Neil O'Brien
MP for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston · Conservative · United Kingdom
“Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Harborough, Oadby & Wigston, Declares that the petitioners oppose any proposal to extend the boundaries of Leicester City Council in a manner that would incorporate the communities of Great Glen, Wistow, Newton Harcourt and Little Stretton into…”
“In the Government’s own consultation about the expansion of Leicester, nine out of 10 people said that they were against it. Now, with millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money wasted so far, Ministers are having to do a complete reworking of this whole chaotic, undemocratic process, amid accusations of gerrymandering.”
“The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, ide…”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to halt and reconsider any proposals for the expansion of Leicester City Council's boundaries, and to ensure that the views of local residents are fully considered before any changes are implemented, thereby protecting the character, identity and independence…”
“In the Government’s own consultation on whether to expand Leicester, nine out of 10 people said no. Tens of thousands of people signed petitions against it, yet until Ministers hit this legal snag they tried to press on anyway.”
“Eleven thousand people in Oadby, Wigston and Great Glen recently voted in a referendum against joining the city of Leicester. Ministers know that people do not want this locally, and yet they are forcing it on them anyway.”
The complete record
Every one of 600 lines we hold for Neil O'Brien, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 6 of 12.
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McVey, and to have the draft statutory instruments being put into effect. The agreements were struck under previous Conservative Governments; as we agreed the devolution of powers, we will not pray against them. I want to put the draft regulations and order into a little context, however, because the Government have just cut the adult skills budget by 6%—something that Ministers previously condemned the previous Government for, only to do exactly the same. We need to see devolution in that context and in that of the wider uncertainty created by Government about skills funding. For example, providers are crying out for certainty about the 10% uplift for T-levels. They want to know whether that will continue this year, but Ministers seem unable to tell them.”
“Could the Minister find out what proportion of the devolved ASF goes on statutory entitlements at the moment? That is the measure of whether this is really devolved. We all agree on the importance of devolution and so on, but is it real devolution or, in fact, are these devolved authorities ultimately having to spend money on things that we have decided? What proportion of the devolved budget is currently being spent on those four statutory entitlements?”
“It is entirely my fault that I did not explain clearly what I meant. We are in complete agreement about the policy, but what I am keen to understand from the Department—the Minister may need to write to me on this point—is: how much of the money that has already been devolved is being spent on statutory entitlements, and what proportion of it can, therefore, be spent on things that are not statutory entitlements? It is a question of fact rather than of great policy disagreement.”
“Employers and educators are criticising the uncertainty that the Government are creating; Labour peers are arguing that Skills England should be made independent, but the Government are ignoring those on their own side with experience; and employers are warning against axing valuable qualifications, but the Skills Minister is determined to end them. Yet another reorganisation, yet more centralisation, no clear vision—it is another big mess.”
“Given all the problems that the Government are creating, the very act of a further reorganisation is likely to compound the effects of the Budget. The impact assessment states: “The transfer of functions from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the Bill… This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways”. So there you have it, Madam Deputy Speaker.”
“Likewise, various employer bodies, including the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Skills Federation and the Construction Industry Training Board, have argued that it should be more independent. As Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out, the problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels as if the second half is missing, and that second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body. The original draft of the Bill did not even mention Skills England. As Baroness Blower, another Labour peer, has pointed out, the appropriate move from where we are now would be to make it a statutory body. That is why our amendment would make the Bill do what the Government are pretending it does by actually setting up Skills England, which was clearly the intent of many on the Labour Benches.”
“Lord Blunkett said in the other place: “When two years ago I led on the learning and skills document that was a precursor to Skills England…we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards.” He noted: “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.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.] Even those on the Labour side who were involved in dreaming up Skills England have argued for its independence.”
“In Committee, the Minister refused to confirm whether the Government would continue to provide the extra 10% funding to get T-levels going, even though providers are crying out for clarity on that. It is no wonder that many employers would like the certainty that comes with a degree of independence from politics. Wise people on the Labour Benches want that, too.”
