Q
20Stephen
Williams: Often, Government targets in one sector have a
skewing or displacement effect—sometimes even an adverse
one—on another sector. Given that the Bill places a duty on the
chief executive of the Skills Funding Agency to find an apprenticeship
place for every young person who wants one, is there not a danger that
that target might be at the expense of post-19 adult apprenticeships?
Employers might skew their offer to young people in order to please the
Government and funding agencies and so
on. Richard
Wainer: I do not think that that will be foremost in
employers’ minds when they decide how to best address their
skills needs. Adult apprenticeships have been very successful, because
employers see real value in putting their older employees through those
particular schemes, so we certainly welcome Government moves in that
direction. But no, I do not think that employers really worry about
Government targets when looking at their individual skills
requirements. Keith
Marshall: Although I recognise the point that you
make, the fact is that we are running out of young people. It is
essential, considering the way that work patterns are changing, that we
are able to pull adults—people who are moving from one sector of
the economy that is in decline into another that is not—into
apprenticeships. Certainly, when I talk to employers in my sector, they
say that they are keen to take on adults, so it is important that that
element works
well.
Q
21Stephen
Williams: May I challenge Mr. Marshall’s
assertion that we are running out of young people? I guess that that is
a reference to demographic change over the next decade with the number
of teenagers broadly falling, but that differs depending on the social
sector. Broadly speaking, the number of working-class young people will
fall, but the middle-class numbers will remain fairly flat, so
university applications may not be affected. Is it implicit in what you
are saying that apprenticeships may not be attractive to people from
middle-class backgrounds, and is that not the challenge facing the
sector? You have to ensure that an apprenticeship is a quality
qualification that will appeal to all social
categories. Keith
Marshall: Yes and no. You are absolutely right: we
must raise the profile of apprenticeships and recognise them as a
mechanism for people of all ages right across the social spectrum. I
would suggest that there are some quite poor undergraduates who would
make very good apprentices, and that is the area on which we need to
concentrate very hard indeed. We need to raise the status and the
profile, and this sort of legislation will certainly help
that.
Q
22Emily
Thornberry (Islington, South and Finsbury) (Lab): On the
subject of apprenticeships, what is the TUC’s response to the
CBI, which states that apprenticeships should not be
prescriptive? Tom
Wilson: I am not quite sure what the CBI means by
that, really. Our view is that the great virtue of this Bill is
precisely that it is pretty prescriptive that there should be a clear
national framework and clear national standards. As I said before, we
think that that is very important.
For example,
there is a prescription that, to count as an apprentice, there is an
employment contract and the apprenticeship is not programme-led or just
a college-based
thing. All of that is very important for quality. As the Committee has
been discussing so far, there is this enormous emphasis on quality and
that is quite right. I am sure
that Richard can speak for himself in a second, but I would guess that
what the CBI means is that the Bill should not be too prescriptive and
too top-down, and that is right; we would echo that. I think that there
is much consensus about the need for there to be considerable
flexibility here, so that the content of the programme and what counts
towards the standard is developed jointly by each SSC, as my colleague
has just said. It depends very much on the sector. On SSCs, I think
that you will find that employers and their union colleagues are
working well, developing those standards to provide precisely that kind
of sectoral flexibility.
Richard
Wainer: I certainly do not think that we are arguing
for a free-for-all.
Emily
Thornberry: I am glad to hear
it. Richard
Wainer: There should be some form of framework that
employers work towards, because there must be some consistency about
what an apprenticeship should be delivering. However, our members feel
very strongly that the current arrangements, with the frameworks that
the SSCs provide, offer adequate consistency, so that everyone knows
what an apprenticeship will deliver and what it
contains.
Q
23Emily
Thornberry: Are you so much in agreement therefore that
you feel that the regulations that might be established by this Bill
would satisfy both of
you? Richard
Wainer: No. We feel that introducing the standards is
an issue. If you look at the consultation document that is out at the
moment, you see that a huge part of what those standards will include
is minimum periods of time off for training. We think that that is
going too far to the other side. It is too prescriptive in outlining
how employers will have to deliver their apprenticeship
training.
Q
24Mr.
Hayes: So we have heard from Mr. Marshall that
there is not a sufficient role for SSCs, and we have heard from the CBI
and the BCC that there is inadequate concentration on employers.
Indeed, the BCC briefing says that
“there have been
constant changes to the further education public funding system during
the previous 20 years. The shifting complexity of the further education
system has served to disengage employers. Time should be spent on
improving and reforming existing structures rather than creating new
ones.” So,
there is an insufficient role for both employers and SSCs, and yet
Mr. Wilson says that this is a good Bill.
Should SSCs
have a bigger structural role and should employers be mentioned in more
than two clauses in the Bill, which, as far as I can see, is the only
mention that they
get? John
Lucas: Certainly our comments, which Mr.
Hayes has just read out, focus very much on the machinery of government
changes. Regarding apprenticeships, we are broadly supportive of what
the Government have outlined here. I agree with Mr. Wainer
that there should not be too much prescription of the minutiae and
detail of how much time off there should be for employees to train;
that becomes counter-productive. However, the broad structure for
apprenticeships is the way forward.
Q
25Mr.
Hayes: Can the entitlement to an apprenticeship, which I
think is what you are referring to, be delivered, in terms of the
availability of apprenticeships, without a system that is built from
the bottom up and that engages small and medium-sized enterprises?
Also, on that specific point, should we see an equalisation of funding
between adult apprenticeships and other apprenticeships, which is
further to the point that Mr. Marshall made? Furthermore,
should employers receive a direct cash bonus for every apprentice that
they take on?
