The
Chairman: Copies of the memorandums that the Committee
receives will be made available in the Committee room. The submissions
received so far have been circulated and are
available. Resolved,
That, at this
and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the
Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are
admitted.—(Jim
Knight.)
The
Chairman: Just before we clear the room, I would like to
put on record my appreciation for the enormous amount of help that the
Committee has had from the Scrutiny Unit in preparing all the documents
for today and subsequent
sessions. 10.35
am The
Committee deliberated in
private. 10.43
am On
resuming—
The
Chairman: We are now going to hear evidence from the CBI,
the British Chambers of Commerce, the TUC and the Alliance of Sector
Skills Councils. I welcome you and ask each of you to introduce
yourself.
Richard
Wainer: I am Richard Wainer, head of education and
skills policy at the
CBI. John
Lucas: I am John Lucas, policy adviser on education
and skills at the British Chambers of Commerce.
Tom
Wilson: I am Tom Wilson, head of the organisation
department at the
TUC. Keith
Marshall: I am Keith Marshall, chief executive of
SummitSkills, the sector skills council for building services
engineering. Inside the Alliance, I chair the qualifications reform
strategic
group.
The
Chairman: Before calling the first member of the Committee
to ask a question, I remind everybody that questions should be limited
to matters within the scope of the Bill. We must stick strictly to the
timings in the programme motion agreed by the Committee. I hope that I
do not have to interrupt mid-sentence to achieve our objective of
bringing this section of questioning to a close just before 12 noon.
Bearing it in mind that there are four of you, would witnesses please
make their responses brief because otherwise we will not cover the
range of subject matter that we have before us? I call John Hayes to
ask the first
question.
Q
1Mr.
Hayes: My question is for the British Chambers of Commerce
in particular. Are the changes in the management and funding of skills
likely to bring greater organisational efficiency? Not that I want to
lead the witness in any way, but in your submission you describe those
changes as
bizarre. John
Lucas: Absolutely. We are very uncomfortable with the
state of play of the reform, particularly with the dissolution of the
Learning and Skills Council and the introduction of the Skills Funding
Agency. We believe that the changes are too bureaucratic and do not
address the underlying issues and problems of the education system. Too
much management time will be drawn in to oversee the changes, and that
will cause serious disruption to long-term relationships and processes
that have been established. There were obviously problems with the LSC,
but our preference would have been for organisational change to have
happened within the existing structures rather than through a complete
overhaul.
Q
2Jim
Knight: I recall the very welcome support that the CBI
gave to raising the participation age to 18. What is the CBI’s
view on the need for local authorities to have at their disposal the
tools to make raising the participation age a success by
2013—the time scale set out in legislation? Is that not a good
reason for the delegation of 16-19 commissioning to local
authorities? John
Lucas: I am from the
BCC.
John
Lucas: That is okay. In relation to the raising of
the participation age, I understand why transfer of funding has
happened, but in terms of business engagement it will be very difficult
for businesses and employer bodies to engage with the system set out in
the Bill. Basically, we believe that the Young People’s Learning
Agency will have to intervene so often that that will bring into
question the use of transferring funding directly to local authorities,
and the point of dissolving the LSC may also be brought into question
if the systems stay fairly similar and the national agency has to keep
stepping in.
Q
3Jim
Knight: Why do you think the YPLA will have to step in all
the time when most of the arrangements for post-16 learning are set for
most people? They will either carry on at school or go to college;
those are well-established arrangements that are pretty much
learner-led. John
Lucas: In terms of funding and its distribution, I do
not think that local authorities have a track record of employer
engagement and of ensuring that the system post-16 is focused towards
equipping young people coming out of the system with skills and
vocational qualifications that enable them to work. They certainly do
not have a track record of successfully engaging with business, and I
think that this will cause an awful lot of bureaucratic change for what
I see as little tangible
benefit.
Q
4Mr.
Hayes: My question is for the CBI, on that subject. When
the Select Committee looked at the draft Apprenticeships Bill, you were
asked by one of its members what you felt about local authority
involvement and whether you thought that the model would be too
prescriptive, and you said that it was a concern. Why did you say
that? Richard
Wainer: Moving responsibility to local authorities is
about ensuring that they take into account local and regional business
views and demands. Our members are primarily concerned about ensuring
that they get a good-quality apprenticeship programme, so as long as
local authorities adequately consult and work with local employers in
ensuring that they are putting on the sort of apprenticeship programmes
that are in demand, I think that our members will be generally
happy.
