. My amendment is to seek a discussion on the thinking on devolving out to sectors of the economy the process that IfATE is currently going through—not only the 700 standards that have already been put in place but their iteration in a timely manner so that we can move swiftly and surefootedly to update them and to take on the new challenges and the relationship with Ofqual. If we could explore how we might we do that, we could return at least some of the powers to those sectors that have bodies, including construction and engineering—and there are others in the more modern fields such as cell development and gene therapy—where it would be possible to ensure that everything did not have to go through a centralised system, which, if the department places most of it in the hands of Skills England, will be a complete diversion from the major job of equipping Britain for the years ahead.

It was very sad—we will perhaps come back to this on Tuesday—that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not have anything to say about Skills England or the growth and skills levy in the Budget. That is partly because the Treasury—and I speak from bitter experience—really does not get it. It has never got it, it is in the DNA, and it is in the nature of recruitment to the Treasury and where individuals working there, brilliant as they are, come from.

A little book by Matthew Syed examines the brilliance of the CIA at one point in its iteration, with the best possible east coast minds that could be drawn together, all of whom thought exactly the same and had the same educational and social experiences and led to the CIA’s near-demise. We must send a message to the Treasury: if you do not get this right in supporting the department and what my noble friend wants to do, forget everything else in terms of net zero, housing and construction, and preparation for the massive and rapid onset of artificial intelligence. Just forget it all, because without getting the skills agenda right and ensuring that there is proper devolution where that is appropriate and that it can be surefooted, as I described a minute ago, we will lose out very badly indeed. My appeal is: do not let the transfer of IfATE swamp what is being attempted; in other words, let us not have a reverse takeover of what is still in its embryo—namely, Skills England.

I hope my noble friend may be able to come back on Report with the idea of putting the framework document that has been referred to this afternoon in the Bill, because in that way, at least Parliament might have some foothold, some purchase on what we are doing. 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. I hope that we can have this debate this afternoon in the spirit of wanting to get this right. I beg to move.

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 3, 4 and 7 in my name, and to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—who I am delighted to see is well enough to join us today—and to which I have added my support. As we have already heard, the Bill moves the powers from IfATE and transfers them to the Secretary of State while removing the requirement for external stakeholders to be consulted in all circumstances. The effect of this is to reduce independence regarding both the powers transferred and the examination processes—perhaps I should say “scrutiny processes” for the avoidance of doubt—as well as removing the requirement to work with those outside stakeholders which best understand the needs of their respective areas. As also noted earlier in the debate, the Bill does not specify who will be consulted in reference to a group of persons. This lack of detail is concerning, and my amendments seek to rectify that. Amendment 3 in my name would include a list of relevant stakeholders which must be consulted before the creation of standards, which includes employers, mayoral combined authorities and sector representative bodies. The spirit of the amendment is to retain the focus that IfATE had on employers and those with a strategic interest in technical education, whether that be regionally or by sector. They are all important to provide knowledge across a range of issues. Employers employ and train those who are undertaking apprenticeships and other qualifications and so can provide a perspective as to what business and the economy are in need of in relation to these qualifications. Mayoral combined authorities will be able to provide information as to what skills a particular region is lacking and advocate for a change in qualifications when necessary, and the local skills improvement partnerships will be able to provide their data as to what current, future and priority skills are in certain areas and expertise in how to increase collaboration between employers and regional authorities. As noted by the Association of Colleges, there is a real opportunity here to bring together local plans, which sometimes exist in a vacuum, and a national plan, to encourage alignment and avoid duplication or gaps. Given that the Minister explicitly referred to this point at Second Reading, I hope that she will see the merit of my amendments. The sector representative bodies will be able to provide knowledge on what skills and qualifications are relevant to the sector, both now and in the future, to ensure that these qualifications remain up to date and relevant to their economic needs. 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 want to 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. As mentioned at Second Reading, the Bill gives wide-ranging powers to the Secretary of State without maintaining those clear external links and the accountability that they help to provide. This is potentially damaging to the status of these qualifications. When in government, we delivered an increase in the value of skills-based qualifications, with a relentless focus on quality and developing a range of apprenticeships in particular that aim to reflect the breadth of our economy. As such, we on these Benches want an effective approach to developing our apprenticeship and technical education system—I am sure that sentiment is echoed across the Committee—but I am concerned that the reduction in accountability and scrutiny in the creation of standards will not do that. That is why my Amendment 4 seeks to remove the Secretary of State’s power to act alone when creating standards. If the Government do not accept my Amendment 4, my Amendment 7 at least seeks to increase the transparency about when and how these powers will be used. At Second Reading, the Minister was careful to set out some of the circumstances in which these powers to act alone would be used. She talked about making “small and fast adjustments” and allowing “greater flexibility in scenarios where preparation by a group can be unnecessary or restrictive”.—[Official Report, 22/10/24; col. 581.] Although it is unnecessary to have these powers, if the Government are so clear about these circumstances then surely it would be responsible to put them in the Bill so that the power of any future Government is constrained by the same things. I hope that, when she responds, the Minister will give the Committee some encouragement on this point. I also hope that she will reiterate the Government’s commitment to publishing standards in draft for stakeholder comment before they are finalised, and how the Government will respond if stakeholders have concerns. As we heard, Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to which I added my name, also seeks to bring the perspective of, and give greater responsibility to, sector representative bodies in the development of standards in future. This has much in common with my Amendment 3. The Minister will have views on the relative merits of “must” and “may”, but the spirit of the amendments is similar and aims to link the Government’s decisions as closely as possible to the real world. As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, put it so eloquently, it aims to ensure that we do not lose that focus on delivery. We recognise the merits of Amendments 2, 5, 6 and 8, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. All of them drive broadly in the same direction—namely, to urge the Secretary of State to bring as much clarity as possible to the people she chooses to include in the group of persons referred to in Clauses 4 and 5, and to the circumstances in which she would exercise her powers in new subsection (3A) in Clause 4. The noble Lord’s Amendment 6 would give the Secretary of State more time to do so than my Amendment 7, but the aim of the amendments is similar.

My Lords, I have a number of amendments in this group, which the noble Baroness kindly just introduced for me. Most of them are based on concerns expressed by employers that they should remain genuinely at the heart of the new system and that it will continue to meet their real needs. I have heard concerns from employers in the construction industry, CITB, the engineering services sector and the energy and utilities sector, for example, that the changes will possibly lead to less engagement of employers. To succeed in its aims, Skills England will need to foster close collaboration with employers of all types and sizes across all key sectors, including the eight growth-driving sectors identified in the industrial strategy.

14:15:00

Except for Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, all the amendment in this group, which relates to Clause 4 on the preparation of occupational standards, are exactly matched by the amendments in the next group, which relates to Clause 5 on the preparation of apprenticeship assessment plans. I hope your Lordships will appreciate that I do not plan to say exactly the same in the next group as I will say on this one. Perhaps others will follow that lead, although I hope the Minister will have something different to say, as I was told the amendments had to be in separate groups. However, it means that we will all get a second bite of the cherry if we forget to say something on this group.

Clauses 4 and 5 give the Secretary of State extra powers in relation first to preparing apprenticeship standards and secondly to apprenticeship assessment plans beyond those hitherto exercised by IfATE, allowing the Secretary of State to do so herself—I never know whether to use “herself”, as we talk about the current Secretary of State, but I have noticed references to “them”, which I find deeply upsetting. Typically, such a group of persons would have been made up of employers. They are therefore understandably concerned about whether this role will be diluted.

My Amendments 2 and 9, to which my noble friends Lady Wolf of Dulwich and Lord Hampton and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, have kindly added their names, therefore seek to add a requirement to publish criteria for selecting the members of a group of persons which are nowhere else spelled out—neither in the Bill nor in the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009, which merely states helpfully that:

“The group of persons that prepared a standard must have been approved by the Institute”—

that is, IfATE. This will hardly be helpful once IfATE has been abolished. There needs to be clarity about the make-up of an acceptable group of persons.

