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

• The session focused on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill, discussing clauses related to the Bill’s extent, commencement, and short title.
• Government amendment 1 proposes that the Secretary of State can decide when key parts of the Bill come into force, rather than having a 12-month delay that was previously inserted by the House of Lords. This amendment aims to speed up the establishment of Skills England, a new body intended to oversee skills development in England. Critics argue that this haste could risk the effectiveness of Skills England by not allowing it time to establish itself before assuming responsibilities of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE).
• Government amendment 2 removes a subsection added by the House of Lords concerning the financial privileges of the House of Commons.
• There was significant debate over the readiness and operational capabilities of Skills England. The government highlights that Skills England is already operating in shadow form and is prepared to take on its full role without delay. Opponents express concern that the rapid transition of functions from IfATE could disrupt existing apprenticeship and technical education programs.
• Concerns were raised about the impact of the Bill on the wider UK skills system, with some members pointing out that changes could affect other regions beyond England due to interconnected education and employment landscapes.
• The government defended its approach, emphasizing the need for urgent action to address skills gaps and the continuity of existing education programs. It also mentioned ongoing engagement with devolved authorities to ensure a coordinated effort across the UK.
• A new clause was proposed to require the Secretary of State to lay draft proposals for Skills England before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval. This was rejected by the Committee, with the government arguing that existing procedures for establishing executive agencies and planned reporting measures were sufficient.
• Discussions also touched on the funding implications of the Bill, including concerns about cuts to adult skills budgets and the adequacy of financial support for the education sector amidst rising national insurance contributions.

The session displayed a moderate level of disagreement primarily centered around the implementation and timing of reforms related to Skills England and the transfer of functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE). Here are the detailed points explaining the disagreements observed:

1. Government Amendment 1: There was significant disagreement regarding the government’s proposal to remove the 12-month delay between the creation of Skills England and the commencement of key parts of the Bill. Janet Daby (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education) argued that the delay was unnecessary and detrimental to urgent reform. In contrast, Neil O’Brien (Shadow Minister) and Damian Hinds expressed concerns over rushing the process, citing potential risks to Skills England’s effectiveness and the potential for operational disruptions. They emphasized the need for a breathing space to ensure a smoother transition and greater success for Skills England.

   • Example: Neil O’Brien stated, ‘This group also includes Government amendment 1 to remove the Lords’ privilege amendment…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.’

2. Government Amendment 2: This amendment pertained to the standard procedure for Bills originating in the House of Lords and was less contentious. However, it still sparked some disagreement, particularly about the implications for spending and accountability.

   • Example: Neil O’Brien mentioned the significant funding involved and the necessity for clarity on how it would be managed post-amendment.

3. New Clause 1: The proposal to require the Secretary of State to bring forward detailed proposals for Skills England to Parliament for scrutiny and approval was another focal point of disagreement. Ian Sollom argued for greater accountability and parliamentary oversight, while Janet Daby insisted that existing governance frameworks were sufficient and that any delays to the establishment of Skills England were undesirable.

   • Example: Ian Sollom said, ‘We are being asked to approve a fundamental restructuring of the skills system without proper guarantees about how the body will operate or be held accountable.’ Conversely, Janet Daby argued, ‘The new clause is therefore not necessary…We need to address the urgent skills challenges in our economy.’

4. Funding and Budget Concerns: There was some disagreement on the funding cuts to the adult skills budget and the broader implications for technical education. Neil O’Brien raised specific concerns about the lack of compensation for increased national insurance costs and how the funding cuts could contradict the government’s goals for welfare reform and training.

   • Example: Neil O’Brien asked, ‘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?’

Overall, the session had clear points of contention, particularly around the urgency and timing of implementing Skills England, and the need for parliamentary oversight and clarity on funding implications. However, much of the disagreement focused on procedural and implementation details rather than foundational policy disagreements, which is why the session receives a rating of 3 out of 5 for disagreement.