My Lords, I think it fair to say that more than a little concern has been expressed about the role of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education in relation to qualifications. We seek to address that through the amendments in this group.
Turning first to Amendment 47, at present, education and training is currently within the institute’s remit if the training is or may be provided
“in the course of an approved English apprenticeship … for the purposes of an approved technical education qualification, or … for the purposes of approved steps towards occupational competence.”
The Bill proposes to add a fourth category to this list to enable a person to
“enter work within a published occupation (whether in the course of training of otherwise).”
However, it is not clear what level or type of education or training it is intended to capture. Can the Minister confirm that, essentially, this decision will be left in the hands of IfATE in publishing a list?
Amendments 48 and 49 require IfATE
“to report to the Secretary of State”
and for that report to be laid before Parliament. This is important for both ministerial and parliamentary oversight and scrutiny. The arguments are rehearsed regularly on Bills in Committee and I do not propose to rehearse them here, but accountability is really what is at issue here.
Amendment 55 is a probing amendment regarding IfATE’s new powers to implement fees and charges for the cost of technical qualification approval. The Bill’s impact assessment says that by giving
“the Institute powers that could allow it to charge for approval and to manage proliferation, we will ensure that the future qualification landscape is clear and straightforward for users to understand … This will avoid a return to the proliferation identified in previous assessments of the technical qualifications market.”
The Government’s impact assessment also admits that this will add significant extra cost to the awarding and FE sector. It states: “we would expect” awarding organisations
“to face more of these costs upfront, as initially”
awarding organisations
“will have to resubmit the majority of non-defunded qualifications.”
Can the Minister provide more detail about exactly how the charging regime is expected to work? What consideration has been given to the adverse impact it may have, particularly on niche providers of qualifications that may, in future, withdraw from occupational markets because the business case for investment is simply too prohibitive.
5.45 pm
Amendment 56 would extend the IfATE consultation processes. As drafted, the Bill requires IfATE to first consult with the Secretary of State before a decision to create or end a moratorium can be taken. This enables the Secretary of State to retain close control over the institute’s use of this power and, in effect, means it will only use it once it has first had the Secretary of State’s approval. We have concerns that this duty does not apply to any other interested parties whose views should be considered by IfATE before a decision is taken. This is why we also support Amendment 54, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Willetts, which requires IfATE to publicly consult and to have
“the consent of employer representative bodies”
before removing qualifications.
Amendment 57 is a probing amendment that addresses the possibility of non-IfATE-approved courses being defunded. The Bill gives IfATE additional powers to approve technical education qualifications, but it is not clear what will happen to non-apprenticeship
vocational and technical qualifications that are offered by awarding organisations and are currently recognised by Ofqual. There is understandable concern in the sector that those qualifications have to be approved by the institute in order to attract government funding. It is also not clear what will happen to those qualifications in cases where there will then be approved qualifications in the same occupational pathway. Will those qualifications, in effect, not be allowed or be defunded if they are not approved by IfATE? This issue is at the heart of Amendment 51, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blunkett, which seeks to limit IfATE’s powers to remove a qualification purely because of duplication.
Can the Minister confirm whether non-IfATE-approved courses will be defunded or not permitted to operate in the market? Will there be pressure from government to recognise or endorse those qualifications that the institute has approved? If so, in accordance with the Government’s desire to address proliferation in the sector, where that exists, does the Minister accept that awarding organisations, or significant parts of an awarding organisation’s business, might disappear? What impact will this have on widening participation and the
“diversity of qualifications to meets the needs of all learners”,
as per my noble friend’s Lord Blunkett’s Amendment 53?
Amendment 58 limits IfATE’s approval powers to T-levels and apprenticeships outside of England. The Federation of Awarding Bodies is concerned that as drafted, Clause 8, on international availability, may allow a public body such as IfATE to manipulate which technical qualifications are exported globally through its accreditation process. This clause is in contrast to Ofqual’s powers, in which there is no expressed statement about regulated qualifications being offered outside of England. It is therefore not clear what Clause A2IB would entail in practice. There are concerns that it may end up creating more competition for other vocational and technical qualifications that are offered internationally.
Amendment 50 removes provisions for IfATE to approve technical qualifications. The Bill gives the institute, a non-departmental public body directly accountable to Ministers, the ultimate sign-off power for the approval and regulation of technical qualifications in future. We are concerned that handing back day-to-day political control of technical qualification regulation directly to Ministers via the institute would undermine the independent status of Ofqual and risk creating a cumbersome new dual regulatory approval system. We believe that Ofqual should remain the sole body with sign-off powers, via a single statutory approvals gateway, regulating and accrediting all technical qualifications in future. That would maintain a clear line of responsibility and accountability to Parliament for all qualifications intended for public regulation outside universities in England.
In conclusion, as with much of this Bill, there is a tendency to give more powers to the centre, that is to say, to Ministers. That impacts on the operation of IfATE and Ofqual and, potentially at least, creates confusion. These amendments, we believe, would bring clarity and consistency. I beg to move.