Amendment 5 goes a step further, spelling out that any group of persons must include a person or persons from

“the relevant industry skills and standards setting body”—

generally a sector skills council, an industrial partnership or a body such as the Construction Industry Training Board. Sector skills bodies have played an important role in providing employer input and have played a standard-setting role in conjunction with IfATE, so employers would be seriously concerned if these links were severed. These two amendments would explicitly ensure that the Bill recognises that occupational standards, apprenticeship standards and apprenticeship assessment arrangements are informed by industry skills and standard-setting bodies in the absence of IfATE.

Amendments 6 and 13, again with the welcome support of my noble friends Lady Wolf and Lord Hampton and the noble Lord, Lord Storey, would require the Secretary of State to publish within six months of the Bill’s passage specific criteria for exercising the power not to convene a group of persons. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, also spoke about that, so I will limit myself to saying that without such criteria, there appears to be no restriction on when the power could be used, so that, potentially, employers and other interested parties could be completely cut out of the process of preparing standards and assessment plans.

I also added my name to Amendments 3 and 10, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, but I subsequently had if not exactly a change of heart but a slight panic that, although the way that the noble Baroness expressed it was that representatives from mayoral combined authorities, local skills improvement partnerships and sector representative bodies should be consulted and considered for membership of a group of persons, which I believe, the way that the amendment is phrased means that they all would have to be included in every such group. Since, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, told us, there are some 700 standards, that would be quite a tall order to achieve. I applaud the principle, but the word “must” gives me some hesitation.

Amendment 4 to Clause 4 and Amendment 11 to Clause 5 are both in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. They would remove entirely the Secretary of State’s new power to prepare an apprenticeship assessment plan without convening a group of persons. This would be my preferred route, as a stronger alternative to my own amendments, unless the Minister can define the specific and limited circumstances in which this power would be used, as required by Amendment 6.

My Lords, I would like to talk a bit about Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has added her name. As the outgoing chair of IfATE, I have listened carefully to some of the words expressed both today and at Second Reading. There are a small number of things that I would urge everyone to consider here; I say that to the Minister in particular. Today, we have not yet discussed what really sits at the heart of the skills system with IfATE. We talk about the technical side of it, but we need to talk more about the employer voice. Yesterday, one of our board members, Robin Miller, who is one of the most famous music producers in the country and has been there from day one of IfATE—I have not—said something really interesting to me. He said that it took five years to get employers on side and to believe that IfATE could do really good things. Nothing is perfect. No arm’s-length body is ever perfect. Everyone can have their criticisms. I wish Skills England well for the future—I really want it to build on the momentum that has been built up in the skills system, as fragmented as it is—but I urge us to do more than just holding webinars with employers. Employers sit at the heart of the system; I can say that having myself been a very large employer in this country. We need to understand how momentum will be built around the critical skills that this country is going to need in future. While this transfer is going on and all this is happening, behind the system sit employers with skills gaps to fill. They need urgently to make sure that everything they are doing in terms of the new apprenticeships, new qualifications and new, high-level technical qualifications that they need is done quickly and brilliantly. I genuinely do not understand how putting it into an executive agency that is part of a bigger department will necessarily do that; I would love to believe that it will, but we are going to need more evidence of how that will be done. I am, and many other people are, here to support that but, frankly, the quicker we can do it, the better. Speed, momentum and delivery are what really worry me. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, asked whether Skills England might be swamped by the very technical things that it may have to do now. Yes—that will be the case. Does Skills England really want to sit there with the Secretary of State and be the awarding body, as the noble Lord, Lord Knight, said? I do not necessarily think so. We need to look closely at how these functions will move and what will be done so that employers understand. Even more importantly, let us talk about the learners. Let us talk about the young people doing T-levels today. Yesterday, we spoke to one of them for half an hour about what she was doing in her journey. At the age of 16, her journey is fantastic. She is doing a T-level. She is heading towards an apprenticeship degree. She wants to be a chartered surveyor, as one example of many young people’s aspirations in this country. However, she said that too few people understand T-levels, career pathways and so on. There is so much work to be done. I simply urge us all not to forget during the passage of this Bill that the employer voice and the learner voice need to be heard more highly.

My Lords, I rise to speak to the two amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to which I have added my name. More broadly, I want to speak to the general thrust of the group. I think that our joint amendment was not specific enough. It is not so much that we need criteria; we need to know that employers will be there and who else will be there. It is not just that we would like some criteria published. It is important that some of this is publicly and legislatively specified because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, alluded to a little, things start very well, people know exactly what they are doing and then they slide. It might seem inconceivable to anybody involved in setting up Skills England that apprenticeship standards would, in the future, be written without really consulting employers. All I can say is, “I wish”. I have been looking back at the history of skills policy and implementation in this country, as I do periodically when I decide to write something, and it has reminded me how easy it is for harassed and busy civil servants to just get things through and for powers given to a department, which do not require them to go out beyond the department, to be used by it. It is not that anybody means badly, but that is sort of how it goes. That is why, on repeated occasions, we have ended up with disastrous skills policies and approaches, in essence, for which there is equal-opportunity guilt across the parties. They became just a small group—harassed, busy, pulling very few people in—not putting down the infrastructure to ensure that what you get reaches out into whole economy. We need to do that. 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, it is awkward and sometimes it does not work out well. IfATE has not been perfect. I think more than 700 standards is mad, actually, and when I was involved in the Sainsbury review, I expressly asked that there should be fewer of them. It is not that what we have is perfect, but we have to be aware of the lessons that come from previous mistakes. It is very risky to put everything inside the department without anything that, in effect, says, “You’ve got to do this. You’ve got to do that. You’ve got to talk to employers and the key organisations”. Yes, it takes longer, it is awkward and you do not always think they are very good, but it has to be there. The general feeling coming out of these amendments is that we need Skills England to be better than what we have at the moment and not be set up such that the institutional structures invite a repeat of the things that went wrong in previous decades.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on the importance of consulting employers and that 700 standards might be a little “mad”. I reinforce the sense that it is important to consult not just large employers as, for small and medium-sized employers, that granularity is really challenging. I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, in his place, because he and I did a little work with EngineeringUK looking at apprenticeship take-up. We heard quite strongly from the SME community that it needs more sectoral standards, with more modularity for the specificity that you see in the 700. There is an opportunity attached to more modularity which could address the problem of English and maths requirements within apprenticeships, as it would then be more possible to think about sector-specific English and maths at level 2 and 3, as appropriate, so that the relevance of the learning to the English and maths content could be made much clearer and much easier for those learners. In that context, I support what the noble Baroness and most noble Lords have said. I listened very closely to the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett.

14:30:00

My Lords, the interesting Library briefing on the Bill contains the following paragraph: “Unifying the skills landscape to ensure that the workforce is ‘equipped with the skills needed to power economic growth’, by bringing together mayoral combined authorities and other key local partners, large and small businesses, training providers and unions”. That brought joy to my ears. In this question about determining standards and all the other things that need to be done, we have a wealth of experience and expertise within trade unions of various kinds. My own experience, of course, is in education, but there will be other unions covering other sectors. It is important, when we are thinking about this, to ensure as we move forward with skills that we take account of those people who are either delivering the training or have themselves done the jobs. The best way to hear that voice may well be through the trade unions. I therefore commend to the Government listening to trade unions and having trade unions in the conversation.

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 2 and 6, to which I have added my name. The great thing about following so many intelligent noble Lords is that I have little to say. In particular, my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith talked about the employer, which is important for everybody. I have been playing bingo with words and phrases and “clarity” has come up many times. With due deference to my noble friend Lord Aberdare, I am going to repeat myself: we need clarity; employers need clarity; teachers need clarity. This is my second bite at the cherry and I am not sure whether I declared my interest as a teacher at first. Everybody needs clarity from the Bill and these amendments give more rather than less, which is vital.

