My Lords, these amendments relate to the measures that support the implementation of the Government’s reforms to align the majority of technical qualifications to employer-led standards by 2030. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, we are aiming here for all qualifications for learners to be of high quality and connected to those employer-led standards.
I was disappointed that the noble Baroness, Lady Garden, was not down to speak in this debate, because we had a very interesting discussion today where, as the noble Lord, Lord Flight, outlined, the key to what we are trying to do is to clarify the roles of a number of the institutions involved—IfATE, the OfS, which is relevant to the next amendment, Ofqual, the department and Ofsted.
We believe that the technical qualifications should cover the knowledge, skills and behaviours that are essential to an occupation. But the heart of the matter here, and one cause of the problems, is that although Ofqual accredits general qualifications such as A-levels and GCSEs, which are developed by awarding organisations, usually of the exam boards, in line with content set by government, the content of the majority of publicly funded technical qualifications is not specified or scrutinised centrally before the qualifications can be taught. That really is the nub of the problem here: Ofqual is not performing that function.
For parity of esteem, these reforms will bring the treatment of technical qualifications more in line with general qualifications. We have already done that process with T-levels, which were developed along with 250 employers to ensure that they met that standard. The content and employer-led standard then delivered, which could be by an FE college, is inspected and overseen by Ofsted. This process will raise the quality bar and deal with the issue of why we have, at level 3 and below, more than 12,000 qualifications, of which only about 800 are GCSE and A-level. As the Sainsbury review identified, we have had a proliferation of qualifications at that level, and many of them are currently created by the awarding organisations.
On the question of no one overseeing the content and it not being connected to an employer standard, we would not tolerate that in relation to GCSEs and A-levels, and someone needs to do that function. I have outlined the process for academic qualifications; the question then is who does that function. The institute currently manages the system of employer-led
standards, and we believe it has the expertise to ensure that qualifications genuinely meet the skills of the economy, and the needs of learners and employers, and that it is right for the institute to lead this reform.
I explained some of these issues to noble Lords in the letter on 1 July. It is quite helpful that at the moment the position of chief regulator is being sorted out. Dr Jo Saxton, the Government’s preferred candidate, appeared last week in front of the Education Select Committee for the approval hearing, and was approved for the role. She was specifically asked about Ofqual and IfATE. She outlined that Ofqual will continue to play a key role with regulatory oversight of the standards of technical qualifications in live delivery, as it does currently. Ofqual and the institute are both needed as they contribute different and complementary sets of function and expertise. The two bodies will work together to assure, on Ofqual’s side, the consistency and reliability of assessment and awarding, as it does over the exam boards, and on the institute’s side the relevance to employers of the content of technical qualifications. When asked by the chair, she said:
“At its simplest, the curriculum side of it sits with IfATE. Once the curriculum has been agreed and approved to go forward, Ofqual’s job will be to make sure that any endpoint assessments and examinations continue to assess the curriculum that has been determined by IfATE and the employers and that receivers of the endpoint assessments and qualifications know that the awards they end up with accurately reflect what they know and can do. The relationship should work well. At its heart, it is essentially a separation between curriculum and regulation”.
I find that really helpful. That was the core purpose—she outlines why Ofqual was set up to be the regulator while the content of the curriculum was set out by the department.
6.30 pm
Ofqual here provides noble Lords with the clarity on where it now sees its role, and where IfATE sees its role. Obviously, Ofsted is inspecting the quality of teaching, whether in an FE college or in schools and so on in terms of delivery. The institute currently carries out its role in setting the content by using employers vis à vis a standard, with T-levels and higher technical qualifications under its current powers, and we are legislating to give it a broader range of powers while being clear about what that function is.
The Bill will also provide a single gateway for technical qualifications to be approved—that is the language for IfATE; for Ofqual, it is accreditation—via the institute. It will be clear to everyone where one goes. However, there is one slight caveat. At levels 4 and 5, approval for higher technical qualifications is opt-in and can be delivered by higher education institutions without IfATE approval. That obviously relates to the university world.
Those approval mechanisms are just one part of what we are seeking to achieve. The institute’s oversight function provided by these clauses will bring coherence and clarity across the system of education and training within its remit, including apprenticeships and approved technical qualifications. Noble Lords will be aware that level 4 and level 5 qualifications are going through that process. Why would we leave level 3 and level 2 technical qualifications outside that process? If Ofqual does not see that as its role, who will oversee them?
It would be a great disservice to leave learners with qualifications where no regulator is overseeing the content or matching it to an employer’s standard.
The moratorium power will give the institute that additional lever to manage the risk of proliferation such as that which the Sainsbury review outlined. The clauses also place a duty on the institute to regularly review the qualifications that it has approved, thereby ensuring that they continue to hold currency with employers.
