Clause
67
Apprenticeships:
functions of Learning and Skills Council for
England
Mr.
Hayes:
I beg to move amendment No. 49, in
clause 67, page 38, line 15, leave
out ‘contract of employment or
a’.
The
Chairman:
With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments:
No. 50, in
clause 67, page 38, line 19, leave
out ‘contract of employment or
a’.
No. 51, in
clause 67, page 38, line 26, leave
out paragraph
(b).
Mr.
Hayes:
The amendments relate to clause 67, which, as the
explanatory notes state, amends sections 2, 3 and 4 of the Learning and
Skills Act 2000 to ensure that the Learning and Skills
Council
“is under a duty
to provide proper facilities for apprenticeships for 16 to 18 year olds
and reasonable facilities to those over the age of 19...The wording of
the clause makes clear that it covers both employment under a
traditional contract of apprenticeship with an employer, and the modern
form of apprenticeships with the involvement of a separate training
provider as well as an
employer.”
The intention
of the amendments is to ensure a return to
traditional employer-based apprenticeships, rather than apprenticeships
based with an independent training provider. We believe that all
apprenticeships should be
employer-based.
The
Government recently published a review of the apprenticeship system,
and the Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and
Skills, the hon. Member for Tottenham, and I have already had some
exchanges on the matter. I presume that he will speak
at some length on the clause, as it is important to
the
success of the Bill. He knows that I welcome some aspects of that
review, not least because it responds to criticisms of the
system—made not only by me, I hasten to add. It is helpful that
it redefines what should comprise an apprenticeship with a stronger
emphasis on mentoring, workplace-based training and, indeed, employer
engagement of the kind that I just mentioned. Although some of the
detailed recommendations in the review are welcome, my criticism is
that it will reinforce the Government’s bureaucratic approach to
the provision of skills training. The Under-Secretary, whom I imagine
will respond to the debate on this group of amendments, knows that my
central criticism is that by reinforcing the role of the Learning And
Skills Council and reducing the role of sector skills councils in the
management and funding of apprenticeships and skills more generally,
the review, like the rest of Government policy, fails to meet the
central charge in the Leitch report that we need a demand-led
system. Lord Leitch
made it clear that centrally driven bureaucracy must be streamlined if
it is to deliver a system that is more responsive to employer demand,
but the review means that most apprenticeships will be delivered by
agencies rather than by employers. Essentially, the Government prefer a
nationally planned, target-driven approach to the flexible and dynamic
training provision that is necessary in an ever more advanced economy.
We believe that employers must lead the apprenticeship system if we are
to raise the skills level. The continuation of a centrally driven,
target-based model will fail to ensure that all apprenticeships result
in greater employability, which is the ultimate test of the
system’s effectiveness.
It is worth
elaborating a little on the scale of the problem that we face in
respect of apprenticeships. There is a shortage of apprenticeship
places owing to a lack of employer engagement. As a result, the
Government have consistently missed their targets for apprenticeship
numbers. In 2003, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is now
Prime Minister, announced that apprenticeship numbers would rise to
320,000 by 2006. In fact, there were only 239,000 apprentices in
training in 2006-07, and numbers are falling. The figures released in
December show a decline in apprenticeship numbers at both level 2 and
level 3.
At one time,
all apprenticeships were a level 3 qualification, equivalent to an
A-level. Indeed, most people’s picture of an apprenticeship is
of an eager young learner gaining a practical competence at the side of
an experienced craftsman that is bound to lead to enhanced
employability. Usually, because such apprenticeships were linked
directly to an employer, people went straight into a job. Although that
is still true of many apprenticeships—there are some excellent
apprenticeships abroad—it is not true of all apprenticeships. By
changing the badging of training, and calling many things
apprenticeships that do not match that traditional model, we have
risked the brand. That is why I welcome some parts of the review, which
begins to address those concerns.