My Lords, it is great to see the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, with us, because his voice has enormous stature in these discussions. These amendments are all to do with the creation of standards. My noble friend Lord Storey added his name to Amendments 2 and 6, but we are broadly supportive of all the amendments in this group. It is vital that in any work-based qualification the voice of employers is heard loud and clear. I should perhaps have declared that I worked for 20 years for City & Guilds on what we always called “vocational qualifications”, because while some were technical, some were craft qualifications. I always regretted the fact that we had taken over the word “technical” to cover all those myriad work areas. Of course, employers may not be expert in teaching or assessment, as we discovered in spades when we were developing national vocational qualifications. Employers had wonderful, grandiose ideas about all the things that they wanted to assess, but when we got the colleges and City & Guilds with them, they realised that if they wanted staff to know about fire, they could not actually create a fire for every member of staff to have a real experience of dealing with fire. Assessment bodies had their place, as well as the colleges. I was working for City & Guilds when the first national vocational qualifications were established. NVQs were going to revolutionise the “skills” word with a very easy to understand grading, which would have enabled parents, teachers and everybody to understand exactly where the vocational system was in relation to the academic one. Alas, where are they now? Why do we have local skills improvement plans and partnerships if they are not to be used for all the skills they have in this brave new world? I think it is important that the Secretary of State must set the priorities for LSIPs and review them regularly to ensure that their priorities are reflected in national strategies for the creation of standards, so I think this set of amendments has a great deal to commend it.

My Lords, like others, I welcome the fact that my noble friend Lord Blunkett has both attended and made his usual well-informed and passionate contribution in this debate. It appears that very little in the way of ill health or accident will prevent him from making his contribution. We all hope that he recovers as soon as possible. He rightly made an argument about the centrality of skills for everything that the Government are trying to achieve. He is exactly right about the role of skills in delivering all the missions that this Government have set out: growth, opportunity for individuals, rebuilding the NHS, delivering a green superpower, providing opportunities for young people as part of the contribution to keeping our streets safer, and building new homes. I completely agree with him about that and I hope that his words will help our efforts with the Treasury in the way he identified to ensure that that is recognised there as well. The debate on this set of amendments has been interesting. I will talk about the relatively narrow nature of Clause 4 in a moment, but noble Lords have understandably also taken the opportunity to argue for the significance of a broad range of inputs into the activity of Skills England. I agree with the overarching argument about the importance of the involvement of a wide-ranging set of stakeholders. That is how Skills England has already set off in its work. It has already begun to engage with a wide range of employer representative bodies, individual employers and education and training providers. As I said, it will work closely across government and, in working on the industrial strategy, it will work in partnership with business, devolved Governments, regions and other stakeholders in developing the industrial strategy sector plans. As my noble friend Lord Blunkett emphasised, there needs to be a sectoral approach to the way we develop skills across the economy. That has been an early focus for Skills England. It will work with employer representative bodies and directly with employers. It will work with education and training providers and with mayoral combined authorities. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State and I had a good meeting just last week with mayoral combined authorities on skills, and Skills England has been meeting regularly with them. On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Blower, one of the important elements of Skills England has been the engagement of unions, in a way that was not the case previously in the development of the skills landscape. I hope that I can give noble Lords some assurance that that is already the approach that Skills England is taking. Narrowing the discussion down more specifically to the nature of the intention behind Clause 4, I make it clear that this is to provide the Secretary of State with greater flexibility in the minority of circumstances where preparing occupational standards using a group would be disproportionate or unnecessary for the limited scale or nature of the change or where the system needs to move particularly quickly to respond to employer demand. With over 700 standards currently in place, this clause ensures that the system for preparing and reviewing standards is fit for the future.

Can the Minister give an example of what might spark that off? I am finding it hard to imagine a situation in which it might occur.

I will be delighted to, and I was coming to that. Before I do that, I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, and repeat from Second Reading my gratitude for her contribution to the development of IfATE. I recognise her point about what is necessary to get employer engagement in some of the detailed work that IfATE has been engaged in and that will be transferred under this legislation to Skills England. She is absolutely right about that; it needs consistent work. But it also needs, as employers have told us, appropriate flexibility and agility to enable those standards to be developed in a way that reflects changing developments and does not put too onerous a responsibility on employers in terms of their engagement. Let us be clear that the default position will remain that a self-forming group of persons will prepare a standard. It is probably worth noting that this definition of “a group of persons” also legislatively guided IfATE in its engagement on occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment schemes. Our proposals do not weaken legislatively the engagement of employers. When a group does not convene itself to prepare a standard for an occupation which the Secretary of State is satisfied requires a standard, the Secretary of State may convene a group to prepare one. In both circumstances, we would expect that such a group would normally, but not exclusively, include employers that are representative of that occupation. Only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is more appropriate for them to prepare a standard than for a group of persons will the Secretary of State then do so. To come to the noble Baroness’s point, scenarios in which it may be appropriate for the Secretary of State to use this power to prepare a standard are those where using a group would be disproportionately onerous for employers or other stakeholders; unnecessary because only minor adjustments or revisions were required; or where it could create undue delays. This might include—I say for illustrative purposes—updating standards to align with changes to mandatory qualifications within the standard; creating or updating standards to align with industry-recognised qualifications or statutory requirements; or creating or updating standards more efficiently where employers do not have the capacity. We envisage that the Secretary of State may also use the power to create and update standards for emerging or rapidly developing occupations, such as those in the digital sector. The clause also enables the Secretary of State to ensure that standards are developed or updated quickly to respond to acute skills needs or urgent regulatory changes required in an emergency, such as the updates to the level 3 community fire safety adviser following the Grenfell disaster. Finally, employers themselves tell us that current processes for preparing standards can feel slow, bureaucratic and time-consuming. This is not a criticism of IfATE; it is a criticism of a requirement currently in legislation that we want to use this opportunity to make more flexible. It is a barrier to their engagement. We want to focus their input where it has the most impact.

Those are all reasonable grounds for using the power, but there is nothing in the Bill that says that the default is a group of persons or that those are the kinds of circumstances in which the Secretary of State might take the power. There is nothing in the Bill that reassures employers that the powers would not be used unreasonably. There is nothing to stop them being used in any circumstances; nothing says that using a group would have to be disproportionately onerous, or indeed what the definition of “disproportionate” or “undue delays” is. In one sense, I am reassured, but in another, I do not see why there cannot be something in the Bill that lays it out a bit more clearly.

14:45:00

Before the Minister continues, I have been listening as attentively as I can manage. That exact thought occurred to me. Could we get something, such as some guidelines—or, at least, some idea of the current government thinking—on when you would not consult and the criteria around pressure and speed? This would put my mind slightly more at rest.

I hope to provide noble Lords some reassurance by way of guidelines, which I will come to in a moment, but I also hope to convince noble Lords—I shall try—that there is, in fact, a conflict between the idea of doing something as flexibly as possible in order to engage employers and spelling it in the Bill. I will make that argument as I continue. I turn first to Amendment 1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, Amendments 2 and 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. They all relate to the membership of the group of persons. At present, as I have suggested, there are no statutory criteria that prescribe the make-up of a group that forms or is formed to prepare an occupational standard. Employers play a prominent role and are well placed to define or describe what occupational competence looks like in most cases, but different expert voices might have a role to play in different circumstances. This point was made by the noble Baroness, Lady Garden —although probably more with respect to assessment, which we will come on to in Clause 5. We do not see any benefit in seeking to shape or fetter the structure of these groups with criteria that would prevent the membership of a group reflecting the specific factors relating to the need for its preparation. IfATE is under an existing duty to publish information about matters that it will take into account when deciding whether or not to approve groups of persons; I assure noble Lords that this duty is being transferred to the Secretary of State unamended, so it will remain in existence. Novel and additional criteria in primary legislation to specify the make-up of a group, for which noble Lords are arguing, might provide some assurance here. However, it would be a new constraint in the system. Slowing down groups coming together, and slowing down the development and maintenance of occupational standards, could lead to a focus on ticking boxes instead of flexibly, broadly and inclusively finding the best people to define the knowledge, skills and behaviours required to be competent in the occupation. The optimal composition of a group will vary from occupation to occupation; for example, to represent the breadth of an occupation and the employers in it that will employ apprentices, it may be necessary in new, emerging or highly specialised occupations to look openly at who can bring to bear the relative expertise in the preparation of a standard. Retaining the existing flexibility around the make-up of a group of persons is critical to achieving high-quality occupational standards. Amendment 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the ability of the Secretary of State to prepare a standard if they are satisfied that it would be more appropriate for the standard to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons. I hope I have assured the noble Baroness of the need for this greater flexibility. I reiterate that it is needed for a minority of cases to ensure that standards are kept up to date without a disproportionate burden, given the volume of standards that now exists. Amendment 5 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would create a duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the relevant industry skills and standards-setting body when preparing a standard. Such bodies are important to the preparation of occupational standards, and in most cases high-quality occupational standards are developed by an inclusive and independent group. In fact, current guidance states that groups must seek advice and guidance from organisations with responsibility in their industry for defining skills standards in England and the wider UK. We expect this requirement to remain. I emphasise that in only the minority of circumstances, where the Secretary of State considers it more appropriate, will standards be prepared by them rather than by a group, so there is a role for industry bodies in this process and we expect that they will continue to be engaged. However, this amendment would undo the flexibility and efficiency sought through Clause 4, by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult specific bodies when they consider it more appropriate for the Secretary of State to prepare a standard than by using a group. That would be exacerbated in circumstances where the relevant industry skills or standards-setting body is unable to participate when required. It therefore risks giving them precedence over others, including employers. Amendment 6, also in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 7, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would impose a duty to publish criteria for the preparation of occupational standards by the Secretary of State. To be clear again, employers remain best placed to define and describe what occupational competence looks like in most cases. As I have indicated, the Secretary of State would not convene a group in only a minority of circumstances. Setting criteria for that minority of circumstances would frustrate the necessary agility that this clause aims to bring to the process. It would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to be responsive and to ensure that the suite of high-quality standards is kept up to date and relevant. I hope that I have set out the intentions behind Clause 4 and provided some assurance and reassurance for noble Lords. For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, will withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for her kind words, which I hope do not turn out to be a hostage to fortune. I am grateful to everybody who has contributed to a thoughtful debate. As my noble friend the Minister described, we are debating areas that are obviously very much in flux. I was interested in the earlier debate about consistency and continuity on the one hand and collective memory on the other. It is important to carry this forward in a way that picks up the best of what is already in place and iterates that very speedily and easily, with the support and confidence of employers. The noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, was quite right to draw attention to the importance of that. The amendments in this group were trying to explore the way in which the operation proceeds. There may be things that we come back to, as I know that amendments in later groups will return to this issue. On that basis, it is appropriate to withdraw my amendment now.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendments 2 to 8 not moved.

