Member

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.