🤔 Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

• The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] aims to transfer statutory functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) to the Secretary of State and subsequently to Skills England, an executive agency of the Department for Education.

• Clauses 1 to 3 of the Bill focus on transferring functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State, transferring IfATE’s property, rights, and liabilities, and abolishing IfATE, respectively. These clauses set the groundwork for setting up Skills England.

• Skills England is intended to address the fragmentation and lack of responsiveness in the UK’s skills system. It will map occupational groups, approve and publish standards and assessment plans for apprenticeships, and work with regional partners to meet skills needs across the country.

• The creation of Skills England is seen as a more ambitious approach to tackle skill gaps, aiming to better align training with the needs of the economy. It will collaborate with the Industrial Strategy Council and the Migration Advisory Committee to ensure a skilled workforce and reduce reliance on overseas workers.

• Opposition to the Bill, expressed by Neil O’Brien (Conservative), centers on the risk of centralization and loss of independence of the standards-setting process, which was previously under IfATE and closer to employers. Concerns were raised about potential delays in apprenticeship approvals and decreased employer confidence due to the transfer.

• Proponents of the Bill, like Janet Daby (Minister of State for Education), argue that Skills England will build on IfATE’s work and be more responsive to employers’ needs. They stress the urgency of establishing Skills England to address current skills gaps in the economy.

• The debate highlighted a lack of clarity on the proposed flexibility of using apprenticeship levy funds for non-apprenticeship training, with confusion over whether the promised 50% allowance would remain in place.

• The Committee approved clauses 1 to 3 and schedules 1 to 3 to stand part of the Bill after a vote, with a majority supporting the transfer and establishment of Skills England.

The session of the Public Bill Committee on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords] exhibits substantial disagreement among its members, primarily centered around the restructuring of the skills system, the abolition of IfATE, and the establishment of Skills England. Here are the detailed points explaining the high level of disagreement observed during the session:

1. Centralization and Independence of Skills England: A major point of contention is the centralization of functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State and the subsequent implication for Skills England’s independence. Neil O’Brien and Damian Hinds express concerns over the move away from an independent, employer-led IfATE to a Skills England operating as part of the Department for Education (DfE). They argue that the lack of legislative footing for Skills England and its integration into the DfE undermines its independence and the employer-led ethos promised in the Labour manifesto. The Minister, Janet Daby, defends the Government’s stance, claiming that Skills England will operate independently and remains committed to retaining a strong role for employers.

2. Impact on Apprenticeship Starts and Industry Concerns: There is significant disagreement over the potential negative impacts of the Bill’s reforms on apprenticeship starts, with concerns being raised by both Neil O’Brien and industry representatives. The Government’s impact assessment suggests possible delays, and O’Brien uses this to argue against the Bill, criticizing the lack of detail on the policy regarding the spending flexibility of the apprenticeship levy—a point on which Janet Daby seemed evasive, further fueling disagreement.

3. Historical Precedents and Institutional Churn: Damian Hinds’s extensive listing of historical precedents of skills bodies and qualifications is used to criticize the frequent churn in the skills system. This point is met with counter-arguments from Government members who support the current reforms and the need for a new system to address current and future skill needs.

4. Function and Governance of Skills England: The discussion about Skills England’s function and governance, including its location within the DfE and the roles of its proposed CEOs, shows significant disagreement. While the Government asserts that this model allows for more responsiveness to skill needs, opposition members argue it compromises independence and the integrity of the skills system.

5. Amendments and Delays in Establishing Skills England: The session also reveals disagreement over an amendment proposed in the House of Lords, which would delay the full establishment of Skills England. This amendment is criticized by Janet Daby as unnecessary and detrimental to the urgent needs of employers and the economy.

6. Clarity on Policy and Implementation: Neil O’Brien’s frustration over the lack of clarity on the Government’s policy regarding the spending of apprenticeship levy funds is a clear point of disagreement. He seeks a definitive answer on whether the policy allowing employers to spend up to 50% of levy funds on non-apprenticeship training is still in place, which the Minister fails to clarify, leading to further dissension.

Given these points, the session is characterized by strong oppositional viewpoints and significant disagreements on multiple fronts. The debates over policy precision, the autonomy of Skills England, and the potential effects on the skills system and employers contribute to a session rated at 4 out of 5 for displayed disagreement.