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

Report

17:47:00

Clause 4: Preparation of standards

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 4, page 2, line 6, at end insert— “(3B) A group of persons under subsection (3) must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”

My Lords, in moving Amendment 1 I will speak also to Amendments 2, 4 and 5 standing in my name. Amendments 1 and 4 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, mirror the amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in Committee, which I also put my name to. They seek to bring the expertise of sector representative bodies to the preparation of standards and assessment plans and distribute the workload so that Skills England is not drowned in the preparation and updating of standards. I note that there is a reference to employer representative bodies in the section of the draft framework document that covers the purposes of Skills England, although it is used merely as an example. Can the Minister articulate what the block is to the Government committing to work with employer representative bodies? The Government stress the breadth of their ambition for their industrial strategy and for Skills England’s part in delivering this, so why not bring in the wider expertise capacity of employer representative bodies, both in more traditional and more modern sectors? I turn to Amendments 2 and 5, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, has also given his support. These amendments seek to give the Government one last chance to be absolutely explicit in their commitment to employers and to those undertaking training. The text of the amendment comes from the original IfATE legislation and so has been thoroughly tested not just in debate in both Houses but also in real life. I am told by those who have been involved in the governance of IfATE that the duty to “have regard to the reasonable requirements of … industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and … persons who …. wish to undertake education and training” has been a very serious duty in relation to the approval of a standard under new subsections (3) or (6). The Minister will understand very well the influence that government policy has on employers. Recently, the Government announced that level 7 apprenticeships would no longer be eligible for the levy and there are question marks over the funding of some level 6 apprenticeships. This policy had been trailed for some time. If we look at the impact on recent apprenticeship starts, levels 6 and 7 saw starts rise by 10.9% as employers scramble to lock in funding ahead of the proposed changes. However, starts at levels 2 and 3 and the absolute level of under-19s participating in apprenticeships declined. So, while the Secretary of State celebrated the overall increase in apprenticeship starts of 1.3%, the building blocks of this rise are exactly the ones that the Government are removing. There is a real risk that the changes they propose, with the move to a growth and skills levy, will result in a drop in the number of people undertaking these qualifications, as funding for existing high-quality qualifications is removed and newer ones are perhaps not made the immediate priority for employers, particularly given the likely impact of employers’ national insurance contribution increases on recruitment into lower-paid roles. All of this matters because the framework document is, at best, vague and, at worst, silent on the involvement of employers. There are some statements in the section on aims, saying that employers will be engaged in the preparation of occupational standards, but it does not say how. The rest of the document, particularly the section on the responsibilities of the chief executive, does not refer to this. It focuses rather on their role as accounting officer in relation to the board and the department, with no mention of employers. There are broad references in the section on the purposes of the new agency and the reference I mentioned earlier in brackets to employer representative bodies but, if I were an employer, I would be concerned and would want an explicit reassurance from the Minister about my role going forward. I urge the Minister either to explain why employers are so much less visible in the framework document or to agree that this amendment would fit best within the Bill or, at the very least, in the next draft of the framework document. I hope that she can commit to that today. If I may, I will speak to her Amendments 3 and 6 after she has spoken to them. I beg to move.

My Lords, I have added my name to Amendments 1 and 4 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Before speaking to them, I thank the Minister for her very positive engagement with those of us involved with the Bill. That includes several meetings and her letter last week describing the three amendments that she has tabled—all of which represent welcome improvements, even if they do not go quite as far as I might like—and including a draft of the proposed framework document for Skills England. Having said that, I remain concerned about what impact the transfer of IfATE into the DfE will have on the vital engagement of employers in standards and assessment processes, and about the proposed status of Skills England as an executive agency, albeit an arm’s-length body within the DfE. Amendments 1 and 2 relate to the organisations which should be involved or taken into account by the Secretary of State when preparing apprenticeship standards. Amendment 1 requires that a group of persons preparing such standards should include a person from the representative body for the relevant sector; it would be even better to spell out that this should be the representative skills body. Many industry sector skills bodies have played a crucial and leading role in working with IfATE to prepare standards and assessment plans for their sectors. It will be important to continue this under the new regime, not least because of the positive effect it could have in leveraging valuable support for Skills England from such bodies. Recognised sector skills bodies, such as Energy & Utility Skills for the energy and utilities sector, already work closely with employers in their sectors to identify needs and translate them into standards and training pathways in England and across the devolved Administrations, ensuring UK-wide consistency. Through their links with employers, they can respond with speed and agility to the developing skills needs of their sectors, while ensuring consistency with existing qualifications and apprenticeships across the whole UK. They work closely and effectively with IfATE, thereby ensuring that employer views are properly represented in standards and assessment plans approved by IfATE while minimising its workload. I also support Amendment 2, which broadens the range of bodies to whose interests the Secretary of State must have regard. Both amendments seek to ensure that the central role of employers and other relevant bodies is properly and fully reflected in the Bill. Amendment 3 in the Minister’s name—I will speak to it briefly now rather than standing up again later—addresses the issue that I and others raised in Committee about spelling out the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might herself prepare a standard, rather than a group of persons. The amendment requires the publication only of matters to be taken into account in deciding whether to make such a decision rather than specific criteria, but I welcome it as far as it goes. Amendments 4 to 6 raise essentially—almost exactly—the same issues as the previous three but in relation to the preparation of apprenticeship assessment plans rather than occupational standards. All I will say is: ditto. Again, I support all three of them, particularly Amendment 4, which requires a person from the representative skills body for a sector to be included in the group of persons developing a standard for that sector, for the same reasons as I have given for Amendments 1 to 3.

My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendments 2 and 5, to which I have added my name. I declare the fact that I am a teacher. I join other noble Lords in thanking the Minister and her team very much for our collegiate and friendly meetings and for their letters on the draft framework. They have gone a long way in calming a lot of the fears that I had about this Bill and about the lack of information. There is still a lot that has not been said, but I am an optimist. I genuinely believe that the Government are going in the right direction but, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I would like to hear a little more.

My Lords, when a framework Bill comes before the House, you expect to have a series of amendments such as these, asking for more information. I thank the Minister for answering some of those questions, but the fact of the matter is that this is still a framework Bill. I hope that we will get a little more detail when she responds to this group, but we really need a bit more information before we assess a piece of legislation. I thank her for what she has done, but I hope she will take back to her department that the original approach on this really was not good enough.

My Lords, I echo much of what has been said already, including appreciating everything the Minister has done to meet some of the points and criticisms raised in Committee. However, Amendments 1, 2, 4 and 5 are important because it is very important to have employers and representative bodies in the Bill. I would like to look back in history to the period in the 1980s, 1990s and early 2000s, when apprenticeships in this country were in raging decline and the quality of much of what was being called an apprenticeship was very low. All three major parties have been involved in turning that around, and we are in a much better place than we were in the early 2000s, let alone the 1990s.

18:00:00

However, the statutes that set up what was originally the IfA then IfATE were important. If something is buried deep inside the Department for Education and there is no statutory responsibility or declaration that employers are at the heart of apprenticeships and need to be there, and if you do not take explicit account of professional bodies and unions—all the major institutional players that determine whether a vocational training system will work—then you are laying out trouble for the future.

On the whole, I am not a huge enthusiast for putting everything in primary legislation, but on this occasion these amendments are correct. We should have these commitments in the Bill and not merely buried in later framework documents. I therefore support them.

