(2 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I think Amendment 35 allows us to discuss Clause 3 standing part of the Bill, and I would like to say something about that. This is an important Bill.
My Lords, Clause 3 stand part was debated on our first day of Committee.
I do not believe that Clause 3 was passed on the first day—
My Lords, Clause 3 was not passed. It is possible for the noble Lord to de-group and discuss Clause 3 stand part, but it is not part of the group of amendments we are discussing currently.
I thought that in fact, with great respect, in the earlier debate we debated Clauses 1 and 4, which are no longer there. Amendment 35 states specifically that:
“The above-named Lords give notice of their intention to oppose the Question that Clause 3 stand part of the Bill.”
My Lords, it may be the Marshalled List that is causing confusion. We have Amendment 35 on the Marshalled List, which we are discussing in this group, and then we reach Clause 3 stand part, which is separate to that. As I said, we debated it in a group on the previous day but as the Deputy Chairman said, we have not put the Question on that yet. I believe we will come to that after this group.
The Government are keen to encourage local governing bodies to recruit more diverse members. Voluntary campaigns by all organisations in the educational sector will also encourage people to engage and consider the questions the noble Baroness raises.
My Lords, the Youth Unemployment Select Committee of this House reported last November with a mass of recommendations, all of which have so far been rejected by the Government. One of the recommendations was that every secondary school should have a local employer on its board, at the very least to implement what the Prime Minister said; he wants to put industry at the heart of education. A governing person who is a local employer will be able to ensure that, when pupils leave school at 18, they have employability skills. At the moment, most do not have employability skills and that must end.
My Lords, I was not aware of that particular recommendation, but I am aware of my noble friend’s work in this area on a number of fronts. In the Skills and Post-16 Education Bill that we just passed we took more important steps to ensure better links between employers, skills and careers advice in schools to ensure that young people leave school with the skills they need and knowledge of the opportunities out there for them.
(3 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberMy Lords, I have received no further requests to speak after the Minister, so I call the mover, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham.
My Lords, I asked specifically about the skills fund. When it was published, the fund said that it had four items of expenditure—it is a huge fund of over £2 billion, and the first item was £93 million to pay for free training for A-levels. The Government are consulting again on the skills fund; is that proposal on ice or has it been withdrawn?
My Lords, I will have to undertake to get more detail for the noble Lord on that specific point. I can confirm two things: the current consultation on the skills fund does not mean that existing funding committed under that fund for this year has been put on ice. I referred to the national skills guarantee for level 3 qualifications—of course, a full level 3 is equivalent to A-levels—and the skills bootcamps, which are also funded this year. I undertake to write to him to address his specific point about A-levels.