📚👷🔧🚀 Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]

• The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] was discussed during its Second Reading. The Bill aims to transfer the functions of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) to the Secretary of State, paving the way for the establishment ofSkills England.

• Bridget Phillipson, Secretary of State for Education, highlighted the urgent need for skills reform to address gaps in the workforce, which is crucial for economic growth and personal opportunity. She pointed out that half a million vacancies exist due to skills shortages and emphasized the government’s commitment to a more flexible skills system.

• Sir Ashley Fox questioned the effectiveness of the apprenticeship levy, suggesting it’s difficult for employers to spend the allocated funds. Phillipson responded that the government plans to reform the levy into a growth and skills levy, allowing for more flexibility.

• Sir John Hayes raised concerns about career advice in schools often favoring academic paths over vocational training, suggesting a need for more balanced guidance. He also questioned the involvement and visibility of employers in the new Skills England framework.

• Toby Perkins focused on the difficulties small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face with the current apprenticeship system, noting a significant decline in SME apprenticeships since the levy’s introduction. He sought assurances on increasing SME involvement in the new system.

• Gareth Snell and other MPs shared local examples, emphasizing the impact of apprenticeships on community development and the importance of Skills England in addressing localized skills needs.

• Laura Trott, from the Opposition, critiqued the Bill for centralizing power to the Secretary of State and questioned its benefits. She argued that the Bill might weaken employer involvement and erode standards in technical education.

• Helen Hayes, Chair of the Education Committee, supported the Bill but sought clarity on the long-term stability of Skills England, the seniority of its leadership, and measures to ensure effective partnership across different stakeholders.

• Ian Sollom, representing the Liberal Democrats, proposed an amendment to delay the Bill due to concerns over centralization of power and the lack of statutory independence for Skills England. The amendment was not supported.

• Damian Hinds criticized the Bill for abolishing IfATE without ensuring a clear replacement and questioned the government’s approach to maintaining qualification standards.

• The debate included contributions from various MPs detailing successful local apprenticeship schemes and the need for Skills England to address regional disparities and skills shortages in critical sectors like construction, healthcare, and green energy.

• The Bill moved forward to the next stage after a vote, with MPs approving it for further scrutiny in a Public Bill Committee.

• The establishment of Skills England is seen as a step towards a more streamlined and responsive skills system, aiming to support learners, employers, and the wider economy.

The disagreement level during this session can be rated as a 3 out of 5 due to a mix of constructive debates and significant points of contention without escalating to major conflict. Here’s the detailed reasoning behind the rating:

1. Constructive Discussions and Support for the Bill: The session witnessed a variety of members from both sides of the House expressing their support for the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]. Several members, including the Secretary of State for Education and members from the Labour Party, articulated the necessity of the Bill to reform the skills landscape and enhance apprenticeship opportunities. For instance, Bridget Phillipson emphasized the need for a cohesive skills system that responds to economic demands, which was widely supported by many Labour members. This indicates a level of agreement within the session regarding the intent and potential of the Bill.

2. Criticism and Concerns Raised: However, there were notable criticisms and concerns raised by members of the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. The centralization of power within the Department for Education and the potential erosion of employer involvement in skills determination were key points of contention. For example, Laura Trott and Neil O’Brien from the Conservative Party criticized the Bill for centralizing too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State, arguing it undermines the independence crucial for vocational training. Similarly, Ian Sollom from the Liberal Democrats highlighted the lack of statutory independence for Skills England, which they perceive as detrimental to the skills system’s integrity.

3. Specific Disagreements: Specific disagreements included concerns about the abolition of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) and its replacement by Skills England. For instance, the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, Sir John Hayes, suggested a sector-based approach rather than abolishing IfATE, emphasizing the need for sector-driven skills standards. The Shadow Secretary of State, Laura Trott, also expressed apprehension about the diminished role of employers and the potential for reduced accountability and oversight, which was echoed by other Conservative members like Sir Ashley Fox and Damian Hinds. They debated the implications on apprenticeship start numbers and the potential negative impact on disadvantaged learners and regions, as highlighted in the Government’s own impact assessment.

4. Attempts at Clarification and Reassurance: Throughout the session, there were efforts by the Secretary of State and other supporters of the Bill to address the raised concerns. Bridget Phillipson clarified the role of Skills England and its intended flexibility and employer engagement, trying to reassure members about its potential effectiveness. However, skepticism remained evident among certain members, indicating a level of persistent disagreement on the Bill’s approach and implementation.

5. Voting Outcome: The voting outcomes reflected a clear division but also a majority support for the Bill. The amendment by Ian Sollom to decline the second reading was rejected with 70 votes in favor and 312 against. The second reading of the Bill itself was approved with 317 votes in favor and 55 against, indicating a broader alignment with the Bill’s objectives despite the criticisms.

In conclusion, while there were clear disagreements, particularly around the structure and independence of the new Skills England body versus IfATE, these did not escalate to a high level of conflict. The session maintained a focus on policy critique and improvement rather than personal or political attacks, justifying a medium level of disagreement rating of 3 out of 5.