Q
5Mr.
Hayes: Would you therefore welcome greater emphasis in the
Bill on the quality and standard of
apprenticeships? Richard
Wainer: Apprenticeship quality is a very important
issue and businesses generally see high-quality apprenticeships as
coming from strong employer involvement. So, the priority for our
members is to ensure that the apprenticeship programme encourages
strong employer involvement and that the programme is more fit for
purpose—delivering the sort of skills that are in demand by
businesses.
Q
6Mr.
Hayes: Do you think that the Bill goes far enough in
involving employers in that process? We are going to have a very
complex new structure—we have mentioned local authority
involvement already—and the Bill does not specify much about the
issue of quality that you
described. Richard
Wainer: No, I think that the Bill is silent on local
authorities and the YPLA consulting employers. There is a concern about
ensuring that local authorities are required to work with local
businesses.
Q
7Stephen
Williams (Bristol, West) (LD): The Minister has just
mentioned raising the participation age in education and training to 17
in 2013 and 18 in 2015, but the sector skills councils have to move
first. The Bill says that apprenticeships should be offered to all
young people who want one, which is a hard-to-quantify
figure.
Do you think that the sector is up for it? Is there enough capacity
among employers to offer sufficient apprenticeships to young
people? Keith
Marshall: That is the element that concerns us. An
apprenticeship is not an apprenticeship unless it includes learning in
the workplace on the job, and you can do that only if you have
employers. Although I understand that we need to think about coming out
of the recession, with the way that the economy is going and the
challenges there, the biggest challenge in the commitment is ensuring
that there are enough employers, and in that I return to the issue that
has just been spoken about and our real fear that, to hit the targets,
quality will be lowered. For us, the maintenance of apprenticeships as
a high-standard, valued programme and qualification is absolutely key.
We would rather see redefined targets, but maintained
quality.
Q
8Stephen
Williams: Are the 25 sector skills councils that you
represent all adapting their thinking to prepare for the challenge that
lies ahead?
Keith
Marshall: Yes, indeed, we are in the middle of
working through a programme that we can bring forward to deal with this
specifically.
Q
9The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and
Skills (Mr. Siôn Simon): May I ask the
BCC a question? You said that you thought that the arrangements in the
Bill for the Skills Funding Agency were too bureaucratic. Can you give
us more details about what you think is too bureaucratic and in what
way?
John
Lucas: Absolutely. I think that the dissolution of
one organisation and its replacement with a host of others, including
management and set-up time, is a very bureaucratic process in
itself.
Q
10Mr.
Simon: You think that the transition will be bureaucratic.
You said that the new structure will be bureaucratic. In what way will
it be too
bureaucratic? John
Lucas: We do not see anything in the
plans that addresses some of the underlying problems as our members see
them. I must add that our members include a large number of private
training providers, which are attached to our chambers of commerce
across the country.
Q
11Mr.
Simon: Are there any elements in the SFA design in the
Bill that you consider too bureaucratic that you can tell us about in
detail? John
Lucas: In detail, I would have to go back to our
membership. Then I would be able to reply in written
evidence.
Q
12Mr.
Simon: May I ask the CBI whether this is a good
Bill? Richard
Wainer: It is a mixed bag. There are certainly
elements that our members would very much support, particularly on
allowing employers to submit their own apprenticeship frameworks and
ensuring that those programmes better fit their needs, but there
are elements that we are nervous about. The introduction of
apprenticeship standards and minimum periods of time off, for example,
are making our members nervous.
Q
13Mr.
Simon: Would you say that it is broadly good on
apprenticeships? Richard
Wainer: A mixed
bag.
Q
14Mr.
Simon: What about the right to request time to
train?
Richard
Wainer: It will be a useful measure, certainly, if it
takes us away from the sterile debate about whether there should be
compulsory training measures. It will be a useful compromise. It
certainly goes with the grain of what the vast majority of CBI members
are already doing in terms of discussing training needs between
managers and
employees.
Q
15Mr.
Simon: And has the right to request flexible working been
a disaster for British
business? Richard
Wainer: Absolutely not. It has been one of those
pieces of regulation over the last 10 or so years that has been really
successful. It has ensured a good balance between business needs and
employees.
