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

• The session focused on the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill, which aims to transfer functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) to the Secretary of State and pave the way for the creation of a new body called Skills England.

• New Clause 1, proposed by Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat), suggested establishing Skills England as an executive agency within six months of the Bill’s passage. It required the Secretary of State to produce draft proposals, lay them before Parliament, and secure parliamentary approval before setting up the agency. This clause was rejected.

• New Clause 4, proposed by Neil O’Brien (Conservative), aimed to establish Skills England as an independent statutory body rather than part of the Department for Education. This clause was also rejected.

• Amendment 6, also proposed by Neil O’Brien, sought to delay the commencement of the Act until one year after Skills England is created. This amendment was rejected.

• Concerns were raised about the potential centralization of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, the lack of parliamentary oversight, and the risk of creating a governance vacuum by abolishing IfATE without immediately establishing Skills England.

• The Bill’s impact on higher education, particularly degree apprenticeships, and T-levels was discussed, with new clauses proposed to require reports on these impacts within a year of the Act’s passage. These were not adopted, as the government committed to a six-month report covering these areas.

• The government emphasized the urgency of addressing skills shortages and the need for Skills England to move quickly, arguing that the executive agency model would allow for more flexibility and responsiveness to employer needs.

• Critics argued that the government’s approach risked damaging the quality and prestige of apprenticeships, particularly by shortening apprenticeship lengths and potentially cutting funding for higher-level apprenticeships.

• The Bill passed its Third Reading, with the government rejecting amendments that would have delayed its implementation or altered the structure of Skills England.

The session displayed a moderate level of disagreement, primarily centered around the establishment and structure of Skills England, as well as the implications of the Bill on apprenticeships and technical education. Here are the key points of disagreement and their analysis:

1. Establishment of Skills England: There was significant disagreement on whether Skills England should be established as an executive agency or as an independent statutory body. Ian Sollom (LD) and Neil O’Brien (Con) proposed amendments (new clauses 1 and 4) to establish Skills England as an independent body, arguing for greater accountability and independence from government influence. In contrast, the government, represented by Janet Daby (Lab), opposed these amendments, emphasizing the need for speed and flexibility, which they believed an executive agency model would better provide. This disagreement was evident in the voting outcomes, with the government’s position prevailing.

2. Impact on Higher Education and Apprenticeships: There was contention over the potential impact of the Bill on higher education and apprenticeships, particularly regarding level 7 apprenticeships. Gareth Snell (Lab/Co-op) and Neil O’Brien (Con) expressed concerns about the removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships, highlighting the potential negative effects on public services and regional economies. The government’s response, through Janet Daby, was to defer detailed information on level 7 apprenticeships, indicating a disagreement on the urgency and necessity of addressing these concerns immediately.

3. Delay in Implementation: The proposed amendments (new clause 4 and amendment 6) suggested delaying the transfer of functions to Skills England by a year, which was opposed by the government. Members like Andrew Pakes (Lab) and Josh Dean (Lab) argued against any delay, emphasizing the urgency of addressing skills shortages. This disagreement was reflected in the voting, with the government’s stance against delay being upheld.

4. Governance and Accountability: There was a notable disagreement on the governance structure of Skills England. Ian Sollom and others criticized the centralization of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, arguing for more parliamentary oversight and accountability. The government maintained that existing mechanisms were sufficient, leading to a clear divide in perspectives on how Skills England should be governed.

5. Cross-Departmental Coordination: The need for Skills England to work effectively across various government departments was another point of contention. Ian Sollom highlighted the importance of cross-departmental coordination, while the government’s position suggested that the executive agency model would be sufficient to achieve this.

Overall, while there were clear disagreements, they were not overwhelmingly contentious or disruptive. The debates were focused on policy and structural issues rather than personal attacks or extreme opposition, leading to a rating of 3 for disagreement displayed in the session.