My Lords, I thank all Members who have been involved in the consideration of this Bill for being willing to meet with me and share concerns. I am glad that people have recognised that we have made progress as a result of that process. I think that we all agree that effective skills provision is critical to boosting growth and spreading opportunity to all parts of the country. Through this Bill, the Government are taking steps to enable the rapid development and delivery of high-quality training aligned to current and future skills needs. For this to be possible, we need to ensure that the processes for developing and approving training are sufficiently flexible to respond to diverse and changing skills needs across the economy and the wide range of different occupational specialisms. This Bill, therefore, introduces specific flexibilities intended to make the system more responsive and more focused on the needs of employers and other key stakeholders. For those who argue, quite rightly, that we should listen to employers, I say that it is precisely because of what employers have told us about the need for speed and flexibility that we have introduced the provisions in this Bill. As I tried to do in Committee, I also reassure noble Lords about the absolutely central role that employers will play in the work of Skills England. Building on the work of IfATE, employers will continue to play a critical role in the design and delivery of apprenticeships and technical education. It is crucial that those reflect the needs of employers and that employers have confidence in them. Skills England will ensure that there is a comprehensive suite of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications for individuals and employers to access, all of which will be informed by what employers and other partners tell us that they need. As I have said on several occasions about the functions that are being transferred, and in response to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, the default position will continue to be that groups of persons, including employers, are responsible for preparing standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. In other words, what is proposed in this Bill maintains the same focus on employers as in the original Act setting up IfATE. What is more, we have the experience of how Skills England has been operating in shadow form. We have Skills England’s first report, which provided a very important springboard for Skills England to engage in further dialogue between employers, unions, providers, experts, regional bodies and the Government to interrogate, corroborate and build our shared understanding of what skills the economy needs. The assessment of skills needs, including the needs of employers in different sectors, will be continued in Skills England’s second report, which is due in early 2025. In every case that noble Lords have talked about, I am absolutely clear—and we have already seen evidence from Skills England—that employers, representatives of sector skills groups and employer representative bodies should be, will be, and are already being, engaged by Skills England. The question is whether these amendments act against the wish of the Government, and, I believe, of other noble Lords, to ensure that we are doing this in the most speedy and appropriate way. It is vital that the Bill does not lose its ability to deliver this change—the change to be more responsive and more focused on the needs of employers and key stakeholders—by taking on amendments which will slow down Skills England and, in some cases, make it slower and more cumbersome, with more prior requirements than IfATE’s current processes. Any such burden would impact the wider skills system and hinder its contribution to the growth and opportunity missions that are important to this Government. In Committee, during the debates on Clauses 4 and 5, noble Lords raised concerns about the membership of groups of persons formed to create standards and assessment plans, as has been repeated today. I outlined how, at present, there are no statutory criteria that prescribe the make-up of these groups. In other words, it is not the case that IfATE already has in legislation specific named representatives that need to form these groups. However, IfATE is under a duty to publish information about matters it will consider when deciding whether to approve groups of persons to develop occupational standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. In this legislation, that duty is being transferred to the Secretary of State unchanged. That level of transparency, because of this Bill and the transfer of functions, will be part of the functioning of Skills England. Amendments 1 and 2 would, however, prescribe in legislation that a group of persons that prepares an occupational standard or an assessment plan must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector. I spoke in Committee about the risks of introducing new constraints on the structure of these groups with criteria in primary legislation. They would make the process for forming groups slower and more onerous. I do not think it is in anyone’s interest—not least learners or employers—to incur such delays. They could prevent the membership of the group reflecting specific factors important for its work. To specify sector representative bodies or any specific member of the group of persons would prioritise certain people or bodies over the expertise of others. Clauses 4 and 5 create a power for the Secretary of State to prepare a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan themselves, where satisfied that it would be more appropriate for them to do so than a group of persons. In Committee, noble Lords expressed concerns about this new power and how it will operate—understandably, given the arguments that have been made. In previous exchanges, I set out why it is important that this additional flexibility is built into the system: to respond to the particular skills needs of different occupations. I also set out that, in practice, it will remain the default for groups of persons to prepare standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. However, I recognise that this flexibility must also be balanced against transparency. In Committee and today, the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran, Lady Garden and Lady McGregor-Smith, and the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare, Lord Hampton and Lord Addington, all spoke on the clauses about the power for the Secretary of State to prepare a standard or an assessment plan. I listened carefully to the points made. As such, and in recognition of arguments put forward by noble Lords during the passage of the Bill to date, government Amendments 3 and 6 will be proposed today. The amendments will create new duties on the Secretary of State to publish information about matters they will take into account when deciding whether it would be more appropriate for them, rather than a group of persons, to prepare occupational standards and assessment plans. These amendments will result in powers in the Bill being subject to equivalent transparency as powers being transferred to the Secretary of State from IfATE. To reiterate the point I made earlier, there will not be less statutory requirement for employer engagement in the Bill, but the equivalent to what is in the legislation governing IfATE. The amended Bill therefore provides for consistent transparency throughout. It will mean that the Secretary of State will be under a duty to publish information on the matters that will be taken into account when making decisions in three areas: first, on whether to approve a group of persons to prepare a standard or assessment plan; secondly, on whether to approve a standard or assessment plan; and, thirdly, as a result of government Amendments 3 and 6, on whether it is more appropriate for the Secretary of State to prepare a standard or assessment plan, rather than a group of persons. Amendments 4 and 5 would create that statutory duty on the Secretary of State to have due regard to the reasonable requirements of employers and those who may wish to undertake training when considering whether to approve occupational standards and assessment plans, where they have been developed by a group of persons. The Secretary of State is already subject to a general public law duty, which requires them to take into account all relevant considerations before taking decisions relating to the functions for which they are responsible. There is therefore already a requirement that, when executing the functions described in the Bill, the Secretary of State considers and balances factors such as those outlined in the noble Baroness’s amendment. In fact, the public law duty includes, but is broader than, the factors listed in the proposed amendment. I recognised the concerns of noble Lords that we were more explicit about the aims, objectives and governance of Skills England. That is why I reference again to noble Lords Skills England’s first published report, the documents published and the exchanges made during the passage of the Bill, including the draft framework document that I shared with Members of the Committee who had particularly focused on this. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, says that it is just a draft; it is, because the framework document itself needs to be approved by the board of Skills England, but it is a pretty full draft and very much aimed at reassuring noble Lords about the approach Skills England will take and the nature of the organisation, which is what I was asked for more information about. We have also been clear that a fundamental part of Skills England’s role is to ensure that technical qualifications and apprenticeships meet the needs of both employers and learners. The amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, are therefore well considered but, we would argue, duplicative of existing duties on the Secretary of State, commitments made about the purpose of Skills England, and the further evidence in additional information I have provided for noble Lords. The existing duty to take into account all relevant considerations will be fulfilled by Skills England and through the considered approach to create Skills England as an executive agency, which we will return to in the next group of amendments, when I hope I will be able to respond to some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, as well. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and other noble Lords are reassured that her concerns are already addressed. I hope she agrees not to press her amendments, so that we can ensure that flexibility and speed of response to the skills challenges that our country faces and enable Skills England to start doing that as quickly as possible.

I thank Minister for her remarks and thank all noble Lords who spoke in this short debate. I followed some of her argument but not all of it, so I will ask for a little clarification. First, on my comments about the framework being a draft, it is clearly a long document, and thought has gone into it. I was just trying to make the point that, when you look at the CEO responsibilities, it talks about responsibilities to other groups but not employers. The fact that it is a draft—I hope the Minister might give a little here—is also an opportunity to use some of these amendments, which could be woven into a final draft.

18:15:00

The Minister talked about the importance of flexibility and quality, which I think we are supportive of across the House, and the need for the Government to be as responsive as possible. I also heard her say that the approach will mirror how IfATE works in terms of engagement with employers. But where I got slightly lost is that there is a distinction in relation to Amendments 1 and 4, which, one could argue, would put additional burdens on the Secretary of State and the department: will they really make things less agile or will they give a national perspective and agility, as the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, said? We can argue about that. But I do not understand why the Minister argues that Amendments 2 and 5 add burdens, because those were in the existing IfATE legislation. Can she clarify that? Clearly, none of us wants to slow things down or put in bureaucracy for bureaucracy’s sake, but it would be helpful to have in the next draft of the framework document those explicit references to having regard to that range of employers, which gives the Secretary of State infinite flexibility. I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that.

If I remember rightly from my previous reading of the framework document, the first or second page of the current draft explicitly mentions employers. Although the noble Baroness is right that that is not necessarily reiterated in the formal functions of the chief executive, their role is of course running the organisation and delivering the aims and objectives. Obviously, there will be reiterations in the framework document. I am sure that Skills England itself, and the board when it is set up, will want to ensure, as will those with whom they are agreeing the nature of the framework document, that the explicit role of employers is properly demonstrated within that. The framework document will then be a public document that people will be able to look at and hold Skills England to account on—through myself as the Minister and through the CEO and others—in its delivery and its relationship with employers. On the point about the other amendments, my argument was that they duplicate in a narrower way duties that already lie with the Secretary of State by virtue of her public law duty, and therefore there is already a requirement that those functions would be executed and that the Secretary of State would need to consider and balance those factors in making decisions. I hope that the noble Baroness feels that that is sufficient assurance and feels able to withdraw her amendment.

I feel a bit reassured, but not entirely clear. To the extent that the framework document is a public document, it is much easier for anybody reading it, rather than talking about public law duties, to talk about having due regard to employers and people who undertake the training, et cetera. The Minister is nodding, so I am going to take that as an encouraging sign that, when we see the next draft of the document, it will be a bit more explicit on that point. With that reassurance from her, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 1 withdrawn.

Amendment 2 not moved.

Amendment 3

Moved by

3: Clause 4, page 2, line 14, at end insert— “(4A) In subsection (7), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) information about matters that the Secretary of State takes into account in deciding whether it would be more appropriate for a standard to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons for the purposes of subsection (3A);”Member's explanatory statement This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish information about the matters that will be taken into account in deciding whether it would be more appropriate for a standard to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons.

Amendment 3 agreed.

Clause 5: Preparation of apprenticeship assessment plans

Amendments 4 and 5 not moved.

Amendment 6

Moved by

6: Clause 5, page 2, line 38, at end insert— “(5) In subsection (10), after paragraph (a) insert—“(aa) information about matters that the Secretary of State takes into account in deciding whether it would be more appropriate for an apprenticeship assessment plan to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons for the purposes of subsection (6A);”Member's explanatory statement This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish information about the matters that will be taken into account in deciding whether it would be more appropriate for an apprenticeship assessment plan to be prepared by the Secretary of State than by a group of persons.