“By creating the top of that pyramid—the very top of the ladder; people can go all the way—level 7 apprenticeships create a halo effect around apprenticeships, and that is a vital part of why we should not get rid of them. Worse still, it was crystal clear from the Minister’s replies in the Bill Committee that the Government are keeping open the option to move on and take an axe to level 6 apprenticeships too, which would make that mistake even bigger and will not, in fact, drive money towards L2 and L3. The other day we learned that the DFE is to cut the adult skills budget by 6%—something for which Ministers criticised the previous Government but are now doing themselves. Ironically, that came out at the same time as, and was overshadowed by, the welfare reform Green Paper, which mentioned training 18 times.”
“York St John University has something like 100 level 7 apprentices. Other institutions such as the Open University, Manchester Met and the University of West London are all exposed, too. Culling level 7 is a big mistake. These apprenticeships are vital across the public sector and are a way into the professions for people who might otherwise struggle to enter them. Above all, they are the capstone of a drive to make the apprenticeship system more prestigious. British Airways carried on running the Concorde even though it was a small part of its business because of what it called the halo effect. It knew that it changed the way the organisation was seen.”
“Attwells Solicitors, for example, says: “Reducing funding to level 7 apprentices runs the risk of removing opportunities into professions” and that “Apprenticeships help break down barriers into not only Law but all career paths which could be inaccessible to young people without them.” As well as hitting employers, on the other side of the ledger—this is why our amendment is important—axing level 7 will be destabilising for university providers. It will particularly hurt those institutions that have tried to do the right thing for those who traditionally do not go to university. Sixty-six universities deliver level 7 apprenticeships, and a prestigious institution such as Cranfield University, which is a postgraduate-only institution with deep industry links, will be hugely exposed if the Government wield the axe in the way they plan.”
“Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central rightly said that it would lead to people being outside Stoke-on-Trent, but in some cases it would lead to them being outside this country altogether. That is why the Campaign for Learning has called for a skills immigration worker test before defunding level 7 apprenticeships, so that we do not simply go from investing in British workers to importing workers from other countries. Likewise, the Chartered Management Institute has said: “cutting funding for level 7 apprenticeships would risk creating gaps in leadership…at a time when business and the public sector need them most.” I have been contacted by several firms worried about the abolition of the solicitor apprenticeship—a way into the law for people from less privileged backgrounds.”
“Deborah Johnston at London South Bank University says: “Over half of the employers we work with…on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of…reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful.” The professions are also worried. The Institute of Chartered Accountants has said that axing level 7 apprenticeships will lead to work leaving the UK. It says: “removing Level 7 apprenticeship funding will mean that fewer UK training roles are created. Instead, organisations are likely to turn to offshoring to replace UK training roles”. The hon.”
“Students who had already started on the medical doctor apprenticeship have sadly been left in limbo, and I am concerned the Government will do something similar to nurses as part of the level 7 cuts. The NHS’s workforce plan proposed an extra 50,000 nurses coming through the apprentice route. Around a quarter of them tend to be on an “Agenda for Change” band 7, which typically requires a master’s equivalent, so we would expect about 11,000 of those nurses to be coming via level 7 apprenticeships. If the Government get rid of them, that is a huge hole in the NHS plan. As well as the NHS, local government makes huge use of level 7 apprenticeships, including the extra town planners that the Government say are needed to deliver on housing targets.”
“Employers and educators can see that this is a trial run of what it will be like as Ministers take more control with this Bill, and they are warning that it is a big mistake. Dan Lally at Sheffield Hallam University says that level 7 cuts will “disproportionately impact on public services…We are meeting vital skill gaps in disciplines such as advanced clinical practitioner…These are NHS workers, civil servants and local authority employees. A high number of our level 7 apprentices…come from the areas of highest deprivation.” For example, level 7 apprenticeships are absolutely central to the NHS’s long-term workforce plan. Last year, we saw the Government’s disappointing decision to cancel the level 7 doctor apprenticeships. That means there will be a shortfall of about 2,000 medical places a year.”