I shall now deal with the specific amendments. On Amendment 47, Clause 6 will bring into the institute’s remit other technical education and training that supports entry to occupations that are published by the institute in its occupational maps. It will allow the institute to play a more significant role where appropriate for such education and training to link to employer-led standards. Those include matters such as occupational traineeships and skills bootcamps, which, although they do not lead to a qualification, also need to be connected into the employer-led standard. Such a role would include advising or publishing guidance, but it would not oversee that education and training.
Amendments 48 and 49 are unnecessary because the institute is already required under current legislation to present its annual report to the Secretary of State, who must then lay that before Parliament. I am sure that noble Lords would agree that it would not be appropriate for the institute to report to Parliament every time that it exercised its findings, as that would be burdensome.
I turn to Amendment 47A in the name my noble friend Lord Flight. I can assure him that the institute’s role, as provided for in the new oversight function, includes ensuring the appropriate range of the education and training within its remit as far as possible, including in relation to apprenticeships. I also refer my noble friend to the discussion on the apprenticeship levy earlier today. His amendment is therefore unnecessary.
On Amendment 50, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Watson, as I have said, the legislation is needed to implement our reforms as part of the review of post-16 qualifications, allowing the institute to approve a broad range of qualifications. It is the right body because it already manages occupational standards. In terms of the governance of IfATE, which one or two noble Lords asked about, it is an independent body and its role is to ensure by statute that the content of qualifications is high and meets employers’ needs.
I turn to Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett—I accept his invitation to write to him on other matters. The institute already takes into account the diverse needs of learners in exercising its approval powers. That is provided for in current legislation, which requires the institute to have regard to the reasonable requirements of anyone wishing to undertake education and training within its remit when exercising its functions. A specific point was raised in relation to electrical engineering. I can assure the noble Lord that the building services engineering T-level includes specialism in electrotechnical engineering.
Regarding Amendments 54 and 57 tabled by my noble friend Lord Willetts and the noble Lord, Lord Watson, respectively, I am of course in listening mode, but would like to clarify that institute approval, or
withdrawal of approval, is separate from the funding decision, which rests with the Secretary of State, so IfATE is not in charge of what is and is not funded. It is content against an employer standard. A national consultation on withdrawing funding would be disproportionate, so I must respectfully disagree with my noble friend Lord Willetts.
On the various issues in relation to what we have done in terms of consultation, obviously the response to the level 3 consultation has been published. That outlines the categories of level 3 technical qualifications that will attract public funding in the future. We are not abolishing a category here; it will be whether these qualifications fulfil the requirements outlined in that response and whether they are of the appropriate quality, because we are aiming for all qualifications to be high-quality. We have been clear which qualifications, in addition to T-levels and A-levels, will be funded. On the issue of additional qualifications, I can say nothing more than that at the Ron Dearing UTC it was made very clear to me that some young people at 16 want to keep their options open and want to take A-levels combined with one qualification, because they are not sure whether they are going to go straight to work or to university. The response to the consultation makes clear which of those we will be continuing to fund where there is not duplication.
Turning to Amendment 51, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, under the new approval scheme set out in Clause 7 the institute could approve more than one qualification covering the same content should there be demand among employers for employees with each of those qualifications, so there is therefore no need for that amendment.
Turning to Amendment 56, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, the institute is required to consult the Secretary of State before implementing a moratorium. The legislation does not preclude the institute from consulting other stakeholders. However, placing it under a duty to do so may affect its ability to respond when it has identified such a risk. Regarding Amendment 55, regulations made under this clause would authorise the institute to recover the costs associated with approval. It is not unusual for a regulator to have some costs, but the parameters for approval fees will be set by regulations made by the Secretary of State, meaning that Parliament will have a further opportunity for scrutiny.
Finally, on Amendment 58, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, Clause 8 is most likely to be required in relation to T-levels, as the institute owns the copyright in the T-level qualification course documents. Therefore, if another country wished to make T-levels available in the future, the institute may need to co-operate with other bodies to help make this happen—obviously, that is particularly with the devolved Administrations. The institute will not own the copyright for other technical qualifications; that is by a different process of approval. Awarding organisations will be free to offer qualifications outside England and the Bill does not change that position. I assure noble Lords that no decisions have been made in relation to BTECs or the future of any individual qualifications. However, it will be the process for IfATE in terms of the quality. We are rolling out the providers for T-levels. The take-up
has been 43 providers in 2020, 105 providers in 2021 and 190 providers in 2022, and we have launched the provider process for 2023. We are rolling this out at pace.
I hope that these explanations have clarified the different roles, particularly for IfATE, in this regard, and that the noble Lord, Lord Watson, will therefore feel comfortable in withdrawing his amendment, and that other noble Lords will not wish to move theirs when we get to them.