Amendment 6 agreed.

Amendment 7

Moved by

7: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause— “Report on exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions(1) Within the period of six months beginning with the day on which section 3 comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament and publish a report about the exercise of the relevant functions.(2) The report must include information about—(a) which of the relevant functions are being exercised through an executive agency known as Skills England, and(b) the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions on apprenticeships and technical education in England.(3) In this section “the relevant functions” means the functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by sections 1 and 4 to 7 and Schedule 1.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament and publish a report about the exercise of functions conferred or imposed on the Secretary of State by this Bill. The report must be laid and published within six months of the abolition of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

My Lords, I start our consideration of this group of amendments by re-emphasising, as I did in the first group, the urgency with which we need to tackle the skills gaps in our economy. They are holding back growth and opportunity, which is why we intend, as a priority, to establish Skills England as an executive agency of the Department for Education. I know that, quite legitimately, in Committee there was a challenge about the nature of the executive agency, questions about whether that was an appropriate form for Skills England, and concern about the fact that the nature of the Bill meant that there was no mention of Skills England. I hope that, in the amendments that I propose and through some of the other reassurance that I have provided to noble Lords, I have addressed those issues. The executive agency is a widely used model of arm’s-length body, of which there are many examples which play important roles, including the Met Office, the DVLA, and the Standards and Testing Agency. I provided more information about the functioning of executive agencies in the letter that I circulated. It is certainly not the case, as was suggested at Second Reading or at some point in Committee, that somehow Skills England would be in some cupboard in the Department for Education. This is a serious and well-used way in which to create an arm’s-length agency in government, which has been used by Governments of all persuasions in recent years. Executive agencies have clearly defined status and must be established and governed in line with official Cabinet Office guidance. To summarise, the guidance states that executive agencies are identified as appropriate for the delivery of specialised functions, separate from a primarily policy-focused department but within a policy and resources framework set by that department, and the delivery of services to other parts of central government using specialist skills. The executive agency model therefore provides a strong fit for Skills England. As I have emphasised, it is imperative that Skills England is fully operational as quickly as possible, designing and delivering high-quality training that reflects employers’ needs. Compared with a non-departmental body, for example, the executive agency model can be up and running much more quickly. Following what I hope is the successful passing of this Bill, Skills England can quickly take on functions from IfATE, alongside those it has already begun to deliver while in shadow form. The executive agency model provides Skills England with the independence to focus on the delivery of its functions at arm’s length from the Department for Education, while ensuring sufficient proximity to the department, so that Skills England can quickly and efficiently inform decisions on skills policy and delivery. Noble Lords have expressed concerns that pursuing this model will mean that there is insufficient transparency around exactly which functions are being transferred to the Secretary of State from IfATE and those which are to be executed by Skills England, as well as around the impact that Skills England’s responsibility for and execution of its functions will have in practice on our apprenticeships, technical education and the objectives that I know noble Lords share to improve our skills system. Similarly, noble Lords have queried what the executive agency model means for how Ministers will be held to account for their decisions as related to these functions, and how Skills England will be held accountable for its performance. I assure noble Lords that, as with other executive agencies, Skills England will be required to have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability, including to Parliament. Ministers, the principal accounting officer and the chief executive will be accountable to Parliament, and are usually those who, for example, appear before Select Committees as required. Skills England will be overseen by a board, headed by a non-executive chair. As I said in Committee, I assure noble Lords that we have borne in mind the necessity to have strong credibility with employers in choosing who the non-executive chair will be. I hope that we can soon introduce them not only to noble Lords in this House but more widely to employers and others engaged in this activity. This board and chair reflect Cabinet Office guidance that executive agencies should be led by a board where there is a need for a significant level of independence from a department to carry out its functions effectively, or where they are of sufficient size and importance to require independent assurance. The board will advise on strategy and deliverability, maintain high standards of corporate governance, ensure that controls are in place to manage risk and scrutinise performance. Working with the board, the chair will provide the strong and independent leadership, support and challenge needed for Skills England to deliver its objectives. The broader governance arrangements for Skills England, as we touched on in the previous group, will be set out in a framework document. This is a core constitutional document that must be produced in line with guidance from the Treasury. Skills England’s framework document will be agreed between its board and Ministers, as I have already suggested. Once finalised, it will be published online, and I will deposit a copy in both Houses. I have written to noble Lords with more information on what the framework document will likely set out, including the detailed sponsor relationship between Skills England and the Department for Education, lines of accountability to Parliament, and Skills England’s purpose, aims and duties. Noble Lords can see examples of such documents for other arm’s-length bodies online, as all are published by the Treasury. Noble Lords have expressed an interest in understanding more about Skills England’s future reporting arrangements. I can provide assurance that the reporting arrangements of executive agencies are clearly defined. They must produce an annual corporate plan and an annual report, both of which will be published in respect of Skills England, subject to any commercial considerations in the corporate plan. These will, together, support Skills England’s accountability, including to Parliament, by providing transparency over its strategic priorities and performance. Again, my recent letter to noble Lords sets out more detail on what guidance dictates that corporate plans should include, such as—I know noble Lords have raised this point—key objectives and performance targets, and assessment of current and recent performance against those targets. Taken together, I hope that the steps I have described here—namely, compliance with clear and detailed Cabinet Office guidance on the role and purpose of executive agencies; appointment of an independent board; and publication of a framework document, annual corporate plan and annual report—demonstrate that Skills England is being set up in a way that ensures transparency about its work and accountability for its performance.

18:30:00

However, in recognition of the request from noble Lords for further reassurance on these questions, I seek to move Amendment 7, which will require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament, within six months after the closure of IfATE, a report setting out which of the functions in this Bill are being exercised by Skills England and the impact of the exercise of these functions on apprenticeships and technical education in England.

As I have previously indicated, it is anticipated that the functions being transferred from IfATE to the Secretary of State relating to the development, approval, review and revision of apprenticeships and technical education will largely be exercised by Skills England. The amendment creates a requirement to set out publicly those functions that Skills England is taking on and the impact of that. Transitional arrangements will support a seamless transfer to enable Skills England to pick up the baton from IfATE and continue core work with employers to shape apprenticeships and technical education, as part of its wider remit.

Amendment 8 would impose an additional reporting requirement on the Secretary of State, namely that they lay before Parliament a report within 12 months detailing the use of the powers in the Act and their effect on matters including the identification of skills gaps and provision of technical education intended to help meet them. I am happy to have had the opportunity to discuss this with the noble Lord, Lord Storey, since Committee. I would like to address specifically some of the priorities that he has identified in his amendment and, again, provide reassurance on how they will align with the governance framework and reporting requirements that Skills England will be subject to. For example, the noble Lord rightly highlights the important role of Skills England in identifying skills gaps. This is absolutely central to the work of Skills England—as demonstrated by it being the main focus of the very first Skills England report last year—and I can absolutely commit to the noble Lord that this will feature in the framework document that we will publish.

The noble Lord’s amendment also includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to report on the uptake of apprenticeships. Skills England will be responsible for identifying where skills needs are not being met by training products, including apprenticeships, and developing or updating the standards that underpin them. Gathering, reporting and acting on intelligence about employers’ engagement with the apprenticeship offer will therefore be central to Skills England’s work, and I can also commit to this being made clear in the framework document.

I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that the framework document will reflect the issues with which he is concerned, and by government Amendment 7, which creates a clear duty on the Secretary of State to report on the work of Skills England, including the impact of the exercise of the Bill’s functions on apprenticeships and technical education. I hope that he will agree with me that, together, these commitments deliver the aims of Amendment 8.

Amendment 10 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report setting out Skills England’s activities in the preceding year and to ensure that, in performing its functions, Skills England has regard to matters such as the quality of training and education and value for money. Noble Lords will notice that this amendment replicates the requirements that will be placed on Skills England as a result of its establishment as an executive agency, as I have already set out. It describes those matters which the Secretary of State already considers, in accordance with her duties under general public law, and which are those generally included in framework documents signed between sponsor departments and executive agencies.

The framework document will include, for example, and as I have already identified, references to Skills England’s aims, such as ensuring that training is high quality and transferable. In the sections on the roles of the principal accounting officer and accounting officer, it will include reference to the need to ensure that Skills England’s activities deliver value for money in the use of public funds. I can therefore see no benefit in such requirements being put into the Bill.

I trust that these amendments, together with the information I have provided, have reassured noble Lords of Skills England’s independence and accountability. I beg to move the government amendment.