“The previous Government moved to make it more attractive for small and medium-sized enterprises to take on younger people. Since April, 16 to 21-year-olds have had 100% funding, rather than requiring the 5% employer contribution. We need to build on that and cut bureaucracy for smaller businesses, but the Government’s answer is different: they plan to abolish the highest-level apprenticeships and redistribute the money. I thought the brilliant speech by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell) on his amendment 2 was so right. I will not be as articulate as him, but I will try to add to the points he made, and I hope the Minister will listen to her wise colleague.”
“The British Chambers of Commerce has said that a “lack of clarity” about the levy is creating “fresh uncertainty among businesses” and is “worrying and destabilising”. Employers say that this is leading to firms pausing hiring of apprentices. Since the levy was introduced in 2017, real-terms spending on apprenticeships and work-based training have increased by about a quarter from £2 billion to £2.5 billion. Moving 50% of all that money out of apprenticeships would obviously lead to a substantial drop in the number of apprenticeships. In a written answer to me, Ministers have confirmed that the Department has an internal forecast for the number of apprenticeship starts, but they have also said that they will not publish it—I think we all know why that is.”
“The Government are doing this because in opposition they promised that employers could take 50% of their levy funds and spend them on other things. On 20 November, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State who will respond to this debate said that this commitment was “currently being reviewed”. But just weeks later, on 9 December, the Secretary of State said the Government were still fully committed to “50% flexibility for employers”. When I asked the Minister in Committee whether that was still the policy, she said that she would have to get back to me. As the Skills Minister said in the Financial Times , far from the 50% being a promise—as employers were led to believe—it will, in fact, all depend on the outcome of the spending review. Businesses are starting to raise the alarm.”
“In 2015, a devastating Ofsted report found that some apprentices who had been on an apprenticeship for more than a year were not even aware that they were on an apprenticeship, and the skills they were learning were things like making a cup of coffee, which are not life-changing skills. Things were being funded that did not benefit young people, but did allow employers to pay a lower wage. Whereas we lengthened apprenticeships, this Government have cut the length of apprenticeships to eight months. By abolishing IfATE and bringing it in house at the DFE, they are eroding that employer ownership that we worked to build up. Whereas we grew higher apprenticeships, they are about to abolish most level 7 apprenticeships. That is a taste of what is to come if our amendments are not accepted.”
“The Government’s own recent impact assessment says that the reorganisation will lead to a delay and drop in apprenticeships, hence our amendments. For decades, politicians have said that they want to make apprenticeships more prestigious. On average, twice as many people started apprenticeships each year under the last Government as under the previous Labour Government, but higher apprenticeships grew fastest of all. The number of people on higher apprenticeships went from just 3,000 in 2010 to 273,000 last year—a huge increase. We increased the quality of apprenticeships, too, which was much needed, as has already been alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds).”
“I find myself in complete agreement with the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom), and our amendments—new clause 4 and amendment 6—are suggested in the same spirit. There were good reasons why standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers, but now the Government are bringing it into the Department. Alongside other changes, such as shortening apprenticeships and axing higher apprenticeships, that risks damaging the status of these qualifications, which we have been working to build up. The Budget was bad for employment, and it will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprentices. Rather than addressing the problems that they are creating, the Government are reorganising. It is the umpteenth reorganisation in recent decades.”
“I have already read out quotes from employers and those in education and the public service warning about the problems building up in the skills system because of the decisions the Government are making. This evening the Government have decided not to listen to some of the wise people on their own side, including a former education Minister, but I hope that they will listen to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), because they are on the edge of making a huge mistake by butchering higher apprenticeships —a huge mistake that they will live to regret. They are not listening to their own Members this evening, but I hope that they will in the future. Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.”
“I will not labour the point, but many people, including employer groups and very experienced people on the Labour side, have warned about the rush to bring these powers and functions into the Department and the effect that that will have on the Government’s own plans for Skills England. Ministers would be sensible to listen.”