At the end of the day, the
problem with the creation of level 2 and programme-led apprenticeships,
is that that has disguised the fact that we are training fewer people
at level 3 than we did 10 years ago. The decline in numbers in the past
year, which I mentioned, is part of a steady decline in the number of
trainees in level 3 apprenticeships. The number of level 2
apprenticeships
has grown over the same period, but one wonders how many of those
apprenticeships deliver the goods or do what is
intended. 6
pm
Apprenticeships
are not what they used to be, and declining employer involvement has
meant that many apprenticeships are much more classroom-based and have
their origins in the youth training schemes of the past. The
House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported last summer—I
have referred to that report a number of times—that most of the
increase in apprenticeships over the years is the result of converting
Government-supported programmes of work-based learning into
apprenticeships. All that new training has been below level 3.
Lower-level training has increased at the expense of higher-level
training. Of the 239,000 apprentices I mentioned, only 97,000 are at
level 3.
The essence
of our concerns, as embodied in the amendments, is that the Government
have failed to provide an apprenticeship system fit
for purpose, largely because of their supply-driven approach. The vast
majority of apprenticeships are delivered by training providers rather
than by employers. Work-based mentor training is often limited. In its
last report, the adult learning inspectorate warned that some
apprenticeships could be achieved without the
apprentice
“having to set
a foot in a
workplace”.
The
bureaucratic funding mechanism for apprenticeships means that, as the
Economic Affairs Committee concluded, employers
are
“marginalised at the
end of a long chain of
administration”.
One
expert witness told the Lords
inquiry:
“There is a key
problem for both the young people and the employers in terms of finding
each other...for quite a lot of employers, they do not actually know
how to really access the
system.”
The
apprenticeship review is, in a sense, the final nail in the coffin for
the Leitch report. One of Lord Leitch’s key recommendations was
that the Government should move forward from a supply-side to a
demand-led skills training system. The Leitch report concluded
that
“history tells us
that supply-side planning of this sort cannot effectively meet the
needs of employers, individuals and the economy. The Review recommends
a fully demand-led approach, with an end to this supply-side planning
of
provision.”
Consequently,
Lord Leitch recommended
that
“planning bodies,
such as the LSC...will require a further significant
streamlining.”
The
review reinforced supply-side planning by proposing the establishment
of a national apprenticeship service. That service is part of the
Learning and Skills Council’s responsibilities, and the LSC will
be responsible for the achievement of the targets set by the
Government, including the determination and publication of the strategy
for expanding places by region, sector and age group, consistent with
the Government’s published national plans. Such an approach is
not consistent with a demand-led
system.
We
must be bolder in responding to local and sectoral demand as required,
rather than simply working a system around a series of national,
predefined, Government-set targets. I am not sure that the Government
have even begun to grapple with that problem. The
Leitch review recommended a much larger role for sector skills councils,
which would be part of the demand-led system that Lord Leitch
described, and which I support. Leitch argued that the councils should
be responsible for approving vocational qualifications, as well as
taking a lead role in collating and communicating sectoral and
labour-market needs. Following the apprenticeship
review, the National Apprenticeship Service—in other words, the
Learning and Skills Council—will be responsible for determining
the qualification level of apprenticeships. The role of sector skills
councils will be reduced, and their role in funding, commissioning and
managing information on apprenticeships will be taken away. The
creation of the National Apprenticeship Service adds to the confusing
array of organisations with overlapping responsibilities
that crowd the skills sector. The NAS will be
responsible for a national information and marketing service for
apprenticeships, which will exist in addition to the careers and
training advice provided by schools and colleges, local authorities
through Connexions, and the proposed adult careers service and skills
brokers to be introduced as part of Train to
Gain.
In
2001, the Cassels review of apprenticeships recommended that the system
be led by employers, with training providers acting only as
apprenticeship agents with a clearly defined role. In 2002, the LSC
accepted that recommendation but it was never implemented. The notion
that training providers are better placed to deal with those matters
than employers themselves is fanciful. Under the apprenticeship review,
training providers will continue to have responsibility for
co-ordinating apprenticeships, which means that employers will be
marginalised at the end of a long chain of administration. As an aside,
with your indulgence, Mr. Bayley, the review says very
little about the further education sector, which is still waiting for
deregulation, years after the Foster report, which preceded the Leitch
review, recommended that FE colleges be set free with a radical
programme of deregulation—a view which I enthusiastically
support.