Clause 4 agreed.

Clause 5: Preparation of apprenticeship assessment plans

Amendment 9

Moved by

9: Clause 5, page 2, line 24, at end insert— “(6ZA) Within six months of the day on which the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2024 is passed, the Secretary of State must publish criteria for selecting membership of a group of persons described in subsection (6).”Member’s explanatory statement This amendment, and a similar amendment to Clause 4, requires the Secretary of State to publish criteria for selecting members of a “group of persons”, which is not otherwise defined. The 2009 Act states that the “group of persons … must have been approved by the Institute”.

My Lords, I have Amendments 9, 12, 13 and 15 in this group and have added my name to Amendments 10, 11 and 14 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, with the same reservations about Amendment 10 as I expressed about Amendment 3. Your Lordships will be glad to know that I have failed to think of additional points that I have not already made in speaking to identical amendments to Clause 4, so I will content myself with saying that I beg to move Amendment 9, on the same grounds as set out previously.

My Lords, that is quite a challenge to follow, and it is tempting to take the same approach—I think my popularity with the Committee might improve—but, in all seriousness, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said, my Amendments 10, 11 and 14 are based on a very similar argument to that debated in the previous group about the concerning lack of detail regarding what we mean by “a group of persons” and the potential dilution of employer focus. With that, I commend the amendments.

My Lords, I rise just to give my much wiser noble friend a break. The assessment plan for any qualification is of the essence. If you get that wrong, you might as well not bother doing it. When you have a group of people looking at this, you stand a better chance than you get from one centre. There are a series of clichés about Secretaries of State, and I will try not to kick and wring every one of them, but the basic one is that if the Secretary of State has spoken to somebody who just does not understand or gets it wrong, the whole thing can go wrong. If you have a group, you stand a better chance of getting a correct result. Nothing is guaranteed either way, but that is what it is about. I hope that we can get some response from the Minister on where we are going to get this expertise in to check on what is happening. That is it, in essence, because we have had Secretaries of State who know exactly what they want and will talk to a certain group that agrees with them. That is very easy to do, and we have all done it. I hope that we will get some assurance that the Secretary of State will talk to a divergence of opinion to go through these things to make sure that they work. If we do not and start to get them wrong, the price will be huge and we will have nothing useful. Being a little slower and a bit more certain is infinitely better than taking the chance of getting it horribly wrong. I hope the Minister can give us a reassuring answer.

I do not have very much to add, everybody will be glad to hear, except to highlight the fact that assessment is not the same as getting to the end of the standards. We have a complex set of awarding bodies and some assessment standards which require an external qualification and some which do not. It would also be good to be confident that the department has worked through all the ramifications of this. I am conscious that I do not think I have and am going to go back and look through some of the original legislation, but I do not think the considerations are exactly the same as they are for standards. Because we have a rather strange system in this country, with a lot of formal qualifications and a lot of awarding bodies, it is very easy to get the qualifications wrong or suddenly find that you have a huge political fuss on your hands, as I am sure everyone in this Room will recognise from the current BTEC discussions. I just flag that it is not just the same as for standards. The complexity of many endpoint assessments and standards for which there are required external qualifications means that we need to be very careful that we have not inadvertently stored up some real problems for ourselves by just moving everything wholesale and saying, “But where necessary, the Secretary of State can cut through the bramble patch”.

My Lords, I have a little sympathy for this additional request for the Secretary of State to do this if the defaults are not working. Having seen how the current system works, my only observation is: will that be quicker? If it is about speed, I am not necessarily convinced that, as the Secretary of State will be so busy, this will be one of the highest-priority things in the Department for Education, and that concerns me. With more employers and more people involved in the system, there is always a danger that this will slow down. I am not really sure in what circumstances this power will be used. I could probably see it for the odd exception, but I still cannot quite imagine what it could be. However, I have a little sympathy, as long as it is around speed in the odd exceptional circumstance.