“As James Kewin, deputy chief executive of the Sixth Form Colleges’ Association points out: “16 to 19 funding is uncertain at the best of times, but this year colleges are also waiting for their post-16 budget grant allocations (scheduled for May) and a decision on the 10 per cent T-level uplift…This is all very late in the day”. He is right. Once again, technical education is being treated as the poor relation. We already know that independent training providers and specialist colleges will not get any compensation, and it is unclear how much of next month’s national insurance rise will be covered by the grant. Can the Minister stand up and reassure the sector today that all the additional costs, including those for indirectly employed staff, will be covered by the grant? Or will they, like schools, find that they have been short-changed?”
“The Association of School and College Leaders and the Confederation of School Trusts are warning that the funding only covers part of the costs of the national insurance increase and is leaving schools with a funding gap ranging from 10% to 35%—but at least schools are getting the funding announcement before the start of the financial year, albeit only days before. Technical education is not so lucky. Colleges and 16-19 institutions will have to wait. They will be told their allocations this May and will be paid in September, even though they will have to start making the increased tax payments from the start of the new financial year in just a few days’ time.”
“Amazingly, that came out at the same time as the welfare reform Green Paper, which overshadowed it and mentioned training 18 times. In the Chamber the other day, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions made an argument—a good argument—that it is better to get people into training rather than parking them on benefits; yet elsewhere, at the very same moment, DFE Ministers were cutting the training budget. Skills England was supposed to bring a joined-up approach to policymaking. There is not much sign of that here. Instead, it will reinforce the concerns of those who want technical education to be more independent and employer-led. I ask the Minister a specific question on the funding that IfATE regulates. Yesterday, we got an announcement on schools funding.”
“Likewise, Simon Ashworth, the deputy chief executive and director of policy at the Association of Employment and Learning Providers, said: “there’s little room for manoeuvre—scrapping level 7 apprenticeships won’t yield savings for years…Until the programme budget more closely matches the levy take, it’s imperative funding priorities are aimed at maintaining the sustainability of apprenticeship standards, rather than introducing further non-apprenticeship flexibilities.” That is a very important warning. This is all happening against a backdrop where other types of technical education covered by IfATE are shrinking too. I am old enough to remember when Labour MPs spent years saying that adult skills spending was not generous enough—yet yesterday we learned that the DFE is to cut adult skills budgets by 6%.”
“Since the Committee last met, even more businesses have come out with criticisms. Jane Gratton, the deputy director of public policy at the British Chambers of Commerce has said that the lack of clarity about the future of the growth and skills levy was creating “fresh uncertainty among businesses.” She said that some employers had told the BCC that they had put training plans on hold until they heard what alternatives would be funded in future. She called on the Government to lay out a clear timeline for reform and said that threats to cut the levy before it had even been established are “worrying and destabilising”.”
“There is nothing unusual about that, but the privilege amendment is put in as a deliberate reminder that the Bill has a significant impact on spending of both levy and taxpayers’ money. The sums involved here are non-trivial—it is billions of pounds of spending, governed by IfATE today and by the Department for Education in future. The ongoing chronic uncertainty about the Government’s plans to allow employers to take money out of apprenticeships is not just damaging for business—it is damaging on a significant scale. In the last Bill Committee sitting, the Minister promised to write to me to set out the Government’s position on the 50% flexibility. I hope she will tell me today when that letter is likely to appear, because businesses are starting to raise the alarm ever louder.”
“In truth, there is no great obstacle to the Department doing all the things it might want to do, and establishing Skills England a little bit more before that big transfer of staff, but Ministers want to take this one-year pause out of the Bill with their Government amendment 1. They would be wiser to listen to the grey-haired people in their own party, such as Lord Blunkett, but it seems they are not minded to do that. This group also includes Government amendment 2 to remove the Lords’ privilege amendment. For the benefit of those following the proceedings, as the Minister said, the Lords automatically insert these amendments when there is legislation starting in the Lords that involves levies and taxpayers’ money, to avoid formal infringement of the Commons’ privileges over those things.”