The
amendments are essential for two reasons. First, apprenticeships are
central to driving up the national skills level, as the current system
is simply not fit for purpose. Secondly, although I acknowledge that
the Government have taken steps towards addressing the problems in the
apprenticeship system and I recognise the Minister’s personal
commitment to doing so, I still do not think that they have grasped the
core message that lies at the heart of all of the reviews of the
apprenticeship system and of the Leitch report, which is that we need
to move to a less bureaucratic, less target- driven, less centralised
and more responsive system, with employers in the driving seat and
sector skills councils, which are employer-focused, playing a critical
role.
Unless we
do so, we will not get the apprenticeship system that we need and
deserve. Without that, the Bill will falter, because many of the young
people we want to engage should be travelling down the route through
an apprenticeship to employment. I believe
passionately in the principle of apprenticeships, and I know that the
Minister does, too. I just want to have a frank debate—a
non-partisan debate, in fact—about how we can get
apprenticeships right. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I am
certain that the system must reflect
genuine employment need and the best way to determine and deliver that
objective is to have employers as the central component in the
system.
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and
Skills (Mr. David Lammy):
I am pleased to be
able to take over from my hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and
Learners to talk about apprenticeships. The last time I was in your
constituency, Mr. Bayley, I was looking at
apprenticeships at York Minster. I am pleased, too, that the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings has come closer to the
Government position on apprenticeships since the publication of the
apprenticeship review. I agree with him that this should be a
non-partisan issue on which we can agree. I set my comments very much
in the context of the apprenticeship review, which was in turn informed
by our plans to raise the participation age following the Leitch review
on skills and the introduction of an entitlement to an apprenticeship
place for every suitably qualified young person in 2013.
Clause 67 is a small but
important step in moving towards our ambitions for
the apprenticeships programme, including the apprenticeship
entitlement. Apprenticeships are implicitly included in the Learning
and Skills Council’s existing statutory duties, as laid out in
sections 2 and 3 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000, to secure the
provision of facilities for education and training. However,
apprenticeships are not mentioned in the legislation, so the clause
addresses that omission by making explicit the Learning and Skills
Council’s duty to furnish provision for apprenticeships that is
the same as the provision for other post-16 education and training
options. I hope that everyone welcomes
that.
We have had a
great deal of debate this afternoon about Oxbridge and independent
schools. I am pleased to return to another group of young people who
deserve our attention and our efforts to make the system more equitable
on their behalf. In the context of raising the participation age, the
clause is a signal to the system that the Government are
serious about apprenticeships as a route that young people can take to
fulfil the duty to participate. The effect of the clause will be to
drive the way that the Learning and Skills Council funds provision and
engages with employers in meeting the 2013 entitlement. For adults, we
are equally clear that apprenticeships form a key part of our response
to Sandy Leitch’s recommendations.
The amendments undermine the
clarity and intended effect of the clause. Apprenticeships funded by
the LSC can involve an individual in a contract of
apprenticeship or a contract of employment, and the inclusion in the
clause of
“training
provided in connection with a contract of
employment”
is a
recognition of that fact. That does not mean that every employer has to
provide training, nor does it imply that every contract of employment
must include training provision. It simply means that
apprenticeships are covered by the LSC’s duty to secure the
provision of facilities for education or training. The majority of
people engaged in LSC-funded apprenticeships participate under
contracts of employment, rather than contracts of
apprenticeship.
To be
as comprehensive as possible, the Bill includes both forms of contract,
and our intention is to legislate
in a forthcoming Bill to remove the legal ambiguity
surrounding apprenticeships. The effect of amendments
Nos. 49 and 50 would be to remove the duty on the LSC to secure the
provision of facilities with regard to apprentices employed under a
contract of employment, and I am not sure that is what Opposition
Members want. They have stressed many times during our debates and
elsewhere their support for apprenticeships as a major route for young
people and adults alike. Furthermore, amendment No. 51 would remove one
aspect of the clause that is crucial to increasing the number of
quality
apprenticeships. 6.15
pm
Clause
67 provides that the LSC’s role in encouraging employers to
participate in training should encompass the kind of situation covered
by apprenticeships. That provision will complement the wider measures
to engage employers set out in the “World-class
Apprenticeships” strategy. May I say very gently to the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings that he made an unfounded
assertion about workplace provision? I understand his concerns, but I
want to reassure him about the position, as he has got this wrong.