My Lords, the Minister makes very strongly the case for skills, in terms of the Government’s agenda for growth, which is something we all support. As a nation, we have been slow on the uptake in realising that we owe it not just to our nation but to our young people in particular to ensure that they have the skills and the opportunities to contribute, including to their own well-being. At the beginning, people were disappointed when this much-heralded Bill arrived. We all thought it was going to be a skills Bill, as the name on the jar suggested, so we were quite shocked. I think that the best description of the Bill came from the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett— I cannot possibly repeat it, so I will leave Members to look at Hansard to see what he said. My view was that if we want to provide what the Government want, we have to be open and flexible. We cannot just leave it all to the department to get it right or wrong. It was very difficult to look at ways to contribute, to be quite honest. You would go to the Legislation Office, which would say, “Oh, this is not in scope; that is not in scope”, so you had to look for mechanisms to actually make a positive contribution and to hopefully make a success of this. My amendment was to say that the Secretary of State should report to Parliament within 12 months of the passage of the Act to address the skills gaps, et cetera. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for reaching out and having a number of conversations about the Bill. I have to say that it is not perfect—we are not in a perfect world—but she did that and I am very grateful to her for it. Much has been made of the draft framework for Skills England. I ask noble Lords to put their hands up if they have read it from cover to cover—I am sorry; that is teacher mode. Well, I found it quite depressing at times. Let me just read some, on a very minor point. By the way, this wins the “Yes Minister” prize: “Any disputes between the department and Skills England will be resolved in as timely a manner as possible. The department and Skills England will seek to resolve any disputes through an informal process in the first instance. If this is not possible, then a formal process, overseen by the senior sponsor, will be used to resolve the issue. Failing this, the senior sponsor will ask the relevant policy director-general to oversee the dispute. They may then choose to ask the Permanent Secretary to nominate a non-executive member of the department’s board to review the dispute, mediate with both sides and reach an outcome, in consultation with the Secretary of State”. My goodness me. If that is how we operate, I really worry about our ability to develop the skills we need. Joking apart, I think the draft skills document needs to reflect a few other things, which I could not see in it. Perhaps the Minister can reassure me. Wearing my local government hat, I am conscious that our 34 combined authorities have responsibilities in terms of developing skills and have put together skills programmes. I wonder how that will be addressed by the Minister. When she responds, perhaps she can home in on that for me. I will deal with the other issues when we come to them.

I am not sure whether this is an appropriate moment for me to join in but, as I have been mentioned twice this evening, I thought I had better put on record where I stand. First, I thank my noble friend for the substantial consultation and listening exercise, which has already been mentioned on all the Benches opposite. I think we are all extremely grateful that she has been prepared to do that and to reflect those representations, including those made in Committee. Committee was not entertaining, because I do not think the Bill is entertaining in any way, shape or form, but it was thorough. There is nobody taking part tonight, or who took part in Committee or at that very brief Second Reading at about this time of night, who has not got a real commitment, interest and dedication to getting this right. I commend my noble friend because she is totally committed to making this work. I have not changed my mind: I think this is a mouse of a Bill. We have to elevate Skills England into a lion of an organisation, and I look forward very shortly to the announcement of the substantive chair of Skills England and to the framework document that my noble friend has published in draft becoming a substantive document, taking into account the comments that have been made by Members on all sides this evening. The review that my noble friend referred to will be important and I think that the amendments she has agreed to and moved tonight will make a difference. I may have said it before, but I am going to say it again: it is not just my dog that has had to get used to being on the other side of the Chamber—the government side. I am adjusting, as well as the dog, to making my way up these Benches. One of the consequences is to cut your own Government a bit of slack and, when they have listened to you, to take that on board and to ride with their assurances. That is what I intend to do tonight, and I ask Members opposite not to push anything to a vote because we need to move on rapidly from this transfer of IfATE. We need to be very wary that that transfer does not swamp the work of Skills England and its much broader task, as exemplified by the somewhat belated publication of Mark Farmer’s review of construction and engineering and the substantial challenge that it outlines. The Government responded, and I was tickled a bit because it took me back all those years to when the Government declined to comment on or to endorse recommendations that were “not in scope”. Honestly, we have to try to govern in a way that relates to what is happening in the world outside, not by going through the processes that, I am afraid, Ministers are so often presented with. We have a massive challenge in this country to get it right, and we have to use the growth and skills levy—all of it—effectively and in tune with, but not completely run by, the business community, which, frankly, also needs to step up to the mark. If we had the same number of training days that we had 15 years ago then 20 million more training days would be delivered in this country. It is a combined effort between employers, big and small, and those of us, in Parliament and outside, who are committed to making it work, in conjunction with government and now with Skills England. I hope we can go forward from tonight with the kind of ambition that I know my noble friend and the Secretary of State have to make this work. I am sorry that Skills England is not going to be a statutory body, but it is not make or break and it is not an issue over which I would want the House to divide. I hope, with the review that has been mentioned already, that we will be able to accelerate progress in making this work for the country.

18:45:00

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. A significant number of the amendments discussed in Committee related to reporting requirements. If Skills England is to be an executive agency within the Department for Education, which still seems less than ideal—I will come to that later—arrangements for transparency and accountability, especially through reporting, become all the more critical. So, I welcome the Minister’s Amendment 7 requiring the Secretary of State to publish a report six months after the abolition of IfATE on how she has exercised the functions transferred from IfATE. However, I feel that this does not go far enough in spelling out what should be covered by the report. The draft framework document, as we have heard, requires the publication of an annual report and accounts, and indeed a corporate plan, but I am not clear whether that will really cover the breadth of information needed. Surely Skills England will need to publish, at least every year, a report on progress across the whole of the Government’s promised post-16 education and skills strategy, of which Skills England will be at the heart. What we need is not so much a corporate plan as a sort of state of the nation report: where are we with the skills objectives that Skills England is all about promoting? For that reason, I added my name to Amendment 8 from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, which is more specific about the issues covered in the report. We have covered that. I also feel that it is particularly important to ensure that the local skills improvement plans developed across the country by employer representative bodies, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, mentioned, and the plans of the mayoral combined authorities are covered as part of the state of the nation report. That is one reason why it is very important that Skills England should be a lion, to use the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, rather than a mouse. At the moment, it is somewhere between the two but moving in the right direction. I also added my name to Amendment 10 from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, which spells out a number of matters relating to quality, value for money, efficiency and effectiveness in Skills England’s performance of its functions, and specifies some content of the annual report. I hope the Minister will give us further reassurance on how the Government will ensure that the report lives up to what I see as the requirements of a state of the nation report. Failing that, if the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, decides to test the opinion of the House, I will dutifully march in behind her.

My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 10, to which I have added my name. With due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, the whole point of being a Cross-Bencher is that you do not have to cut any Government any slack. The thing I really like about Amendment 10, to take up the point from the noble Lord, Lord Storey, is that while I find the language in the framework document very iffy at times, Amendment 10 has “ensure that education and training is of an appropriate quality … represents good value … ensure that Skills England performs its functions efficiently and effectively”. I really like that. We talk about annual reports. The Government have already committed to putting out a report after six months. I really like annual reports. The Minister talked about Skills England already having experience in shadow form. Perhaps she could comment a little more about that as well.