“It is important that the transfer is planned effectively, and the time taken to think through the implications for IfATE staff, but also the impact on the system. Compromises will no doubt have to be made to balance the need for pace with the requirement to retain operational continuity. However, there is a key risk that transfer of functions from IfATE will become the key focus for the set-up of Skills England and less attention (and potentially resources) placed on achieving the overarching aims.” That is a direct reinforcement of the argument that Lord Blunkett made in the Lords. It is very sensible advice to take our time. In contrast to employers’ groups, Ministers say there is no time to wait.”
“GC98.] That argument is somewhat different from the others. His argument, as somebody sympathetic to the creation of a body like Skills England, albeit outside the Department, is that it needs time to establish its own culture and balance, and to grow and develop some roots, before the IfATE elephant steps into the Skills England rowing boat. Since we last met as a Committee, we have received further written evidence from the Skills Federation, which brings together 18 employer-led sector skills bodies, representing more than 150,000 employers. They add their voices to the concerns. The organisation warns: “Transfer of IfATE functions risks disruption and a focus on operational rather than strategic priorities…The movement of functions and the people that carry them out will always be challenging.”
“Lord Blunkett, who was one of the most interesting speakers in the Lords, said: “My fear…is that given the number of people currently transferable from IfATE, full- and part-time, which nudges 200…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 never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards.” He continued: “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.” —[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c.”
“Those concerns are borne out by the Government’s impact assessment, which states that there may be a drop in apprenticeship starts while IfATE’s functions are transferred to the Secretary of State. It says: “The transfer of function from IfATE to the DfE could potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process resulting from the Bill…This may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners, who rely more heavily on these pathways for career advancement.” Fourthly, peers inserted the delay because of concerns about what will happen as DFE tries to absorb all the staff of IfATE.”
“We heard from all parts of the House of Lords that this Bill is a centralisation and, alongside other changes the Government are making, it will risk directly damaging the status of these qualifications. Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprenticeships, starting with the Budget. Rather than fixing those problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years. It is abolishing IfATE, which was created only seven years ago—yet more reorganisation, rather than a focus on the real issues. Thirdly, peers had—and we have—real concerns that the reorganisation of the machinery of Government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues we face.”
“Clause 11 talks about the geographical extent of the Bill, which it says is England and Wales. This is a very small point, but it is worth noting that the Bill and decisions under it will actually affect other parts of the UK as well, not least because they affect degree apprenticeships and higher education. For example, the University of Strathclyde is a leading provider of graduate apprenticeships and degree apprenticeships across Scotland and England; I will return to that overlap later on. On a more substantive note, Government amendment 1 seeks to overturn the one-year pause inserted in the House of Lords. Why did peers insert that? Why was there so much debate, and such wariness about this Bill? First, because there were good reasons that standard setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers.”
“The Minister encouraged us to intervene. One of the things Labour complained about a lot in opposition was what happened to the adult skills budget. Can the Minister confirm that the Government have just announced a 6% cut in the adult skills budget? Can she explain how that fits with the Government’s constant rhetoric—as in the welfare cuts debate just the other day—about getting people out of unemployment and into training? How will a 6% cut help to move people from welfare into training?”
“Speaking of gaps, I wonder whether the Minister will answer my question. Will she stand up and reassure the sector that all the additional costs, including those for indirectly employed staff, will be covered by the forthcoming national insurance contributions grant?”
“Will the Minister promise to publish the methodology of how the figure of £155 million was arrived at? Can she reassure the sector that that sum is enough to cover all the costs of the national insurance increase, including the costs for indirectly employed staff?”
“I meant no disrespect, Ms Furniss, but the Minister promised in the previous sitting that she would write to me. She may say that the letter has been sent, but it has not arrived. It is telling that the things we are debating will be written into law and I have still not—”
“I take your point, Ms Furniss. We are keen to move on to a vote on Government amendment 1, which we think is a big mistake. We have already explained why—I will not recapitulate that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 12 Commencement Amendment proposed : 1, in clause 12, page 5, line 6, leave out from “force” to end of line 7 and insert “on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”. — (Janet Daby.) This amendment provides for the substantive provisions of the Bill to be brought into force by regulations made by the Secretary of State.”
