Skills England needs greater independence from the Department of Education and a higher-ranking leader to have the clout it needs to do its job properly, experts have warned.

Sector leaders told FE Week the government’s bill to abolish the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE) and “power grab” its functions into the Department for Education could limit Skills England’s credibility with employers and speak truth to power.

Labour consistently claimed in opposition that its proposed new skills body, Skills England, would work across government to fix the “fragmented and broken” training system. The party has since set up the organisation in “shadow” form, appointed an interim chair from inside the DfE and advertised for board members and a chief executive.

It’s not expected to be fully operational until next year but it already has an ambitious and growing to-do list set out by ministers over the last few months.

Skills England will be expected to help cut migration, mobilise the training needed for the industrial strategy, approve non-apprenticeship eligibility for the growth and skills levy, make decisions about level 7 apprenticeship funding restrictions, create technical excellence colleges, assess current and future skills needs and bring the further and higher education systems closer together.

Skills minister Jacqui Smith tabled The Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill last week which she said “marks the next step in our plans for Skills England, to help kickstart economic recovery by breaking down barriers to opportunity and unifying our fragmented skills system”.

But the bill didn’t mention Skills England, and we learned the new organisation will be set up as an executive agency within the DfE rather than as an independent body.

Instead, the bill abolishes IfATE and transfers its powers to the Department for Education, which said it will decide later which functions to give to Skills England.

Ministerial direction

This centralisation of power has spooked shadow education secretary Damian Hinds.

He told FE Week: “On the face of it, it does look like power is being taken into the centre, and that’s always going to make people nervous. As it goes through parliament, we’re going to be looking for assurances on that, and to make sure it’s not a power grab.”

Previous skills bodies, such as IfATE and the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, were established as non-department public bodies, which reported to their boards largely made up of employer and provider representatives, rather than government officials.

Interviews for a chair and members of a board for Skills England take place next month, but the job description for the Skills England chief executive says the post will report to DfE’s director general for skills, not the board. In fact, the description doesn’t mention Skills England’s board at all.

Federation of Awarding Bodies chief executive Rob Nitsch was until recently the de-facto number two at IfATE.

He said IfATE’s independence from the DfE gave the organisation currency with employers and helped to secure their confidence.

“It had an empowered board that could set a direction and make choices,” he said.

“Being an executive body rather than an arms-length body means that Skills England will have less latitude and will be more beholden to direction from DfE. That could bring some coherence, which would be a good thing. But it does mean you get a single view, rather than a market-directed view. So it has the potential to be at odds with a demand-led system.”

Hinds is also sceptical about the advantages of DfE in-sourcing skills.

“If I’m being really honest, I’m just not totally sure why IfATE had to be disbanded. I’ve not heard a good explanation,” he said.

Can Skills England really fix our broken skills system?

“It looks like taking power and essentially having a more directive approach. There’s also a danger that’s what politicians want, but in the long term it’s often not the healthiest thing to do, particularly in something like technical and vocational education.”

Writing in FE Week, Stephen Evans, chief executive of Learning and Work Institute, said giving Skills England some legislative backing “would cement the body’s independence”.

Some of Skills England’s touted responsibilities, like working with the Migration Advisory Committee to train UK workers in sectors currently reliant on foreign workers, could be turned-in to statutory duties, Evans suggested.

CE-oh

Multiple sources are concerned the Skills England CEO role is too junior to have an impact.

It’s been advertised at the senior civil service director grade, reporting to the director general for skills, Julia Kinniburgh.

Another leader with experience in government, who did not wish to be named, told FE Week this “tells you straight away what level of decision-making authority that person [CEO] is going to have”.

Without a remit set out in legislation, Skills England will have “very limited cross-Whitehall influence”.

“People will turn up and be nice, but will know Skills England doesn’t have any real teeth or mandate,” they added.

One former senior skills civil servant, Holex policy director Sue Pember, disagrees and approves of Skills England’s accountability lines within DfE.

“I think people are making that more of an issue than it is. In a way, we should see it as an advantage because the director general will have to be kept up to date with what’s happening and what’s needed in the sector,” she said.

With “a really dynamic individual who wants to make a difference, it’ll be a really powerful agency”.

The bill will get its second reading, the first opportunity for a debate, in the House of Lords on Tuesday.

The DfE declined to comment.