My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 7 in the name of the Minister, Amendment 8 in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Storey and Lord Aberdare, and my Amendment 10. It feels a bit churlish not to welcome a report on how Skills England is discharging its functions, and it is even more troubling to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, since I have obviously made it a policy always to agree with him. However, I genuinely think that this amendment is rather odd. The first thing is the timescale. The amendment says that the report “must be laid and published within six months of the abolition of” IfATE, which means the department will need to start writing it within a few weeks of the Bill passing, since I imagine that the sign-off process is similar to the example the noble Lord, Lord Storey, read out, in terms of complaints. What will it be able to say at that point about the exercise of its functions—that it has just got started? What impact will a few weeks of work have on apprenticeships and technical education in England, particularly given how many other moving parts there are in the system, with the proposed introduction of the growth and skills levy? I genuinely worry that, with the best will in the world, the report risks being rather thin and without any real substance, and that it will not be the kind of state of the nation report the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, suggests is appropriate. In contrast, Amendment 8 sets a more realistic timescale. It is much more tailored to the specific points the Minister has heard repeatedly across the House, which relate to skills and technical education policy and strategy. I guess that it is a backdoor way of trying to get a bit more policy into the Bill. The serious point, which so many of our debates have centred on, is that the Bill is not clear on the Government’s specific policy approach. I urge the Minister to consider Amendment 8 as a helpful way of starting to sketch this out and perhaps to commit in her closing remarks to including at least parts of it in the next draft of the framework document. I draw attention to two particular points in the document—which I am so glad that I read, otherwise I would have been found out by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. At 26.2, where the document refers to the annual report and accounts, it says that it will include the main activities and performance during the previous financial year. The Minister has obviously memorised it—we could have “Mastermind” on this. At 26.3, the document says there will information on the financial performance of Skills England. So, some of the points in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, could be used to flesh out those statements. I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Aberdare and Lord Hampton, for their support for my Amendment 10. We have already debated the point of principle that the framework principles for the new executive agency should be in the Bill, and my amendment does this in a way I had hoped would not be controversial for the Government—although I am not terribly encouraged by the Minister’s opening remarks. I would be very grateful if, when she winds up, she could be absolutely clear on whether the public law duties which she says cover all the points in my earlier amendments and this amendment apply to IfATE. If they did apply to IfATE, why was that original drafting chosen and why was it part of the legislation passed by both Houses? Like Amendments 2 and 5, this amendment takes the text from the original legislation, puts it in the Bill and applies it to Skills England. It is clear that Skills England will need to have regard to the quality of education and training, and the Minister said that that was in the aims. She can put me right if I have missed it, but I have to say that I cannot see it anywhere in the aims, so maybe she could commit to including that. It is also clear that it must represent good value in relation to funding and be efficient and effective, and it needs to prepare an annual report and lay it before Parliament. Paragraph (c) makes it clear that the Secretary of State can write to Skills England setting out “other matters to which it must have regard when performing its functions”. It gives the Secretary of State the flexibility for the focus of Skills England to evolve over time, which I am sure it will, naturally and rightly. The aim of this is not a straitjacket for government; it is just trying to get a balance between transparency, focus and flexibility. I laid my amendment before the Minister shared the draft framework document and her letter, and I have a couple of concerns arising from those. Of course, if these principles are not in the Bill, Ministers can change at will the focus of the agency. I know that is not the Minister’s nor the Secretary of State’s intent—or I assume it is not—but the Minister’s letter to your Lordships says that there will be a review in the 18 to 24 months from inception, and a very wide range of options will be looked at, which seem to run from creating a different body to putting Skills England on a statutory footing. I know that this is not the Minister’s intention today, but it is what the letter says, and it underlines the point that a number of noble Lords have tried to make on more than one occasion. Secondly, as I have said already, there is a lot of detail on page 7 of the document—it is page 7 of my printed version, although the printer of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, obviously uses different page numbers. It is the section on aims. It is not explicit in the same way about the importance of quality, it does not talk directly about the need for education and training to represent good value, and it does not talk about efficiency and effectiveness. I appreciate that there are generic references—boilerplate text—in the document, but it would be helpful if the Minister committed to amending this to reflect those three principles, which she confirmed in her opening remarks she definitely accepts. The list on page 7 risks highlighting some of the issues we have debated at length, with specific government policies included in it, such as the Government’s mission to become a clean energy superpower. Of course, those priorities could change, and it would be entirely appropriate to put them in an annual letter from the Secretary of State to the agency. I am just surprised they are in the framework document. Perhaps I am being overly picky, and the Minister can correct me if I am, but it feels odd for an independent agency to use the term “superpower”—it does not feel quite right. I very much hope that when she sums up, the Minister will be able to say how much of the text and the spirit of my amendment she will be able to put into the next draft of the framework document. It is more workable and much clearer than the current text in the section covering purposes and aims, and it is obviously more rigorous to have those principles in the Bill, but if the Minister commits to using that text in the framework document itself, I absolutely trust her. It is a workable, albeit less satisfactory option. If she cannot do that, when we come to call this amendment, I will test the opinion of the House.

I thank noble Lords once again for their interest and probing. As my noble friend Lord Blunkett said, there is a shared commitment to ensuring that Skills England lives up to the challenge of improving our skills system in the way in which this Government have set out. As I commented in Committee, considering that noble Lords spent a fair amount of time then—as did the noble Lord, Lord Storey, today—complaining that the Bill did not enable them to talk about Skills England, they nevertheless managed to talk about it. We have continued that discussion today, which I am pleased about. I understand the frustration of noble Lords who have not had the benefit, as I have, of seeing the development of Skills England and of knowing the plans for its future, and their fear that the legislation does not, in its scope and interest, live up to the ambition that the Government have for Skills England. However, the proof of legislation is not in the words on the page; it is in the action, ambition and impact that Skills England will have.

19:00:00

In Amendment 7, I am trying to reassure noble Lords who suggested that they were unclear about the way in which the functions being transferred as part of this legislation would be performed by Skills England. They were concerned that, somehow, this was just a bureaucratic taking of functions into the Department for Education. The intention with Amendment 7 is to reassure noble Lords.

The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, suggested that six months is too short. I reassure her that the six-month timeline will kick in from the abolition of IfATE, which is unlikely to be upon Royal Assent but later. We will commence the functions in a way that leaves the abolition of IfATE until the very end. In reality, as Skills England has already been operating in shadow form, and as the functions are transferred to it, the six-month period is not six months from today or even from Royal Assent. I believe that there will be a reasonable balance between responding to the concerns of noble Lords—by being clear, soon, about how Skills England is operating with the functions that have been transferred to it—and making sure that that is sufficiently broad.

We are putting this alongside the annual report and the corporate plan that I have identified, as well as an existing state of the nation report that Skills England produced last November. It produced a state of the nation report in its first analysis of the skills gaps in the economy, alongside the beginnings of its analysis about where future needs would come from. Of course, it will soon produce the second of its reports. I argue that, by combining the Government’s commitment to produce the report on the transfer of functions and the impact on technical education and apprenticeships, the annual report and the corporate plan, and the state of the nation reports, Skills England is providing a wide level of both information and accountability.

We returned to discussions about the framework document. I thought that I was helping noble Lords by bringing forward the draft of the framework document; I still believe that that was the case. I am a bit sad that it was described as “boring”, but very pleased that at least the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I—and, I hope, others in the Chamber today—have read it. Tempted though I am by her suggestion that we should have a “Mastermind” round on this, I point out that I have already taken part in “Mastermind”—and I won. I will not be returning with this as a specialist subject.

I congratulate my noble friend. I have taken part in “Mastermind”, and I lost.

I do not think that any of us here will make any further appearances on “Mastermind” with our specialist subject as the framework document for Skills England. Nevertheless, it is more interesting than some have suggested, particularly its purposes, aims and duties. I will undertake to reflect very carefully on the points that have been made by noble Lords about what more should be included in the draft, while trying to resist the idea that this document will be written by committee in this Chamber. However, some strong points have been made by noble Lords about what could be included in the next draft, including the point about the role of local government, which we will come to in a later group of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, raised a point about public law. It was necessary to give general duties to IfATE in statute because it was a statutory body, and therefore all its functions needed to be laid out in statute. Skills England is not a statutory body, as we have discussed at length, so the Secretary of State carries out the relevant functions and is already subject to the broader public duties. Because of those functions being carried out by the Secretary of State, the public law issue arises in this case. In finishing, I hope that noble Lords feel that we have responded to concerns around the scope and narrowness of the legislation; the fact that we did not describe Skills England in the legislation; and the understandable requirement for accountability and reporting, which I hope I have described clearly. I absolutely share my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s view that, while the legislation may be mouse-like but important, the actions of Skills England will roar like a lion.

Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether she can clarify something. She said that she would think about putting references to local government in the framework document. Can she commit to making explicit reference to quality, value for money, efficiency and effectiveness in the early pages —the purposes and aims section that she referred to? Some of it may be implicit in her mind, but can it be explicit?

That is a fair suggestion. With the proviso that this is a draft that will have to be agreed to by Skills England’s board with Ministers, I nevertheless share her view that Skills England will need to be focused on those things. I think that we could make progress on that in the next iteration of the framework document.

Amendment 7 agreed.

Amendment 8 not moved.

Amendment 9

Moved by

9: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause— “Creation of Skills England(1) A body corporate known as Skills England is established to carry out the functions transferred to the Secretary of State under this Act. (2) At the end of the period of one year beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must transfer to Skills England all the functions transferred from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education under this Act.(3) Nothing in this section prevents the Secretary of State from transferring more functions to Skills England under other enactments.”Member's explanatory statement This amendment would put Skills England on an independent statutory footing rather than as part of the DfE. The role of IfATE would be included in that planned for Skills England.