15:00:00

I thank noble Lords for their concise contributions on these amendments. As the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, made clear, that does not undermine how important the nature of assessment is. I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that the best chance of getting assessment right is by engaging appropriately at the right time. On Clause 5, we are talking specifically about proposals regarding apprenticeship assessment plans and the transfer of the function from IfATE. Clause 5 amends the requirement for assessment plans to be prepared by a group of persons by making it subject to a power for the Secretary of State to prepare apprenticeship assessment plans if that is more appropriate. This will simplify the process for updating and creating assessment plans. Noble Lords will recognise that our previous discussion also related to the use of groups of persons. We might find that some of the considerations are similar, but I assure the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that I will have a few different arguments in response to this, not least because the arguments for apprenticeship assessment are different to the arguments for standards. But the principle about agility and flexibility remains at the heart of this. Where the intention behind Clause 4, which we have just discussed, is to provide the Secretary of State with greater flexibility in a minority of circumstances in respect of preparing occupational standards, here we are concerned with flexibility in respect of apprenticeship assessment plans. In both cases, our intention is for employers to have a continuing and vital role in the composition of groups of persons. In both cases, it is important, as I am setting out, for the Secretary of State to have some limited flexibility not to define the membership of the group in advance and not to have a group if it is not needed in a small number of cases. The default position will be that an assessment plan will be prepared by a group of persons that has been approved for this purpose. Only when Skills England or the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is more appropriate for them to prepare an assessment plan, rather than a group of persons, will the Secretary of State do so. Scenarios in which it could be appropriate to consider the use of this power are where using a group would be disproportionate or create undue delay—I hear the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, about the need for speed. Scenarios could be, first, updating assessment plans to make adjustments that do not materially change the assessment or occupation competence of learners—for example, where they are aligned to deliver the competence required by a regulator, such as in regulated professions in the health sector. In such circumstances, using a group is unnecessary and burdensome because it is a reflection of updating that has happened in a regulated profession. The second scenario is creating assessment plans for emerging occupations, such as certain digital occupations. The third is creating or updating assessment plans where there are acute skills needs requiring an urgent response, and where there is a lack of capacity in the system to respond. Relying on a group in instances such as these can create undue delays and hinder responsiveness. Without this clause, changes to assessment plans to reflect straightforward adjustments would incur delays and require unnecessary time and resource. I note Amendment 11 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which seeks to remove the power held by the Secretary of State to prepare an assessment plan if they are satisfied that it would be more appropriate for the plan to be prepared by them than by a group of persons. However, for the reasons I have outlined already, it is crucial that we respond to feedback from users of the system to make the process for developing apprenticeship assessment plans more agile. Amendments 9 and 15 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and Amendment 10 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seek to set criteria for membership of a group of persons and to name in legislation a particular type of person that must be included as part of a group of persons. In the discussions on Clause 4, we went through some of the arguments about the impact this would have in reducing flexibility. There are no existing statutory criteria for how a group is formed to prepare an apprenticeship assessment plan but, as I said previously, IfATE is under a duty to publish information about matters it will consider when deciding whether to approve groups of persons. That existing duty is being transferred to the Secretary of State unchanged. When a group is convened, it is critical to consider who the experts are in the field in question. The noble Baroness, Lady Garden, correctly identified that the experts in assessment will not always be the same as the experts in developing an occupational standard—and, of course, this will vary from occupation to occupation. Employers play a prominent role and are well placed to define and describe occupational competence, but they do not always exclusively hold expertise about how apprenticeships are assessed, and other contributions may be valuable. It is important that there is the opportunity for groups of persons responsible for preparing apprenticeship assessment plans to reflect and draw on a broader range of expertise, such as in assessment methodologies, practical training delivery and costs. Professional bodies, awarding organisations, providers, regulators and others with a background in assessment can be well placed to be involved in the development of an assessment plan. In new and emerging occupations or highly specialised occupations, such as digital, artificial intelligence and nuclear, it may be necessary to take a broad and creative look at who is best placed to be part of a group preparing an assessment plan. There are scenarios where it is unnecessary or disproportionate to rely on a group to create or update assessment plans. For example, attempts have been made to convene a suitable group to update the interior systems installer assessment plan for nearly a year. This has significantly delayed the commencement of necessary, time-sensitive revisions in the important construction and built environment industry—a sector that is critical to this economy. Setting criteria would therefore create additional hurdles for, and potentially even prevent, groups being convened. This would further slow the development of assessment plans and risk employers and others losing confidence in the system and in our ability to meet acute skills needs. It is not in anyone’s interest, not least learners or employers, to incur such delays. That is why we are removing unnecessary barriers to simplify and speed up processes. Amendment 12 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would undo the intended flexibility and efficiency by placing a requirement on the Secretary of State to consult specific bodies when they have considered it more appropriate for them to prepare an assessment plan than to use a group. That also risks slowing progress when that body is unable to participate, and it risks giving unintended precedence to those bodies over others who may be well placed to determine how competence should be tested. I should also note that we see no reason why Skills England would not continue the approach currently taken by IfATE whereby all new assessment plans and those that have undergone material revisions—whether prepared by a group of persons or the Secretary of State—are published online for comment by any interested parties before approval. Amendment 14, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, would establish a duty to set and publish criteria in relation to the preparation of an apprenticeship assessment plan by the Secretary of State. As I emphasised, we are improving the system in response to feedback from key partners. Employers, trade bodies and providers tell us that the processes for developing and reviewing assessment plans need more pace and agility to respond quickly to changing and future skills needs. They report that current processes can feel bureaucratic, drawn out and time consuming—all barriers to the expert engagement that we need from them and to the smooth operation of assessment for employers and learners. Setting criteria that the Secretary of State would need to meet in order to prepare assessment plans—in the minority of circumstances when it is more appropriate to do so than using a group of persons—would restrict the Secretary of State’s ability to be responsive. It would be overly prescriptive and fly in the face of stakeholders telling us that processes need to be simpler. I hope I have set out the intentions behind Clause 5 and, for the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part on this group, particularly my noble friend Lady Wolf and the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, who added some valuable points. I thank the Minister, who mostly but not entirely managed not to give me the impression that I had wandered into a Groundhog Day scenario—there were some additional points there, I was glad to see. The Minister emphasised agility and flexibility as the advantages of the proposed system. This is probably something wrong with me, but I have an inherent unease about flexibility in the hands of Secretaries of State when compared with flexibility in the hands of an organisation with an independent statutory role. The noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, mentioned that agility might not be quite such a feature once it gets into the hands of the department. Also, there is a slight conflict with the point that my noble friend Lord Hampton made earlier: employers are looking for clarity, and there is a slight danger of clarity being obscured by too much flexibility. Of course, all these concerns reflect points raised with me and, no doubt, with others by employers about the way the new system might work in comparison with the existing one. Having said all that, I will study all the contributions, including the detailed differences from the previous set of amendments. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendments 10 to 15 not moved.

Clause 5 agreed.

Clause 6: Reviews

Debate on whether Clause 6 should stand part of the Bill.

My Lords, reluctant as I am to join the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in the bonfire of the clauses, I rather took against Clause 6 and was advised by the Table Office that this was the best way to discuss it. During the word bingo I have been playing, we have had “flexibility”, “agility”, “lean”, “speed”, “quick”, “quicker”, “responsive”, “speed”, “momentum”, “rapidly developing”, “fluidly” and “speed” about five more times. In Clause 6, taking away the fact that we will be reviewing approved technical educational qualifications “at regular intervals”, the Government are getting terribly excited. It is like someone at new year who is going to join the gym, going to play tennis and going to run around the block every time. Then, gradually, the pie shop starts calling, it rains—yes, I am speaking for myself—and it becomes a little more flabby. The trouble is that there is this great enthusiasm—the Minister will be running around and talking to everybody—but, as my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith said, it took five years to get IfATE. What will happen in five years? In the Bill, we are mistaking consultation, scrutiny and review for rigidity and delay. We need more clarity, reassurance and scrutiny. By taking out looking at education qualifications at regular intervals and taking out the publication of information on standards and apprenticeships at regular intervals, we are putting a cloud of suspicion into this when we really need clarity. I beg to move.

15:15:00

My Lords, I added my name to this stand part notice. My original thought was to table an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to publish regular reports detailing which technical education qualifications or standards and assessment plans had been approved without any review and why such review was deemed unnecessary. I was also concerned that the clause, as it stands, would seem to make it possible for no review at all to be conducted. The clause stand part notice in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, is more straightforward: it removes the clause altogether. I look forward to hearing from the Minister what exactly the Government’s intentions are for carrying out reviews and why these should not be spelled out in the Bill. Similarly, although no amendment has been tabled, Clause 7 would make it possible for no third-party examination of a standard or apprenticeship assessment plan to be undertaken at all. Again, I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government mean to do about such independent examinations. It has been suggested to me that they might be even more valuable sometime after a standard or a plan has been approved and put into practice, rather than before the approval, when it is not known what the effect will be.

My Lords, there is no mention of awarding bodies in the Bill but, when I worked for City & Guilds, it was part of our role to review qualifications at regular intervals. I wonder why that does not feature anywhere in the Bill and why the Secretary of State is apparently taking over a function that was done very effectively in those days by awarding bodies.

My Lords, I was delighted to add my name to the Clause 6 stand part notice in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hampton. Like him and the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I am baffled about why the Government do not want to review the approvals of technical education qualifications, published standards and assessment plans at regular intervals. As the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, intimated, it seems that the closer one is to the department and any Secretary of State, the more one will need independent scrutiny to retain the confidence of employers, learners and providers. Obviously, there is a risk that, without that independent oversight, standards of technical qualifications could be eroded or become less relevant than they should be. Does the Minister agree that Clause 6 potentially introduces conflicts of interest? By removing the requirement for independent oversight, are the Government not placing an undue burden on those directly involved in the design and delivery of standards to act as their own assessors, where they end up marking their own homework? It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee why the Government do not believe that this level of scrutiny is needed. I absolutely appreciate that, in some areas, the review might be very light-touch—for example, because of the suitability of a set of qualifications—but we have seen how qualifications rise and fall in popularity and relevance over time. As we have heard from a number of noble Lords this afternoon, including the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, there are clear calls from the sector for greater simplification of qualifications. At Second Reading, the Minister committed to publishing information about the intervals for reviews of different qualifications. I wonder whether she could update the Committee on when that will happen. Similarly, my Amendment 16 to Clause 7 seeks just to restore the status quo; namely, that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, make arrangements for an independent third party to carry out an examination of a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan. As the Committee knows, independent reviews are there to provide feedback to policymakers and training providers by, for example, identifying areas for improvement and best practice. I very much hope that the Minister will consider this amendment and stand part notice positively.

