The Technical and Further Education Bill was introduced
in the House of Lords on 10 January 2017 and is scheduled for
second reading on 1 February 2017. The Bill completed third
reading in the House of Commons on 9 January 2017.
The Bill includes the following provisions:
- To extend the remit of the Institute for Apprenticeships to
include regulation of the quality of classroom based technical
education in England, creating the new Institute for
Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IFATE). The role of
IFATE has been described by the Government as being to support
the implementation of the reforms set out in its Post-16 Skills
Plan.
- To introduce an insolvency regime for further education
institutions, intended to improve the “financial reliance” of
the sector. This would provide for the creation of an education
administrator, to be appointed by the courts as part of the
insolvency procedure.
- Following the devolution of responsibility for further
education in some areas of England to combined authorities, the
Bill would also allow the Secretary of State to continue to be
provided with information by further education institutions.
Government’s Aims for the Bill
The Government’s stated aim in introducing the Bill is to
support the improvement of technical and further education and
thereby increase social mobility and help increase productivity
by addressing skill shortages in the economy. It comes at the
same time that the Government has proposed the creation of 3
million new apprenticeships by 2020, with the introduction of
the Apprenticeship Levy to be paid by large employers.
Opposition Amendments
The Opposition has stated its support for the objectives of the
Bill, but tabled a number of amendments during committee stage
and report stage, the purpose of which it described as being to
probe how the provisions in the Bill might work in practice.
There were two divisions on Opposition amendments to the bill
at report stage: the first on a requirement for the Government
to lay a strategy on improving careers education before
Parliament and the second on whether to prevent education
administrators from transferring certain assets to a for-profit
private company. Both of these motions were defeated.