My Lords, in moving Amendment 9, I will also speak to Amendment 15. As noble Lords know all too well, we have had considerable concerns about two elements of the set-up of Skills England: first, the independence of the body; and, secondly, its ability to respond to the needs of employers and learners. The second area concerns the space that Skills England needs to deliver its priorities before absorbing, or indeed being absorbed by, IfATE. The Minister spoke, I think for the for the first time, about the more elongated process of that. We believe that the first risk remains that Skills England could be buffeted by changing political priorities, and that that remains a greater risk while it is in the department. However, we recognise the lengths to which the Minister has gone to reassure noble Lords of its relative independence. Indeed, in her recent letter she stressed the balance between securing “external technical expertise and political impartiality” while “ensuring close policy alignment”. She went so far as to commit to a review of Skills England. Her letter states that the review will ensure that Skills England’s functions remain useful and necessary, and “will also assess whether there are more efficient and effective alternatives to deliver the government’s objectives including consideration of alternative types of ALB. This will include an assessment of whether SE should be brought onto a statutory basis”. I referred in my earlier remarks to finding that slightly ironic, given the length of time we have spent debating that. I had mixed feelings about that paragraph. It seems extraordinary that, within two years, given all the time the Government have had to plan for the change, they might decide that Skills England is not the right vehicle to deliver their skills strategy. As I said earlier, I find it highly unlikely that the Government would then decide at that point to put Skills England on a statutory footing, so maybe the noble Baroness could just explain what was behind the thinking in that paragraph. In relation to Amendment 9, I will take the noble Baroness’s letter at face value. Although we remain concerned at the potential for political interference with the independence of Skills England, we welcome the openness of the Government to review the position in future. Amendment 15 aims to pick up the second set of concerns articulated by several noble Lords in our previous debates, but perhaps most eloquently by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in his speech in Committee. He said: “My fear, which I expressed briefly … at Second Reading, is that given the number of people currently transferable from IfATE, full- and part-time, which nudges 200, given the macro job that Skills England will need to do and given the way in which the policy framework was at least touched on on 24 September … there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth”. He went on to say that, when he led on another learning and skills document, “we never envisaged that an agency inside government would have to take on the assurance and accreditation of the relevant sector standards”.—[Official Report, 21/11/24; col. GC 98.] So, Amendment 15 aims to address, at least partially, the risk that Skills England is diverted from its central strategic task and buried under the weight of the accreditation and assurance process. It creates a one-year delay between the establishment of Skills England and the commencement of this legislation, so that Skills England has a better chance of getting up and running as effectively as possible before absorbing the IfATE functions. The Minister has told us that the recruitment for the role of CEO of Skills England is going well, and similarly for the board, but these things take a moment to bed in. It takes time to recruit the wider team and to build the culture within Skills England. So, none of this in any way seeks to impede the Government’s ambitions; it just wants to give them a bit more opportunity to set up the structures for success. As the noble Baroness noted, there is a lot of good will towards Skills England across the House, and we have heard that again today. But I just feel that, if we were privy to the risk register—which I am guessing that the noble Baroness is not planning to publish in draft—there would be a few risks marked in red, which would say something like, “Insufficient resources to deliver on the strategy”, “Time pressure to build effective relationships with other government departments”, or, “The ability to hire a high-quality team at speed”. The amendment in my name and the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, gives the Government breathing space to implement this well. All of us who have been involved in government know that writing a policy is not the difficult bit; implementing it and making sure that it is executed effectively is at least 10 times as hard. I look forward to the noble Baroness’s remarks.

19:15:00

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 15, to which I have put my name, and in support of Amendment 9. Everybody here is agreed that apprenticeship is hugely important for productivity and growth, and in offering young people a valuable and valued route into skilled employment and adult life. When IfATE—it started off as the IfA—was created, it was seen as a major step in the ongoing recreation and revalidation of apprenticeship and was praised as such by all major parties. It was thought that it could be an independent structure with the convening power that is critical to that mission. I certainly hope that we might be creating something like the BIBB—the German Federal Institute for Vocational Education and Training—which is a wonderful institution that convenes employers, unions, government officials at all levels and researchers, all of whom have an established and major role, and one which everyone in Germany knows about. That did not happen overnight; it was built up over the years. None the less, it has been absolutely critical to the huge role that apprenticeship has played in German life and in the German economy, in its ability to change and develop when economic circumstances change, and, most dramatically, to recreate and revitalise apprenticeship in what was East Germany. I know that the Government agree about the importance of apprenticeship and that Skills England is designed to support apprenticeship as well as to signal the importance of skills more generally. But there is a cost associated with the reassertion of a habitual and deeply ingrained pattern in this country of constantly reinventing institutions and public and quasi-public bodies, especially in the skills area. It is a real problem because, although skills professionals can just about keep up, most of the people who are actually involved in delivering skills—employers and people on the shop floor, in local government, in colleges and in unions: people who are not professionally engaged in following skills policy—find this very difficult. Although I hanker after a statutory body, because it has the visibility and the power to convene people in a way that something inside the Department for Education never can, what worries me most is the fact that we have reintroduced instability and uncertainty into the skills world at a time when we are also really aware of the huge importance of developing our skills policy and continuing to grow apprenticeships. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I am very concerned by the fact that we have this drop-off in level 2 and 3 and with young people. So I feel that Amendment 15 offers a clear signal to people about when change is coming, which could be extraordinarily helpful to those who are actually involved in developing, amending and delivering standards, and in planning apprenticeships. Obviously, I was reassured to hear from the Minister that it was unlikely that IfATE powers would be moved immediately, but I have to say that, although that and the direction that Skills England is going in may be clear to her, out there it really is not clear. People are in a complete fog. They are going, “Yes, I’m sure it’s a great idea. What is it? What is happening?” If it could be made really clear to people that there will be a year’s delay before IfATE powers are transferred, at which point Skills England will be in much better shape, everything will be much clearer, and lots of the other things that have to be done will be done, I think that would be really helpful to everybody concerned. This is not about having something that you put on the statute book but it never happens—which does occur: quite a major clause in the last piece of skills legislation has never been activated. It is not about that. The transfer of functions will be on the statute book, and it will be very clear that this is going to happen, but it will also be clear to people when it is going to happen, and I think that would be enormously helpful.

It always concerns me that when new Governments come in, they invariably get rid of particular bodies and create their own. For example, the previous Labour Government set up the regional development agencies, which were hugely successful and built up expertise, et cetera. The coalition Government came in, abolished them and set up a different type of organisation, which took literally years to get going and to be as successful as the regional development agencies. I do not like the phrase “to delay”; I much prefer “to hand over”. When you hand over, the organisation you are handing over to needs time to embed itself, to understand the situation and to work properly. I am not particularly happy about it, but I will live with Skills England being in the department. We are where we are, and if the Government want to do that, they will. What is important is that, wherever Skills England is, it is successful and works, because we all want that. It will be successful, to my mind, for three reasons: first, its direction, which the Government set; secondly, who is appointed as chair, and the quality of the board; and—probably—thirdly, the opportunity for the various bodies, be they trade unions, the employers or the combined authorities, to give their information, views and thoughts. To use a strange word, I am quite smitten with this proposal, because it works and helps to enhance the Bill, so I will be interested to hear what the Minister says.

My Lords, I support both the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness. Lady Barran. I will try to keep my remarks brief about Skills England, the aims of which I think we all support, and which are crucial to the Government’s growth strategy and missions, the industrial strategy and all the things we would like to happen. Above all, it must pull together. The Government have talked about a post-16 education and skills strategy, and I assume that Skills England will be at the heart of that. In order for that to work, Skills England will need to be co-ordinating skills policies and activities across government departments, because every government department needs skills and has shortages; across regions, local areas and nationally, including the devolved nations; across industry sectors; and across policy priorities. The “state of the nation” was probably the wrong phrase: what I am really looking for is, “What difference have we actually made at Skills England in tackling the very real problems that we all recognise in the skills area?” That will happen only if someone is ensuring consistency and synergy between all the complex elements involved—no doubt with a strong need for consensus-building, if not actual knocking of heads together. This lion needs not just to roar, but to have a few teeth. Whether or not it is a statutory body, it should at least have the right authority and powers, and the right chair and CEO. It is disappointing that we do not know who the chair is going to be, although I know the Minister was hoping to be able to let us know before Report. The Minister mentioned some of the other executive agencies, and it seems to me that none of those—the Met Office or the DVLA—has the breadth of roles, responsibilities and relationships that this body needs to have. Of course, while it is doing that, it has to undertake the practical functions, transferred from IfATE, of preparing standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. It would help if the Government had some time to concentrate on getting Skills England up to speed in all those areas, so that it can build on its encouraging first report and get on with sorting those things out before the IfATE transfer completely overwhelms its capacity. For those reasons, I support Amendment 15, in particular, and will support the noble Baroness if she decides to push it to a vote.

My Lords, establishing Skills England is a manifesto commitment. The Prime Minister announced the creation of Skills England in July last year. He set out the Government’s approach to delivering our growth and opportunity missions in the Plan for Change. This change is already under way, and Skills England’s creation is a key part of that change. I set out in the second group of amendments the need for the Government to respond urgently to critical issues within the skills system by establishing Skills England. For too long, the skills system has not provided enough young people with the right pathways through education and into employment; it has not responded to some of the issues outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf; and it has not provided sufficient roaring or teeth, in order to make sure that we are addressing the need for our skills structures to boost skills, productivity and opportunity. That is why, in Skills England, we are bringing coherence to the skills system, combining new functions with improvements to existing ones. On the points made about the delay in bringing IfATE’s functions into Skills England, the point of Skills England is that it will enable us to build on the work of IfATE, which, during Committee, I have commended. I have said that I think that really important work has been done there, as outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, bringing employers into the heart of developing standards and apprenticeships. Nevertheless, the function of IfATE has been narrower than the challenge of skills development now needs. We will be building on the work of IfATE, but putting it in the context of a much larger and more significant organisation that will be able to identify where the gaps are in our skills system; that will be able to work alongside employers, trade unions, providers, local government, the mayoral authorities and others to identify where those gaps are; but that will look to where those gaps will be in the future, and use the functions transferred from IfATE to develop the technical education and apprenticeships to help fill those gaps. It is really important that those two functions operate together. With Skills England, we are not starting from scratch here, as I have frequently emphasised: Skills England is already operational in shadow form and doing that important work to identify skills gaps. As I spoke about at some length in the previous group, our belief is that the executive agency model for Skills England is the best fit to enable it to get fully operational as soon as possible. The amendments in this group would, I am afraid, delay the establishment of Skills England. I understand the points being made, but I am more confident about and more ambitious for the speed with which we can move than other noble Lords. On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, this is not simply a policy statement; Skills England already exists in shadow form and is engaging with employers. It is already advising the Government and publishing its state of the nation analysis, and it will be facilitated to do that through the bringing across of the functions currently vested in IfATE. Amendment 9 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to establish Skills England as a statutory body with a separate legal identity. I might be being picky but, to come back to the description by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and others of Skills England being absorbed within the department, I have gone to some lengths to explain the nature of the arm’s-length body that we are setting up in Skills England as an executive agency and the way it will operate, appropriately independently from the department while still being close enough to feed into important policy developments.