I thank noble Lords for their contributions on this group. I feel confident in thanking noble Lords, because I am confident that I am on strong ground on this one. I hope nobody proves me wrong. In preparing to transfer functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State, an assessment of the current operation of the system was undertaken to identify any functions that should be amended rather than simply being transferred in their current form. In that consideration, the proposal for a relatively small change to Clause 6 came forward. Clause 6 amends the requirement to review technical education qualifications and 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. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, argued, rightly, that there is a need for review. The point about this clause is that there is no change to the broader review requirement. The Secretary of State and Skills England will still be required to maintain arrangements to review approved technical education qualifications and standards, and apprenticeship assessment plans, with a view to determining whether they should be revised, be withdrawn or continue to be approved. I wholeheartedly agree with noble Lords who have said that that is an important function, and it is absolutely right that that duty should remain. Removing the requirement to publish information about the intervals at which reviews will be conducted will allow Skills England to determine when reviews of technical education qualifications and more than 700 high-quality occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans should be carried out, based on need rather than a fixed review point, as is currently the case. Originally, IfATE expected to carry out reviews every three years but, with the proliferation of standards, assessment plans and technical education qualifications to review, it has been unable to do so; nor was it able to do this by undertaking reviews on a route-by-route basis. It has since adopted a more risk-based approach. The current approach, which fixes review points, has been too rigid and fails to recognise the differences in starts and achievement rates and rapid changes in skills needs; for example, where occupations evolve quickly. Clause 6 will ensure that standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept up to date, coherent and relevant, and are reviewed appropriately. The amendment would remove a statutory obligation and provide the Secretary of State flexibility that is in line with the current risk-based approach taken by IfATE to determine whether a review should be prioritised; in other words, we believe that IfATE has arrived at the right, flexible position, but that would not be reflected without this legislative change. It recognises that flexibility is needed to take a targeted approach to administering the significant volume of reviews based on whether there are specific issues with the performance of the standard and how widely used it is, rather than on meeting an arbitrary timetable. Without this clause, standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans would need to be reviewed at published intervals, rather than based on need, preventing resources being deployed effectively to ensure that standards, technical education qualifications and apprenticeship assessment plans are kept relevant and up to date as required. Amendment 16, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would remove the flexibility that we intend to create, and it would mean that the Secretary of State would be required to arrange for an independent third-party assessment for every new standard and assessment plan. Clause 7 amends the 2009 Act to substitute a requirement for independent third-party examination of all new standards and assessment plans with 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. For example, the option not to arrange an independent third-party review might be deployed where employers place unequivocal high value in a professional body’s mandated qualification or key skills and behaviour learning outcomes, and where the occupational standard adopts that very closely, such as the CIPD and HR standards. In these cases, an external review would be nugatory. In highly regulated occupations, such as the health sector, the regulatory requirements for occupational competence must be reflected in the occupational standard and assessment plan, and deviation from this is simply not possible. Again, the need for third-party review would be redundant. Without Clause 7, examinations that do not improve standards and assessment plans but take time and resource to deliver would continue to be required. That would continue to place unnecessary burdens on those involved, slow down the process and make it excessively onerous. For the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, will feel able to withdraw his opposition to Clause 6 standing part of the Bill.

My Lords, I thank everybody who took part in this short debate. It is always quite exciting to see the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, describe herself as baffled—in my short career here, I have not seen that yet. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and I talked about how there is no third-party examination and there is a conflict of interest. It looks like Skills England is not only marking its own homework but writing its own exams. I did not join the Minister in her strength of feeling that she had got it absolutely right, because it is all based on need, but, again, who defines need? It is the Secretary of State. We are losing this clarity—this is a trust issue again. But I am sure that some conversations can be had between now and Report, so I withdraw my opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill.

Clause 6 agreed.

Clause 7: Examinations by independent third parties

Amendment 16 not moved.

Clause 7 agreed.

Clause 8: Accreditation of technical education qualifications

Debate on whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill.

My Lords, this group of amendments seeks greater clarity from the Government about how the different bodies involved in the regulation of technical education will work with the Secretary of State, given her new powers under the Bill, and, in turn, whether that impacts on the responsibilities and relationships between them. I was trying to think of what the collective noun might be for a group of regulators, and I could come up only with a “regime”. There are certainly several involved in this area, including, of course, IfATE currently, as well as the department itself, Ofqual and the Office for Students. It will help to hear from the Minister her reflections on how the Government will set the strategic direction in this area and then bring clarity to the different—that word again—roles of each regulator and how they can contribute to that goal. Despite their best efforts, and with apologies to those drafting the Explanatory Notes, I am still not entirely clear about the impact of Clause 8 on Ofqual’s powers in this area. I have already raised this with the Minister and made absolutely clear that this is a probing amendment by which I merely seek to understand whether there would be any change in Ofqual’s powers as a result of these amendments to the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. Although I have reread her comments at Second Reading, I very much hope she can set out for the Grand Committee the impact of Clause 8 in practice—ideally with a couple of examples—so that at least I, if I am the only one left standing, am completely clear on this point.

15:30:00

It would be useful to understand in the medium term any changes to the role of Ofqual that the Government anticipate in the area of technical education accreditation. More broadly, we are interested in the Government’s views on the number of bodies involved in different aspects of technical education accreditation and their respective roles. I know I am surrounded by various world experts on the subject, but I think I am right saying that, currently, Ofqual, IfATE and the DfE are all involved with T-levels, which might in part explain some of the glitches in delivery that we saw in relation to the health and social care T-level a couple of years ago.

My Amendment 34, which is also supported by my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, seeks to bring a focus to these regulatory relationships and ensure that there is transparency about how the Bill impacts on them. Given that this is, in the favourite words of the department, a “very small and very technical” Bill, we simply do not have the information we need at this stage to understand how the Government intend the role of other regulators to evolve. This amendment gives them an opportunity to set that out.

I was about to take this opportunity to ask for clarification, but it follows on from something that the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said earlier, so perhaps he will follow up on it. We have a lot of regulators in this area, and I also am a little concerned. I cannot say that I understand the clause, by the way—I have just looked at it but cannot make head or tail of it—but I will try to get some clarity into my head. I know that, at the time that IfATE was set up, there was quite a lot of discussion between it and Ofqual about who was allowed to do what; the noble Baroness, Lady McGregor-Smith, may be able to elucidate this. My concern going forward is with the LLE, because the intention was always that these were not just standard university qualifications that one could take but that there would be a mechanism for approving high-quality qualifications at the right levels, for which you could also take a loan. That is critical, and I know that the OfS has been struggling with this on the regulatory side but it does not seem to have got very far. It is critical that we have a clear pattern here and do not inadvertently create obstacles to that approval process again. It slightly worries me that, as I read it, the Secretary of State would have to give Ofqual instructions on a qualification-by-qualification basis. That again does not sound as though it will be very fast or flexible. I just ask the Minister, if she is totally clear about this, to give us a little lesson now; and, if she is not, whether she could seek clarification, perhaps from her higher education experts as well as from her apprenticeship experts, on whether we are inadvertently making this more difficult rather than easier.

Once more, I will say a few words about process and reiterate to the Minister my words on speed. Any changes to any process will slow things down; it will not improve in the short term. Creating constant momentum and change is really important, as is simplification. The more I think about having four regulators, the more worried—traumatised, almost—I begin to feel. Whether or not we like what the current system has done and whether or not things need changing, it is important for us all to appreciate that the speed point is critical. I have yet to see things speeding up as systems move within government; they tend to slow down. So let us be very careful and cautious. I am nervous about the unintended consequences of change. Through all of this, there should be a delivery plan that talks purely about building momentum for the skills system. At the moment, we do not have that.