Apprenticeships and advanced apprenticeships meet the requirements laid
down by the modern apprenticeship advisory committee, chaired by Sir
John Cassels. Those requirements are that apprenticeships involve
on-the-job training; engage a young person to earn while learning, and
closely involve employers. As I have explained previously, both in
Committee and in the House, people on programme-led apprenticeships are
not counted—I repeat, not counted—as being on an
apprenticeship until they have a contract with an employer.
The hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) will
recall the evidence that we heard from the Prince’s Trust,
Barnardo’s and other organisations, and I hope that he
acknowledges that there is a role for programme-led apprenticeships for
young people who are not quite ready for a fully fledged apprenticeship
with an employer. Those young people may not have the soft skills that
we have discussed in Committee. Nevertheless, they can get on that road
with a programme-led apprenticeship. Such apprenticeships are not
counted within the figures, but the young person can move on to another
apprenticeship for which they are prepared.
Mr.
Hayes:
I entirely acknowledge that there are many young
people unprepared to take up an apprenticeship because of the absence
of skills. Indeed, the House of Lords Select Committee report to which
I referred earlier says that there are 300,000 such young people, who
often lack core and soft skills. However, in respect of work-based
training, the adult learning inspectorate
warned:
“Some
apprentices can potentially achieve the full requirements of the
apprenticeship framework without having to set foot in a
workplace.”
Why does the
Minister think that the inspectorate said that? If I have got
the wrong impression about apprenticeships, it has
too.
Mr.
Lammy:
I asked my officials to scour the extensive House
of Lords Select Committee report to find that quote. We were able to
find expressions of concern that the Adult Learning Inspectorate still
had about programme-led apprenticeships, particularly in
engineering. However, the suggestion that most
apprenticeships do not involve an employer is just wrong. The hon.
Gentleman will recall that when I put that suggestion to some of the
individuals who gave evidence to the Committee, including the
principals and the Campaign for Learning, they were staggered by it and
indeed they said that they just did not recognise it. They said that
apprenticeships must involve an employer.
I therefore think that there is
confusion here, and I know what lies behind
the confusion. As the hon. Gentleman said, we have sought to
ensure that we have a statutory definition of apprenticeships
in the apprenticeship review. While we do not include
programme-led apprenticeships in the figures, we acknowledge that we
need to make a clear distinction between programme-led apprenticeships
in a college, which are sometimes undertaken as preparation for an
apprenticeship, and full-blown apprenticeships. I think that the
problem is confusion about descriptions, but it is not the reality of
the experience of our apprentices as we understand
it.
Mr.
Hayes:
It is important that we clarify this matter. I do
not want to delay the Committee unduly, but there are two points to
explore. The first is the issue that was identified by the adult
learning inspectorate. Let me say, for the hon. Gentleman’s
benefit, that the reference is from July to August 2006. I am happy to
provide it for him so that he will not have to scour any further.
The inspectorate is concerned about those
apprenticeships in which there is no workplace element. There is a
second, parallel, concern about employer engagement and what
constitutes an employer. It is right that many apprenticeships have a
significant and implicit relationship with employers. Among the best
apprenticeships are those run by Rolls-Royce and Honda. Many of the
employers concerned are training providers. I am interested in the
Minister’s view on what constitutes an employer and how an
employer is defined in that
context.
Mr.
Lammy:
The hon. Gentleman has made that point before, and
I have inquired into it in some detail. It is not possible for an
apprentice to achieve an apprenticeship if they are based solely with a
training provider—by that I mean someone whose main activity is
education and training. Some employers, usually large employers such as
BAE Systems or Honda, set up separate training arms for their
apprentices. It is important to acknowledge that trend among some of
our larger employers. At a time when the Government and the Opposition
are keen for apprenticeships to increase, we would not want to see that
development end. That is not the same as the apprentice merely spending
his time at a local college. The large employer is able to become the
training provider because of the financial means that they have and
because of the staff that they can employ to do the training. Again,
there is some confusion about descriptions that has led some to suggest
that one can get an apprenticeship solely by spending time at a
training provider. That is not the case. An apprentice has to be with
an employer.
The hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings will also know that in the
review, we recommend group training associations, which is something
that he called for. Implicit in that recommendation is the
understanding that it can be very difficult for small businesses to
offer
apprenticeships, and that the relationship that they have to have with
the learning and skills council is something that they may find
daunting or some way removed from their usual pattern of business. That
is why we recognise the desirability of the model of a group training
association, whereby a group of small employers hand over the necessary
bureaucracy and accreditation that go with an apprenticeship to a
central hub. Group
training associations already exist. I have visited the Birmingham
electrical group training association that provides that part of the
west midlands with a lot of its electricians. That might be described
as an apprenticeship with the training provider, but such a description
is not accurate. It is the training provider working in partnership
with electricians in the west midlands. I hope that
that answers the hon. Gentleman’s points and that we can move on
from some of the confusion, understanding that the Government’s
desire is to get the statutory definition right, to bring clarity and
to ensure quality in the apprenticeships
offered.
The hon.
Gentleman has expressed concern that a new national apprenticeship
service will be a supply-driven, centrally based, target-oriented
model. I want to reassure him that that is exactly the opposite of what
is envisaged. For the Government to count training as an
apprenticeship, an apprentice must have spent a period of time as an
employee and have the status of an employee at the time of completion.
In addition, the role of the sector skills council in articulating
employer demand will be central to everything that happens as we roll
out our ambitious apprenticeship
plans.
“World-class
Apprenticeships” makes it clear that the new national
apprenticeships service will work in partnership with sector skills
councils. Indeed, the report introduces a set of new and revised
functions for sector skills councils, including promoting the take-up
and spread of apprenticeships, branding national
completion certificates, maintaining a bank of qualifications from
which frameworks will be formulated, working with the national
apprenticeships service to communicate quality-assurance messages and
information on apprenticeships to employers, and sharing information
management.
Mr.
Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con): I am grateful to the
Minister for giving way for one of my rare appearances in this
Committee. I do not want to be argumentative and I hope that he does
not think that I am being argumentative, but how will we benchmark
whether our apprenticeships are world class? That is an over-used
phrase. Could we not use more modest language and say that they will be
very good apprenticeships? In that way, nobody would be disappointed if
they do not end up being world
class.
Mr.
Lammy:
The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but
it is right that we have bold ambitions for the young people who take
that learning and employment option. We have spent much of this
afternoon talking about Oxbridge; I want that same level of aspiration
for the group of young people who take the apprenticeship route. We
want to encourage quality and to legislate for quality. We will be able
to do that as a result of the apprenticeship review and we can aspire
to world-class apprenticeships. Frankly, if Germany and Australia are
able to have apprenticeships that most of the world
look to and say that they are good, I am quite sure that we can extend
the tradition of companies such as Rolls-Royce and British Telecom and
set up such apprenticeships as our
ambition.
The clause
is but one of the building blocks that we need to put in place on the
road to rolling out the entitlement in 2013 and expanding
apprenticeships to meet the ambitions set out in response to the Leitch
review. The apprenticeship review said that we will go further in
legislative terms to give statutory force to the 2013 entitlement. The
clause supports that direction of travel. The amendments would exclude
the majority of apprentices from the duties on the LSC and cloud the
message that we are sending to the system. I hope that the hon. Member
for South Holland and The Deepings is sufficiently reassured that he
can withdraw his
amendments.
Mr.
Hayes:
We have had a long debate on apprenticeships and I
do not want perpetuate it longer than the Committee will tolerate, so I
will abbreviate my remarks. I only want to pick up on one thing that
the Minister said—although I could no doubt debate the issue
with him all day and all night—about group training
associations. He is right to say that the Government emphasised them in
the review. I called for that in my party’s mid-term policy
review; they are a useful way of involving small and medium-sized
enterprises, which we did not talk about earlier in this regard, but
which are vital to the success of the policy. Many of the young people
that the Bill deals with will find their training opportunities and
their employment opportunities in SMEs. I never waste an opportunity to
elevate their calls in our considerations. Group training associations
provide a very effective way of allowing such businesses into this
network.
We have had a
long debate and, in the spirit of the Minister’s response, I beg
to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
67 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
| 