19:30:00

The amendment also suggests that the transfer of functions that the Secretary of State takes on through this Bill should happen within 12 months. To reiterate, we have carefully considered the range of options for the model that Skills England could take. We have concluded that the executive agency is the most appropriate model, in light of the urgent need to plug skills gaps in key sectors and to unlock economic growth. Setting up Skills England as an executive agency will help us move quickly, which is crucial given the urgency of the skills challenge that we face. It builds in the right level of independence while maintaining proximity to the Department for Education, and enables high levels of transparency about its functions and accountability for its impact.

I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, about the significance of who leads this organisation. I wish that I had been able to give more information today about that leadership. However, I can assure him that, when we are able to announce that, it will give reassurance to noble Lords about the nature and seniority of the leadership of Skills England.

On the point about the review, which I wrote about in the letter that I circulated to noble Lords, it is good practice for new arm’s-length bodies to be reviewed after the start of full operations. I am clear that there should be such a review, led by the Department for Education, within 18 to 24 months of the establishment of Skills England. Such a review will align with the requirements of any future Cabinet Office review programme. It will ensure that Skills England’s functions remain useful and necessary and assess whether there are more efficient and effective alternatives to deliver the Government’s objectives, including consideration of alternative types of arm’s-length body and whether Skills England should be brought on to a statutory basis.

In being open, I am now accused by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, of not being as committed to the executive agency model as in fact I am. I wanted to reassure noble Lords that we will do what is necessary to make sure that Skills England has the right form to continue making the impact that we believe it can make. A commitment to review in this way does not alter our judgment that the executive agency model is the one that we should pursue for Skills England’s urgent work to tackle skills gaps in our economy, and we should therefore proceed on this basis so that we can see a fully formed Skills England take shape as soon as possible.

Amendment 15 would create delay by postponing the commencement of the majority of the Act’s provisions for one year from the date on which Skills England is formally established. That would pause both the transfer of functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State and IfATE’s closure. As I suggested earlier, this amendment would frustrate and delay the transition to Skills England, when I have seen strong support from noble Lords for its work and comments about the need to ensure that it has the impact that everybody has argued for. Peers expressed concern about delay in Committee because of potential damage to the skills agenda during the interim period. Delaying the commencement of provisions would prolong existing confusion and fragmentation, to the detriment of employers, learners and the economy. Furthermore, the amendment would remove control over the exact date on which commencement of the different provisions would occur to an arbitrary, unclear date.

As I stated in Committee, it is our intention that commencement regulations will be made promptly after Royal Assent. We are deliberately and proactively acting to sequence the commencement dates of the different provisions in the Bill so that they are each brought into force at an appropriate point, and we are leaving IfATE’s abolition to the end of that process because there needs to be a legal entity to do some of the processes.

To be clear to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, we will want to transfer the functions earlier precisely to enable that broader, ambitious task that we are asking Skills England to do—bringing together skills gaps analysis with the ability to develop those qualifications and apprenticeships and the technical education that will fill those gaps. This approach will mitigate risks in the transition from IfATE to the Secretary of State. I hope that I have been able to provide some reassurance. For all the reasons that I have outlined, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to withdraw her amendment.

I thank the Minister for her remarks and all noble Lords who have contributed. I was struck, listening to the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, by the length of time it takes to bed in a new agency and the time it took with IfATE. I was reminded of the remarks in Committee of my noble friend Lady McGregor-Smith, who quoted one of her colleagues as saying that it was five years before IfATE was taken seriously. The noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, also talked about sending a clear signal on timings. It sends a clear signal not just on timings but on how seriously the Government take the strategic side of Skills England’s role. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, was clear about the complexity of the task that Skills England has to undertake and deliver on. The contrast was fair. It is a very different role from that of the Met Office or the DVLA. I hope I would never accuse the Minister of anything bad; of course it is good practice to review a body, and there are Cabinet Office guidelines on that. She will also understand that it felt odd to read in her letter that one of the options under consideration was to put the agency on a statutory footing, given all the reasons we have heard as to why that is not an option. I also push back on her criticism that my amendment sets an arbitrary date. She knows much better than I that the Government can redraft my amendment and remove an arbitrary date but keep its spirit. I hope she acknowledges that. The main point she was making was that this amendment will create a delay. There is nothing in it that slows the Government down. In fact, we keep hearing about how Skills England is already operational without any legislation or a CEO, although I suggest that some of the work it has done was picking up on the work of the Unit for Future Skills, which already existed in the department. The amendment gives the Government space to do a fantastic job in incredibly important policy areas. There are two elements within Skills England. There are some major strategic objectives that it needs to deliver on and some operational functions which today are delivered by IfATE. My amendment gives the Government a year, but if they chose to adopt it they could redraft it. The spirit of this is to give Skills England and its leadership time to get into the detail to prepare the plans and implement them as this country deserves. Therefore, when we get to Amendment 15, I will test the opinion of the House. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 9.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

Amendment 10

Tabled by

10: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause— “Framework for Skills EnglandThe Secretary of State must—(a) ensure that in performing its functions, Skills England has regard to—(i) the need to ensure that education and training is of an appropriate quality;(ii) the need to ensure that education and training within the remit of Skills England represents good value in relation to financial resources provided out of public funds;(b) ensure that Skills England performs its functions efficiently and effectively;(c) give notice in writing to Skills England when setting out other matters to which it must have regard when performing its functions;(d) publish, in such a manner as they think fit, any notice under paragraph (c), and lay a copy of it before Parliament;(e) require Skills England to prepare, as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of each financial year, an annual report which includes—(i) a description of what Skills England has done during the year, including a description of what Skills England has done as a result of any notice given by the Secretary of State under paragraph (c);(ii) such other provision as the Secretary of State may direct;(f) lay a copy of the annual report under paragraph (e) before Parliament.”

I have had reassurance from the Minister that she will accept the three points that I raised around quality, value for money, and efficiency and effectiveness—or whatever were the words that we used. On that basis, I committed earlier that I would not move Amendment 10.

Amendment 10 not moved.

Amendment 11

Moved by

11: After Clause 8, insert the following new Clause— “Report on green skillsSix months after the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report assessing how they plan to carry out the functions transferred to them under this Act to support development of medium- and long-term green skills needed in order contribute to—(a) the achievement of the targets set under Part 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008,(b) the achievement of the targets set under Sections 1 to 3 of the Environment Act 2021, and(c) the adaptation to current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”

My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer for AtkinsRéalis and as a director of Peers for the Planet. My two amendments in this group address the two issues I raised in Committee. I will first cover the need for a duty on Skills England regarding the critical area of green skills, which is covered by Amendment 11. Given the scale of the skills needed to address the challenge of turning the UK into a clean energy superpower, and the challenging targets that we have—the national strategic goals of climate mitigation and adaptation—many Peers have been pressing for a long time to put in place a national strategy for responding to these skills needs. We had some welcome progress with the Skills and Post-16 Education Act 2022, when the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, agreed an amendment with the Government for a climate duty on the development of local skills improvement plans. What was missing was that overarching strategy. We all welcomed the formation of Skills England to begin plugging those gaps. I am very grateful to the Minister and her team for their collaborative approach in response to this amendment, which we raised in Committee, to include the delivery of our climate and nature targets within Skills England’s remit. Having this in the framework document for Skills England, given the constraints of the legislation, will ensure that this national strategic goal is woven into Skills England’s approach and that the good work already going on at local level through the LSIPs can be knitted together. We have had some really good feedback on the LSIPs and how they are working, but the missing piece is that integration. What the Government are doing with the framework document will help to address that. It will take things to that next step of integration, so I am very grateful to the Minister. Amendment 12 is based on an amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in Committee. I recall the noble Lord saying that we all support devolution and its goals but that we start to create joins that did not exist previously and that we have somehow to find a way of joining those bits back together, whether with a regional or sectoral approach. The key point of the amendment is to ensure that Skills England delivers for areas without a devolution deal. This is based on my experience in the Midlands, which I set out in detail in Committee and will not repeat here. I thank the Minister and her team for committing to include within the framework document that Skills England will address those regional skills gaps. This is important for ensuring that Skills England delivers for all areas across the UK. I look forward to further detail on how that will be implemented. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, the policy is the easy bit; the implementation is the challenge. On a related point, this highlights the importance of a regional view for skills to ensure that there is that coherent delivery of skills for key priorities. The regions are the right level to do that. In my industry, the nuclear industry, we could in the Midlands consider, for example, just what Derby needs for submarine nuclear reactors and small modular reactors. We could consider separately what West Burton needs for STEP fusion and what Birmingham needs for nuclear components. However, we can do so much more with a regionally integrated skills picture to avoid that duplication and to ensure that we share that knowledge and expertise on skills development. That is why we have set up Midlands Nuclear and the Midlands hub for nuclear skills to take that regional view.