John
Lucas: It is fair to say that if funding, financial
incentives and financial support for employers were equalised across
the whole apprenticeship programme, both pre-19 apprenticeships and
post-19 adult apprenticeships, employers would be happier. However, it
is also fair to say that the raising of the participation age will
provide a pool of people who will hopefully take on apprenticeships and
take on some of these new routes that are being
provided.
Q
26Mary
Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab): I have several questions and
would like to begin with Tom Wilson of the TUC. What difference is the
ability to request time off, time to learn, going to make? In
particular, how do your members, who have been very proactive in
introducing union learning representatives, think that it will change
things? I have seen some of the work that has happened in my
constituency and it is transformational, so are there any plans afoot
for
members? Tom
Wilson: There certainly are and thank you very much
for that endorsement of union learning representatives; we are very
proud of them. There are now 22,000—an astonishing achievement
given that we started from something like only 2,000 at the
millennium.
Yes, we have
plans to equip and train ULRs to accompany people exercising their
right to request. I was at a meeting of ULRs last week where we
outlined the likely nature of the right to request and the kinds of
things that they could do to help people to formulate a request in
terms that would, perhaps, be more accessible to an employer and would
be something in tune with the criteria that are likely to be in the
Bill. People were very enthusiastic—they could see that this is
a tremendous role for ULRs. It is the next step up for many ULRs, and
they are enthusiastic, keen and tuned in to the kind of training that
both the employer and their members want. So, we see the potential for
this part of the Bill as enormous, possibly far greater than the other
right to request, for flexible
working.
Q
27Mary
Creagh: Richard, you talked about time off. It is not time
off: these people are not going off to sit and smoke cigarettes and
read newspapers; they are going off to study. Do you think that the
employer attitude to young people’s time off for study will
change as a result of the Bill? What steps are you as an organisation
taking to encourage employers in non-traditional apprenticeship sectors
to offer apprenticeships? Fifty per cent. of the vacancies in the
Wakefield constituency today are in the care sector, which, as far as I
am aware, has no apprenticeships, no training pattern, and no skills
and qualifications—though there are level 3 and 4 qualifications
in that area. What are your employers doing, particularly on new growth
in non-traditional apprenticeship sectors?
Richard
Wainer: To take your first point, are you
specifically talking about the right to request
training?
Mary
Creagh: Yes—Time to
Train. Richard
Wainer: The vast majority of CBI members train. They
have training plans and, as I have said, this regulation really does go
with the grain of what is already happening in the vast majority of
cases. That is exactly what happened with the flexible working
regulations; there were lots of good employers doing that and they felt
that they could cope with
it. On
the issue of non-traditional apprenticeship sectors, the issue for
companies is primarily to ensure that young people of all abilities are
encouraged to see an apprenticeship as a good opportunity. Careers
advice needs to improve to ensure that young people are not just
presented with the GCSE to A-level to university route without hearing
about the other side as well. There is a clause in the Bill on careers
advice which, we feel, does not go far enough. We think that it will
still allow teachers and careers advice professionals the discretion to
decide whether it is in the best interests of a young person to hear
about the benefits that an apprenticeship can deliver. We think that it
should be a requirement that all young people, of all abilities, should
understand the opportunities available in terms of
apprenticeships.
Q
28Mr.
Laws: To follow up those questions on the right to
request and Time to Train. We have heard from the CBI that they are
fairly relaxed about the proposal and that, not to paraphrase too much,
this is already practised by most of their members. In your experience,
is it practised among employers? How big an impact do you think it will
have on firms, in terms of the numbers of people who will take up
training in the future?
Tom
Wilson: I think that it is true that it is probably
good practice in some good firms. I would not say that it is
widespread, frankly; it is hard to tell. Certainly, our impression from
our members is that many feel a bit hesitant about asking for training
if they are not quite sure exactly how it is done, whether it is okay
to ask, how the employer will react, who they should ask and what kind
of criteria there might be. All those things dissuade people from
asking. That is understandable if you put yourselves in their shoes. We
think that this measure will make a big
difference.
Q
29Mr.
Laws: This is a tough question, but what increase do you
think the proposals will lead to in the numbers of people who ask for
time off to train and have that permission
granted? Tom
Wilson: It is impossible to put a figure on that, but
we think that millions of people could exercise the right to request
and take up training who would not otherwise have had the
opportunity.
Q
30Mr.
Laws: Will the training be relevant to their existing
employment or will it be something that helps them to move
on? Tom
Wilson: Very often, training is both. When people
exercise such a request, they typically look at training in areas such
as IT. That benefits not only them, but their employers, enormously.
Similarly, customer care training often improves people’s soft
skills in communication and relationships. That directly helps the
employer.
Q
31Mr.
Laws: John, your organisation is not as enthusiastic about
this part of the
Bill. John
Lucas: Obviously, employers are behind training.
Skills are key to employers and their employees are their biggest
resource. We think that the proposals seek to formalise a process that
already takes place constantly. We question the need for legislation
and the use of parliamentary time to push forward an intrusion into
normal business practices and normal relationships between businesses
and their employees. There is also a philosophical question about
regulation and the degree to which the Government should intervene in
normal relationships through legislation. We think that this is a step
too
far.
Q
32Mr.
Laws: Do you think that the measures will simply be a
waste of time because they will ratify something that already happens,
or do you agree with Mr. Wilson that a lot of employees will
ask their employers for the right to train and take up training, making
life more difficult for employers? Will the proposals have a dramatic
impact on employers or will they just bureaucratise what happens
already? John
Lucas: I think that they will just bureaucratise and
formalise what happens already. I do not foresee an upsurge in training
because of these proposals. Lots of training happens already. It is in
the interests of employers to invest in training. When we surveyed our
members in 2007, about 83 per cent. said that they invested in external
training and had training
budgets.
| 