My Lords, in responding to this part of the debate, I am confident that I will be able to explain to noble Lords the intention of Clause 8; however, given the broader questions about the roles of a range of regulators in this field, I may well write to noble Lords to set that out, because it goes broader than Clause 8. The amendments in this group relate to proposals regarding quality assurance and the accreditation of apprenticeships and technical qualifications. Section 138 of the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 allows Ofqual to set an accreditation requirement for individual qualifications or descriptions of qualifications. If it does that, any such qualification must be accredited before it is awarded. Ofqual accredits a qualification submitted by an awarding organisation, first, if the awarding organisation has been recognised in respect of that qualification or type of qualification; and, secondly, if the qualification submitted meets the relevant criteria. This is a rigorous process that gives confidence in qualifications—our A-levels and GCSEs. However, since 2022, Ofqual has been prevented from making determinations on accreditation for technical qualifications. This means that, in respect of accreditation, technical qualifications are treated differently from academic qualifications and are prevented in all instances from benefiting from an important tool for ensuring quality. Clause 8 will change that by enabling the Secretary of State to forge a route to technical qualifications being accredited. The clause provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to determine, should it be deemed appropriate, that an exception could be granted to the general prohibition on Ofqual being able to accredit both approved technical education qualifications and technical education qualifications that the Secretary of State is considering approving. This will mean that, where it is directed to do so by the Secretary of State, Ofqual could exercise its power to determine whether an accreditation requirement should apply to certain technical education qualifications, subject to appropriate consultation. In some instances, 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. They may consider, for example, whether a category of technical qualification provides a particularly important springboard for onward progression but where those who successfully complete the qualification may be competing with those who have studied other qualifications that have been accredited, such as GCSEs or A-levels. It may also be the case that the Secretary of State therefore considers using this power where they are persuaded that a particular category of technical qualification is not subject to any broader review or has reached a certain level of maturity in delivery, and/or is being taken by a sizeable number of students. It is important that the potential for the accreditation of technical qualifications is reintroduced in the managed and considered way the clause allows. Here I come to the questions about why Ofqual does not have a complete permission and ability to consider technical qualifications. The clause provides the Secretary of State with the discretion to determine, should it be deemed appropriate, that an exception could be granted to the general prohibition on Ofqual being able to accredit. This is because of the relative newness of many technical qualifications and is in order to consider carefully the interactions with the ongoing and vital reviews both of post-16 qualifications and of curriculum and assessment. These considerations are more significant for technical than non-technical qualifications. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, that we are doing this not because we necessarily have specific examples in mind but to enable them to be considered in response to some of the reviews, where it would seem appropriate. Amendment 34, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would impose a duty on the Secretary of State, within six months of Royal Assent, to lay before Parliament a report on the effect of this Act on the powers exercised by regulators, including the Office for Students and Ofqual. We are committed to ensuring transparency in the way that the Bill’s powers are discharged and the effects that their transfer and execution will have on regulators, other public bodies and parts of government. We intend to follow the usual methods for agreeing and making this information available publicly and to Parliament, and therefore consider the amendment to be unnecessary, notwithstanding my commitment to write to noble Lords with some more detail about the way that different regulators work. Specifically, Skills England’s published framework document will govern the relationship between the body, the department and the rest of government. There is a further and pre-existing published framework document already governing the relationship between the Department for Education and the Office for Students, and an equivalent document is being developed between the department and Ofqual to support effective working arrangements. IfATE currently has memorandums of understanding with Ofqual and the Office for Students, and we anticipate that equivalent documents will be developed and published in respect of Skills England in due course. These documents will set out the nature of the relationship between Skills England and the regulators it will work with, in line with their respective framework documents. For the reasons I have outlined, I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, feels able not to press her amendment.

I thank noble Lords—or noble Baronesses—for their contributions to this short debate, and the Minister for her response and explanation of what Clause 8 intends to do, which, at least for the moment, I think I understand. What I heard her say is that the intent is to improve the rigour in the system and send a message to the system about rigour in relation to technical education qualifications, but that there are no current plans to use that power. That raised the question: if some qualifications are then accredited by Ofqual that have a particular status, what impact will that have on all the others? That is a little policy joy for her to consider. I very much look forward to her letter explaining the network of regulators and how this legislation will impact them, as I am sure other noble Lords do. I very much support the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, on the importance of moving on as quickly as possible with the lifelong learning entitlement. I hear loud and clear my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith’s comments about the need for speed. The slight concern many of us might feel is that agility and speed are not always the first words that come to mind when thinking about central government.

Clause 8 agreed.

15:45:00

Amendment 17

Moved by

17: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause— “Review: Chief Skills AdviserWithin six months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a review of the impact of this Act on the case for creating the role of Chief Skills Adviser, with responsibility for advising Government and reporting to Parliament on the state of skills needs in the economy.”

My Lords, I acknowledge that a great deal of the thinking behind Amendment 17 comes from the Edge Foundation. Skills England is a big change and a big opportunity. The Government’s ambitions to unify the skills landscape and respond to the skills need, which is very large and well acknowledged, will require impetus, which Skills England seems to have, but also connection—connection which allows competing interests, particularly between departments, to be resolved and common pathways to be evolved. It does not seem to me that we can run a skills system by diktat. There is nothing about any department, except the Treasury, that allows it to impose diktat on others. My amendment suggests to the Government that they look at the success of the chief scientific adviser structure. Obviously, there would be the chief skills adviser in the DfE, but skills advisers should be in each department, as with the chief scientific adviser network. It is about evolving a combined understanding and having someone in each department for whom skills is their principal occupation, who has status in that department and who is intimately connected into the Department for Education’s network. Every department has skills needs and its own understanding and ideas about them. Fragmentation impedes employer and provider engagement. Anyway, modern life needs cross-cutting skills and a lot of jobs require skills whose roots are in several departments, and these things need to work together. The Government’s missions are very much dependent on effective collaboration on skills. Looking at the individual departments, we see that even within the DfE skills cross schools, FE and, notably, higher education. There is plenty of need for communication just within the one department. Having a chief skills adviser would help. In other departments, one wishes that the Treasury would import some people who understand the real world a bit better, but it is also responsible for the evolution of skills in the financial and accounting space. Those are the kind of skills that spread into a lot of other careers. The Foreign Office handles languages, history, geography and diplomacy. Diplomacy is not something that social media seem to cultivate; the Foreign Office must care where that skill is coming from. The Home Office covers police and security but, above all, migration—bringing in the skills we have not generated here. I remember plenty of conflict with the Home Office in my 30 years here on whether particular skills would be allowed into this country and the speed at which that should be done. The Department for Business and Trade obviously covers management and skills for business, but a huge skills effort is actively under way there under the heading of the industrial strategy. The people and skills division is trying to solve underinvestment in skills by industry and to improve management and tech use skills. A huge agenda is being actively pursued there, not as a subsidiary of the DfE but as a subsidiary of the industrial strategy. The Department of Health and Social Care is a huge user of skills and a very big user of microcredentials. Really small bits of learning have evolved to be accepted by the particular employers at which they are aimed. When you have a bigger employer such as the Department of Health, that is really quite easy. So these skills qualifications are evolving in large numbers and at great speed not only in Health but in a lot of other departments. DESNZ needs the green workforce, the MHCLG has construction and especially housing, DSIT uses the sciences, DCMS has creative skills, and the Cabinet Office needs skills for the Civil Service. If productivity is slipping back in the Civil Service, there is clearly a need for big skills investment. The MoJ needs legal skills and the Department for Work and Pensions is concerned with access to skills. What qualifications are available for people who are bottom of the heap when it comes to employment? The MoD has a huge range and depth of training, the DfT has skills from lorry driving to logistics, and Defra uses environmental skills. Local government, through the LSIP network, has a real interest in how the skills agenda is delivered. The word I hear is that LSIPs have been a real success, as they are effective and flexible. It takes a couple of years for the DfE to evolve a qualification but LSIPs can do it in weeks, because they are so focused on the actual local employer need and work closely with a provider. The Minister for Women and Equalities brief is now in the DfE but it used to wander around Whitehall. It has a very strong interest in the skills agenda. Every department in Whitehall is intimately linked to the skills agenda and needs to be bound to a common sense of progress. It is not possible to do that by pushing; it has to be by linking. A structure like that of the chief scientific advisers would help, and the DfE has experience of this. It has its own chief scientific adviser and a council of scientific advisers to go with it. This is a resource that the DfE is used to having. By having a chief skills adviser network to feed into and get feedback from, the Government and the DfE will know and understand the skills challenges of all departments so that they can synthesise and co-ordinate. Individual departments would have immediate access to the DfE resource, so that they can plan and integrate. That would be a good way forward for a skills structure. I would be very grateful if the Minister replied to the questions I asked at the end of my previous intervention. I have seen too many sets of relationships die when institutions change. Some of the sector skills councils had really good relationships with business and they were just trashed. Most relationships with local enterprise partnerships just ended; they went nowhere, because local authorities were not capable of maintaining them in the same way. I want to be sure that what IfATE has built will continue under the new arrangements. As I said, I would also be interested in how the Careers & Enterprise Company fits into this structure. I beg to move.