19:45:00

Building on that, as the Minister knows, we currently have pan-regional partnerships, which are set up to take that regional view. They do a lot of good work on skills, but there is an ongoing consultation on government proposals to remove funding from those organisations. As I have explained, my concern is that this will leave us without that regional view, which will detract from skills provision and many other areas. I urge the Government to think through the impact of these proposals to remove funding from pan-regional partnerships on skills and on similar areas where a regional view is needed. Also, I urge them to ensure that regional bodies continue in some form and do that knitting together that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, talked about. I beg to move.

I support and echo what the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, said, particularly on local and regional skills. It is important that our growth strategy is linked to the skills that we need in that growth and to existing provision. I was quite worried about the Chancellor’s recent announcement about growth, and it makes my point. It very much centred on the south-east. Merseyside has a thriving pharmaceutical industry, and some of our focus on skills is directed towards that industry. We also have the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, which is funded quite considerably by Bill Gates. Suddenly, we hear that AstraZeneca, on which we have an Urgent Question tomorrow, is pulling out because there is insufficient money. The Government need to be sensitive to requirements not just for growth across the whole nation but for how we can use the importance of particular sectors in our regions and localities.

My Lords, I very much support Amendments 11 and 12, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and welcome the approach that he has taken. It feels so practical and so grounded in his own experience, with that focus on planning and implementation, as he mentioned. It also highlights the sophisticated choices that need to be made in skills policy between what is needed locally, regionally and nationally. It sounds as though the Minister has already been listening, but I hope that she can give the House further reassurance that she will take these amendments very seriously.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, for his amendments and for the conversations we have had about the reasoning behind them, which I accept. We had a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, on this issue as well. He is right to draw attention to these two very important issues, namely the crucial need to boost the availability of green skills and the need to ensure that high-quality training is available to—and designed in line with the needs of—all parts of the country. As set out in the Invest 2035 Green Paper, published ahead of the forthcoming industrial strategy, delivering long-term sustainable growth is inextricably linked to our mission to make Britain a clean energy superpower. It is critical that the skills system is set up in the right way to deliver on this mission. I will return to that in a moment. Meanwhile, our English Devolution White Paper makes clear the Government’s commitment to spread growth and opportunity to all parts of the country and sets out the route to delivering much-needed change. It will not be possible to deliver on these priorities without building the evidence on the scale and nature of green skills needs in the economy and ensuring that there is a comprehensive suite of training that aligns with the identified needs and is available for people to access up and down the country. Therefore, Skills England must have a central role in driving the change that is needed on both issues the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, has highlighted. I am very pleased to have the opportunity to set out in more detail the work that Skills England will do—and indeed has already begun—in this space, and hope that this will be sufficient to persuade the noble Lord not to press his amendments. Amendment 12 would create a duty on the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, within six months of the passing of the Act, a report which assesses the co-ordination of local skills improvement plans, assesses the impact of the functions transferred to the Secretary of State on those parts of the country without a devolution deal and determines the scope and level of investment of the growth and skills offer in meeting national, regional and local priorities. As set out in Skills England’s first report, working together with partners on the ground to ensure that regional and national skills needs are met is a central function of Skills England. While in shadow form, Skills England is already working closely with a range of key organisations at local and regional level to ensure that we are laying the foundations for joined-up decision-making and information sharing, which will ensure that we develop the highly skilled workforce that our economy needs in all parts of the country. Skills England is collaborating with mayoral strategic authorities, as well as local government in areas which do not yet have devolution arrangements, to shape the delivery of skills provision. It is also working with a wide range of regional organisations, such as employer representative bodies, to help them contribute to the construction of skills systems that reflect and feed into both local and national priorities. As noble Lords have mentioned, local skills improvement plans support this objective by providing an ongoing mechanism through which local employers, strategic authorities, providers and other stakeholders come together to identify and resolve skills needs and issues. LSIPs will be overseen by Skills England, helping to ensure that all parties play their part and take action where needed, such as increased support through dedicated relationship managers. I take the point made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, that there is a complexity in the relationship between the national priority setting and action, and the regional and local environment. We have already worked on this and I commit to ensure that we work further. Skills England is clear about the way in which it will create co-ordination between those levels, particularly with respect to those areas which do not have some of the devolved arrangements that, for example, the mayoral areas have. Our reformed growth and skills offer will enable employers to fund training that meets priority skills needs identified by Skills England, in addition to apprenticeships, recognising the importance that high-quality work-based learning has in our skills system. The new offer will be aligned with the industrial strategy, creating routes into good, skilled jobs in growing industries, such as construction, digital and green skills. It is by drawing on evidence from, and working with partners across, the system that Skills England is developing—and will continue to develop and publish—authoritative analyses of national and local skills needs. In its first report, Driving Growth and Widening Opportunities, published last September, it provides an assessment of the key skills challenges that limit growth and opportunity, and an initial assessment of the skills needs in the economy. Building on that, Skills England will publish a further report in early 2025, providing more detailed sector-specific skills assessments and analysis of the agreed set of priority sectors defined by the industrial strategy. Given the centrality of the local and regional dimension to Skills England’s work, the public reporting and governance arrangements I have described previously—those being a published framework document, the annual report and corporate plan—would include an assessment of its impact on delivery against these aims, including in respect of LSIPs, areas not yet covered by devolution deals and the growth and skills offer. It is for this reason that I hope that the noble Lord will feel that his amendment would duplicate the existing reporting requirements that I have outlined and is therefore unnecessary in light of those requirements. Amendment 11 would place a duty on the Secretary of State to report on how, in their use of functions transferred to them, they are supporting the development of green skills. Extensive work to identify and address current and future green skills needs is being prioritised under this Government to ensure that the UK workforce is prepared to deliver the clean energy superpower mission. Reporting on green skills has already started, ahead of Skills England being fully established. Skills England published an initial assessment in its first report in September of last year, which included a description of the scale of the challenge and some of the key skills needs of the green economy, as well as those specific to clean energy. Skills England will build on this in its second report, which will provide sector-specific skills assessment of priority sectors, including the eight growth-driving sectors identified in the Government’s industrial strategy and those pivotal to delivering the Government’s missions, notably net zero and clean energy. In recognition of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, and acknowledging the importance of green skills and meeting necessary climate targets, I will ensure that the Skills England framework document includes specific reference to Skills England’s role in developing green skills. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, has already noted that we have included that in the framework document—albeit not quite in the terminology that the noble Baroness would have wanted to see. In respect of Skills England’s local and regional work, I would also expect information on its work on green skills to be included in the annual report and corporate plan that Skills England will be required to publish, given its vital importance. The Department for Education is already required by the Environment Act 2021 to report on progress on green skills through the annual carbon budgets delivery audit. As such, I hope the existing requirements and the commitments I have made here in respect of green skills will be sufficient to deliver on the aims of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, which I do support and have been pleased to engage with him on. For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that the noble Lord will be assured of the Government’s commitment to these vital issues and that he will therefore see fit to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, I listened very carefully to what the Minister had to say, and I am very pleased with what she said. There was a lot of reassurance on areas without a devolution deal, particularly within the reporting requirements for Skills England and how it will engage with regional and local bodies, which answered the original intent of my amendment. We have reached an excellent compromise on green skills as well. Having the detail in the framework document —the way it has been mapped out, particularly in referencing our targets—is a really important step forward to properly integrate it with the delivery of green skills and our climate and environment targets. I thank the Minister again for her approach and collaboration in the meetings she has undertaken with us to get to this position. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 11 withdrawn.

Amendment 12 not moved.

Clause 9: Power to make consequential provision

Amendment 13

Tabled by

13: Clause 9, page 4, line 11, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (6),” Member’s explanatory statement This amendment and another in the name of Lord Addington ensures that all new statutory instruments made in the six months following the passing of the Act must follow affirmative procedures.

My Lords, I have realised that both amendments in my name have been covered by previous discussions. On those grounds, I will not move them.

Amendment 13 not moved.

Amendment 14 not moved.

Clause 11: Commencement

Amendment 15

Moved by

15: Clause 11, page 4, line 22, leave out “on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint” and insert “at the end of the period of one year beginning on the day on which Skills England is created”

I wish to test the opinion of the House.

3|20:01|183|127|Division on Amendment 15|Amendment 15 agreed.||0|0