Q
16Mr.
Simon: So we might expect to have the same hopes for the
right to request time to
train? Richard
Wainer:
Yes.
Q
17Mr.
Simon: May I ask the TUC whether this is a good
Bill? Tom
Wilson: It is a very good
Bill.
Q
18Jim
Knight: I would be interested to hear from all the
witnesses how they think we should balance what I hope everyone agrees
is the importance of sustaining high quality in apprenticeships with
setting standards. Concerns have been expressed that those standards
become too high an obstacle. How do we balance sustaining quality and
standards? Richard
Wainer: We understand the desire to ensure that
apprenticeships are high quality. How do we think that should be best
delivered? Well, that is through strong employer involvement and
allowing employers the flexibility to ensure that their apprenticeship
programmes meet their individual
needs. We
do not see high quality and flexibility as being mutually exclusive. If
you ensure that apprenticeship programmes best meet the needs of
employers, they will be more encouraged to get involved and that will
drive up quality. I do not think that top-down conditions on minimum
periods of time off work for training are a good way to do that.
Employers already have to ensure that their apprentices have adequate
time and resources to undertake the qualifications that are part of
their apprenticeship framework. We see no added value in prescribing
minimum periods of time
off.
Q
19Jim
Knight: Do you agree that apprenticeships need to be
mobile so that apprentices can work for more than one employer? In
which case, how do you think it is best to regulate the transferability
of the quality of an apprenticeship within that flexible
framework? Richard
Wainer: Standards are fine. It is just specific
standards for minimum periods of time off that are not needed. Each
framework has to ensure that it accords to the blueprint at the moment.
There are recognised
qualifications within each apprenticeship framework. There are other
factors relevant to apprenticeships too. That is the way that you will
ensure
mobility. John
Lucas: I would like to add that we were very positive
about the planned increase in apprenticeships. We think it is a
long-term, positive thing for business and for the economy. I would
very much agree with what Richard said. We think that apprenticeships
need to be employer led and employer focused. Obviously there has to be
a high-quality programme element to them too. We would like to see
solid growth and development in making sure that apprentices have
transferable skills as much as work-specific skills. That must all be
within an employer-led
framework. Tom
Wilson: For 150 years, unions have been campaigning
for apprenticeships. One of the biggest problems has always been the
pressure on quality. During the recession, that pressure will become
more acute. The reason we applaud the Bill particularly is because it
sets in statute both the framework and the standards that will apply to
all apprenticeships. That is new and important. It is important because
it sets a bulwark against the inevitable pressure, which is always
there and is particularly acute in a recession, for some dilution in
quality. As
my colleagues have said—we would support this—a large
part of the content of the framework and the standards will come from
employers through sector skills councils and their trade union
colleagues. That is as it should be. They will vary and will need to be
adapted to particular sectors. The importance of the Bill is in setting
things in a statutory framework, which gives the protection and
fall-back that apprentices
need. Keith
Marshall: The key to this is the framework. If we get
the framework right, it will ensure that the quality is maintained.
From the point of view of sector skills councils, that is what we do.
We work with employers to identify what the framework
is. I
have a slight hesitancy around this flexibility issue because one
person’s flexibility is another person’s anarchy. While
you need the ability to take account of slightly different
circumstances, a young person, or even an adult, will carry this
qualification with them throughout their working life, and the
apprenticeship must be just as relevant to their second or third
employer as it was to the first. The Bill, as I read it, encapsulates
what is already happening in many sector skills councils and will
ensure that good practice exists and that we share
it. A
slight concern of mine is that the Bill does not address sector skills
councils enough. Unfortunately, councils that were set up to work with
and represent employers, and to identify the apprenticeship frameworks
that everyone is working towards, do not rate a mention. Returning to
the earlier points on splitting up the LSC and how we are to square off
the sectoral special dimension, sector skills councils are very
important because if you cut the regional elements and make them too
small, you lose a lot of the
benefit. In
my own sector, plumbers and electricians working on the Olympics site
live in Leicester and travel to work every day. I am not sure whether
that is a London or a Leicester skills problem, but it is definitely a
plumbers and electricians skills problem, so the sectoral dimension is
very important. We must not lose it and must ensure that it pulls in
the clear responsibility of the sector skills councils on framework
development.
| 