“(7) Within twelve months of a motion under subsection (3) or (4) being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report evaluating the effectiveness of the “Skills England” governance structure in delivering on the organisation's aims and objectives.”— (Ian Sollom.) This new clause requires the Secretary of State to bring forward proposals for the executive agency, to be known as Skills England, subject to the approval of both Houses of Parliament. Brought up, and read the First time.”
“(4) If the draft proposals are rejected by either House of Parliament, the Secretary of State must, within a period of six months, lay a report containing revised proposals before Parliament, and, within a period of forty days after laying the revised proposals, table a motion before each House of Parliament to approve the revised proposals. (5) The Secretary of State may not establish an executive agency to carry out the functions transferred under this Act until it has secured, through a motion under subsection (3) or (4), the consent of both Houses of Parliament. (6) If a motion under subsection (3) or (4) is approved by both Houses of Parliament, the Secretary of State must make an annual statement in each House of Parliament on the work of the agency.”
“New Clause 1 Draft proposals for establishing new executive agency “(1) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must produce a report containing draft proposals for the establishment of a new executive agency, to be known as “Skills England”, responsible for the powers transferred under this Act. (2) A copy of this Report must be laid before both Houses of Parliament. (3) Within forty days of a Report under subsection (1) being laid, the Secretary of State must ensure resolutions are tabled, and moved, in both Houses of Parliament to approve the Government’s draft proposals.”
“This clause is just a reminder that we are trying to make major changes to the engine of our skills system, while the engine is still running. I have already quoted from the Government impact assessment, pointing out that the impact of transition will be to slow down apprenticeship approval numbers—I will not recapitulate that. I will come back later to the challenges these changes to the engine while the engine is still running will cause. Question put and agreed to. Clause 13 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 14 Short title Amendment made: 2, in clause 14, page 6, line 4, leave out subsection (2).— (Janet Daby.) This amendment removes the Lords’ privilege amendment. Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“I rise only to support the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. I shall speak to new clauses 2 and 3 later, but I do not want the hon. Member to feel that that is because I do not support new clause 1. I absolutely do. I think it is entirely sensible, and if the Government had sense then they would listen to him and include the new clause in the Bill.”
“But I want to log the concerns that are being raised by professionals and those in industry about the lack of independence, and I do hope—even though I suspect that the Government will not change their mind about bringing this into the Department—that they can at least find ways in its operating procedures and the way it evolves to try to create that sense of independence, and reassure all those who are worried about the idea of the Secretary of State taking the powers in this Bill to go it alone and write things without the input of those who are actually working in the sector.”
“It is essential that the voice of professionals and industry, as well as those directly involved in delivering educational provision, be heard whenever the Secretary of State exercises these new powers. Any decision to intervene and directly develop or approve apprenticeship standards or assessment plans should take into account the perspectives of those with hands-on expertise in the sector.” That is surely right. We have already voted on a very similar new clause to this—new clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire—so we will not press this to a vote.”
“That same argument was made to the Committee by the International Information System Security Certification Consortium—the international professional body for cybersecurity—which wrote: “While ISC2 understands that Government is seeking to introduce flexibility and agility in the way apprenticeship standards are developed, we contend that without industry involvement in the development of standards, there is a risk that apprenticeships may not adequately reflect the evolving needs of certain sectors. This is especially true for cybersecurity where a changing threat landscape and dramatic shifts brought about by emerging technologies means that apprenticeship standards must stay relevant.”
“In a previous sitting, the Minister made the argument that the Secretary of State might need to write standards directly without external input from a group of people in fast-moving and technology sectors. We argued, in contrast, that those are precisely the kind of exciting sectors where industry input, rather than just ministerial enthusiasm, is most needed.”