My Lords, I added my name to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the importance of a chief skills adviser. As I have said before, skills always need advocates within government because it has a predominantly university-educated membership. This role could be key to ensuring that skills changes will be enacted by someone who can take a view over the country of which skills are in short supply in which areas and need local support. The network of skills advisers in all departments that the noble Lord proposes would be a great way forward, and I support the amendment.

My Lords, I shall speak briefly. I think that this amendment is worth very serious consideration. When I was Science Minister, I saw up close—as the whole country did during the pandemic—the value of the Chief Scientific Adviser and the network of scientific advisers across government departments. They play a really useful role in ensuring that policy is informed by the strongest possible understanding of science and in bringing the scientific method to policy-making. They have had a huge impact and made a huge contribution. However, I would just flag that this raises an interesting question about what exactly the role of Skills England is. My understanding, from what the Government have said so far about Skills England, is that it was meant to be a body working across government and doing the difficult job of ensuring that all the different interests of different government departments in the skills agenda are given appropriate balance and focus. To my mind, that may be somewhat duplicative of what Skills England is itself seeking to do. In that sense, it may be a perfectly good alternative to Skills England if you have a chief skills adviser, informed by skills advisers in the various departments, feeding into the DfE; then, you may not need the horizon-scanning, policy-making function that Skills England is proposing to offer. I suggest that you have either one or the other; you probably do not need both.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lucas for setting out so clearly the case for the appointment of a chief skills adviser and a network across government departments. However, I also have a lot of sympathy with the remarks from my noble friend Lord Johnson about the risk of duplication. In a way, this debate has made me feel like we are coming back to Clause 1 of the Bill, which I promised not to do, and to the appetite for understanding the Government’s thinking about how Skills England will work in practice. Clearly, this is a kind of alternative model. I will make just a couple of brief points. In the previous Government, we benefited from the advice of Sir Michael Barber in his role as an adviser on skills policy delivery. My first point on that concerns the importance of the word “delivery”. His focus was on the delivery of skills policy. We all know that writing a great policy document is about 10% of the task while about 90% is effective delivery of that policy at scale, in real life. On behalf of my former colleagues in the department, I thank Sir Michael for his excellent advice in this regard; I had only one conversation with him but I have thought about it and used his advice many times since. My second point is that Sir Michael reported not only to the Secretary of State for Education but to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I wonder whether that is something that the Minister might consider.

My Lords, Amendment 17, which makes up this sixth group, was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. As he outlined, it points us towards considering the case for a new and separate chief skills adviser—or, as I think the noble Lord described it, a network of chief skills advisers across government. I certainly agree that we need champions of skills in this country in a broad sense. Earlier, my noble friend Lord Blunkett made the case for having to make that argument across government and the challenges in doing so over the years. I do not dispute that need. Harnessing the skills of all our people is crucial to unlocking growth and spreading opportunity. As it stands, our skills system is fragmented and not meeting the skills needs of either the economy or our people, so I have some sympathy with the idea that we need a unifying force that can also have an impact across government. However, that unifying force, as the noble Lord, Lord Johnson, said, is Skills England. As this legislation paves the way for us to establish Skills England, it is not necessary, I would argue, to include consideration of a chief skills adviser in parallel; doing so would only add a further layer of complexity and, arguably, make it less clear where the accountability for delivering a step change in skills provision sits.

16:00:00

Skills England can bring together the fractured skills landscape and create a shared ambition to boost the nation’s skills. I have already talked about some of the activity it has been engaged in but I want to reassure noble Lords on the point about how effective Skills England can be across government. It is already working closely with the Migration Advisory Committee, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a point about the relationship between developing our domestic skills pipeline and employers who choose to import their skills instead; that important relationship will be fundamental for Skills England. It is also working with the industrial strategy advisory council as it develops the sector strategies and their skills elements, and with the Labour Market Advisory Board. This is all part of a new framework, using research to make recommendations about the new training courses needed to bolster the number of domestic workers in particular sectors.

On employers and local skills improvements plans, which the noble Lord mentioned, LSIPs and the employer representative bodies that develop them will also provide important intelligence to Skills England to inform its assessment of national and regional skills, both now and in future. They will work with Skills England to resolve skills gaps.

The crux of the noble Lord’s argument is the point about how to work across government. I wholeheartedly agree with him—I made this argument earlier—that delivering a step change in skills is fundamental to delivering across the whole of the Government’s programme, in particular the missions that will inform and lead the Government’s actions. It is also about developing the new industrial strategy and the growth and opportunity missions in particular, but it goes beyond that. We cannot rebuild our NHS without skills; we literally cannot build the homes that we need without skills; and we cannot become a green superpower without skills.

All those things are reflected in different government departments, which is why Skills England already holds round tables with senior colleagues from across government every six weeks in order to ensure that the right connections are made. It is why, in setting up Skills England and developing the first report, we audited skills need across government. It is why shadow Skills England staff regularly meet teams in key departments in order to align activity and ensure joined-up working.

I reiterate the admiration of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, for Michael Barber, whom I was fortunate to work with previously. He is maintaining his commitment to delivery by providing some support to this Government on mission delivery.

On the noble Baroness’s point about the need to inform and work with the Department for Education and the Treasury, the mission boards, which have been set up to determine the key factors that will enable the Government to deliver on their missions, have been developed—this is already happening. The growth mission board, for example, has a people pillar sitting within it; the mission board is chaired by the Chancellor and the people pillar is led by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education, so we can see coherence being developed through the mission infrastructure that is being set up in government.

For all those reasons, I have to say that, despite agreeing with the arguments made by the noble Lord about the need for cross-government impact and change with respect to skills, I am not convinced that the development of a network of chief skills advisers would be the most appropriate way to achieve that. I intend that the chair and board of Skills England will be the champions of skills, representing different parts of the skills system and its users. As I said earlier, we are in the process of recruiting them, and we have received a very high volume of quality applications. When appointed, a permanent CEO will lead the organisation in delivering its intended purpose to bring disparate functions together in one place to provide an authoritative voice on skills needs and how to meet them.

While I know that we “here today, gone tomorrow” Ministers have a limited impact, I emphasise that my title, Minister for Skills, is not only for show. The intention is to demonstrate that, in my accountability to Parliament for the work of Skills England, I have responsibility, not only within the Department for Education but across government, for delivering the skills change that we need to see.

Having assessed the merits and risks of different models, we are not convinced, at this point, of the case for a chief skills adviser. It would be disproportionate to impose in statute the requirement to report on that matter. Instead, we should focus on the most pressing matters: making progress towards minimising skills gaps in our economy through the passage of this legislation and the establishment of Skills England. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I am very grateful for that reply. I completely understand that this is a direction in which the Government do not want to take at the moment, but I cannot recall, in my unexpectedly long time in this place, seeing any structure like that of the chief scientific advisers that really enabled collaboration between departments. It gives each department a sense of ownership of the policy, that it is in some way its own, rather than something that some other department is trying to impose on it. Looking at long-running problems, such as how to care for the elderly, we see that the inability to get a few government departments to work in collaboration with each other causes immense problems, such as bed-blocking in hospitals, and questions about whose budget something is supposed to be on. The difficulties of working cross-departmentally are legendary and real. Clearly, Skills England is setting out to have cross-departmental impact. I wish the Government great fortune in that, but I hope that, if things start to prove sticky, they will turn their minds back to doing something, perhaps within Skills England, to produce a structure that makes collaboration work. The more we can do that within government, the more we will solve some of the big problems that have proved intractable in terms of making government work well. I am happy to withdraw the amendment; I do not expect to be here to bring it back.

Amendment 17 withdrawn.

Committee adjourned at 4.09 pm.