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

• Creation of Skills England: The Committee discussed a proposal to establish Skills England as an independent statutory body to take over the functions currently held by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE). The proposal aimed to ensure independence from the Department for Education (DfE) and enhance the prestige of technical education.

• Concerns Over Independence: Various stakeholders, including universities and industry bodies, expressed concerns about the potential loss of independence if Skills England were to be integrated into the DfE. They argued that independence is crucial for maintaining robust, non-political standards in education and training.

• Government’s Stance: The Minister defended the decision to make Skills England an executive agency within the DfE, stating that it would allow for faster action to address skills gaps and drive economic growth. The government committed to reviewing Skills England’s model within 18 to 24 months of its establishment.

• T-levels and Funding: Concerns were raised about the future of T-levels, a new technical qualification. There was a call for clarity on whether the government would continue the 10% funding uplift for T-levels, which is crucial for their growth and sustainability. The Minister did not confirm this but promised a response in due course.

• Impact on Higher Education: The discussion highlighted the overlap between technical education and higher education, particularly with higher and degree apprenticeships. There were worries about the potential impact of removing level 7 apprenticeships on universities, especially those heavily involved in delivering such programs. The Minister indicated that a review of Skills England’s functions would address this overlap.

• Reporting Requirements: Proposals for new clauses requiring reports on the impact of the Bill on T-levels and higher education were discussed. The government argued that existing reporting mechanisms would cover these areas sufficiently, and thus, additional reporting duties were not needed.

• Stakeholder Feedback: Various submissions from educational and industry bodies were considered, emphasizing the need for employer input in developing standards and the potential risks of centralizing power within the DfE.

The session on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill shows a moderate level of disagreement among members of the committee. The disagreements primarily revolve around the establishment and operational independence of Skills England, as well as the potential impact on T-levels and higher education. The session features dialogue, concerns, and questions that indicate differing opinions and priorities among the committee members. Here are the key points and examples supporting this rating:

1. Disagreement on the Independence of Skills England: There is a notable disagreement regarding whether Skills England should be established as a statutory body with independent status or remain as an executive agency under the Department for Education (DfE). Neil O’Brien (Con) and Damian Hinds (Con) express strong support for independent status, citing the need to avoid political interference and to elevate the status of technical education. Neil O’Brien emphasizes the importance of this independence:
   • “…we should make the Bill actually do what the Government try to pretend that it does: set up Skills England.”
   • The University of Winchester’s submission, referenced by O’Brien, also stresses the importance of regulatory independence. In contrast, the Minister, Janet Daby (Lab), defends the government’s approach, arguing that the current executive agency model allows for quicker action and flexibility:
   • “It being an executive agency allows us to move fast…Skills England can take immediate action to plug the skills gaps…” This clearly shows a difference in opinion on the governance model for Skills England.
2. Debate on T-levels and Funding: The session includes a significant debate about the support for T-levels, specifically concerning the continuation of the 10% funding uplift. Neil O’Brien presses for clarity, indicating the urgency felt by providers. He states:
   • “The sector is now making decisions about this, and urgently needs certainty.” The Minister responds without committing to a continuation of funding, indicating a divergence from the sector’s expectation:
   • “We will confirm that position in due course, and I will write to him on that point.” This disagreement on funding decisions reflects different views on the priorities and operational needs of the education sector.
3. Impact on Higher Education: Concerns about the impact of the Bill on higher education, particularly level 7 degree apprenticeships, are debated. Neil O’Brien expresses worry about the potential destabilization of universities due to the planned cuts to these apprenticeships:
   • “…axing level 7 apprenticeships, and potentially also level 6, would be very destabilising for universities…” The Minister acknowledges the importance of higher education but does not commit to detailed analysis of the impact, leading to further exchanges:
   • “…we are reforming apprenticeships, tilting the system towards young people…” The disagreement here centers around the policy’s potential broader impacts on the education system.
4. Procedural and Transparency Issues: There is also a dispute over the handling of procedural matters, such as the letter on Ofqual’s role mentioned by Damian Hinds. The dissatisfaction over the timing and availability of this letter to the committee members shows disagreement on procedural transparency:
   • “The letter addressing the issues…has been sent to Sir Christopher, your co-Chair, Ms Furniss, and I am sure it will be shared in due course.”
   • This issue of transparency is contested, highlighting another area of disagreement in the session.

Given these points, the session is rated a 3 out of 5 for disagreement due to the clear differences in opinion on the organizational structure of Skills England, the funding and support for T-levels, the potential impact on higher education, and procedural concerns. While the session demonstrates disagreement, it does not reach the level of contention suggested by higher ratings due to the constructive nature of the dialogue and the shared concern for the welfare of the education and skills sectors.