Mr.
Simon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me
the opportunity to clarify that point. The statutory certifying
authority will be the chief executive of Skills Funding, but it is
anticipated that he will delegate the practical delivery of the task to
the chief executive of the NAS.
Mr.
Gibb: As the Minister is amending the Bill so soon, why is
he committed to giving that role to the chief executive of Skills
Funding? Why does he not propose an amendment today to give the
authority directly to the chief executive of the
NAS?
Mr.
Simon: Because it is not intended that the statutory
authority should rest with the chief executive of the NAS. The
statutory, legal, accounting authority is to be vested in the chief
executive of Skills Funding. The day-to-day management will, in
practice, be the responsibility of the chief executive of the
NAS.
Stephen
Williams: We will come on to certificates shortly. I just
wonder, in this case, who will be the signatory on the certificate
itself authorising the issue of the apprenticeship. Will it be the
chief executive of Skills Funding or the
NAS?
Mr.
Simon: Off the top of my head, if we have a policy on the
actual physical, graphic signature on the certificate, I am not aware
of it. I suspect that that level of detail has not yet been determined
and I will certainly
undertake to check whether it has been. When it is ultimately
determined, I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman to let him know
what has been decided.
The change
will also ensure that such transitional arrangements are binding on an
outgoing authority, which would not be possible under a simple
designation in writing. Government amendments 153 to 156 are necessary
to ensure the smooth operation of apprenticeships in Wales.
Amendment 188
is consequent on amendment 156. This is a purely administrative matter.
Its effect will be that an order under clause 8 relating to the Welsh
certifying authority will not be subject to procedural requirements in
the Welsh Assembly
Government.
Mr.
Hayes: Before the Minister rushes on from amendment 152,
he should appreciate that there is an argument that sector skills
councils could be issuing bodies. Did he consider that and what
representations did he receive about it? Amendment 152 effectively
rules that
out.
Mr.
Simon: We considered that idea. As the hon. Gentleman
knows, sector skills councils are currently issuing bodies. We have
decided that in future, as the employer bodies, the sector skills
councils will be responsible for defining and setting the
apprenticeship frameworks and for determining the content of the
apprenticeship. The National Apprenticeship Service, as the delivery
agency, is the most appropriate body to issue the
certificates.
Mr.
Hayes: I am sorry to run with this important though
detailed point, but the explanatory notes make it clear that sector
skills councils are expected to develop frameworks for apprenticeships
in conjunction with standard setting bodies. What does that mean in
practice? As the Minister knows, sector skills councils are currently
issuing bodies. The proposals will diminish their role, will they
not?
Mr.
Simon: No, there is honestly no diminution of their role.
As I said in the evidence session this morning, sector skills councils
remain at the heart of the skills system as the employer body. They
will determine what goes into an apprenticeship framework at the
hands-on, nuts-and-bolts level of substance and content. By having the
certificates issued by the National Apprenticeship Service, there will
be a single recognisable apprenticeship certificate rather than 27
different certificates issued independently by the various sector
skills councils. As the hon. Member for Bristol, West said, we will
discuss the details
later.
Mr.
Hayes: I understand that and it would be a good argument
for having a National Apprenticeship Service with complete competence.
However, as we described in this morning’s sitting, there is a
marriage between the funding agency and the National Apprenticeship
Service. It is not only the sector skills councils that have a hand in
this, but the principal funding agency and the National Apprenticeship
Service. Why can all of this not be done by the National
Apprenticeship Service or the sector skills councils? Why do three
organisations have to be involved?
Mr.
Simon: I cannot agree that the sector skills councils and
the National Apprenticeship Service do the same job. The National
Apprenticeship Service is an arm of the funding body, which has the job
of delivering apprenticeships and to drive the quality and take-up of
apprenticeships in the skills system. The sector skills councils are
the employers. The employers do a different job and have a different
role. I do not think that they would want that role to be done by
anybody else. They want to be at the heart of the system and to
determine what goes into the frameworks. The National Apprenticeship
Service will sit inside the Skills Funding Agency. It will be part of
the funding stream and will issue a single, coherent apprenticeship
certificate across the board for
everybody.
Mr.
Hayes: Can I have one last go at this in order to try to
generate some light amid the heat? I am grateful to the Minister for
giving way for a third or fourth time. Leaving aside the issue about
sector skills councils and the National Apprenticeship Service, which I
agree have different functions, and leaving aside the sector skills
councils, which do it at the moment and will not do it in the future,
what is the virtue in having the involvement of the Skills Funding
Agency? Could the NAS have sat outside it, independent of that body? Is
it not odd, to say the least, that what is essentially a funding body
is involved in standards setting? Is it a standards setting body or is
it a funding agency? I thought it was a funding
agency.
Mr.
Simon: The National Apprenticeship Service could have been
located outside the SFA and we did consider that. The reason we decided
to put it inside the SFA was to create a single body with four clear,
coherent, identifiable customer gateways, two of which, for employers,
would be Train to Gain and the NAS, to make a streamlined, coherent
system. As it is, Opposition Members are criticising us adversely for
creating too many bodies without sufficient streamlining. The proposed
system has fewer bodies, more streamlining and more synergies; it makes
sense to me. On the basis of those remarks, I commend the Government
amendments to the Committee and hope that the hon. Gentleman feels able
to withdraw amendment
15.
Mr.
Hayes: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks and
for his courtesy in giving way on what is an important matter. It might
seem arcane to the casual observer, but getting the relationships
right—the lines of accountability, the reporting functions of
the new bodies—will have a big impact on the success or failure
of our shared ambition to grow the apprenticeship system. The anxiety I
have is that, in an effort to create a new system, the Government have
created a more complex, harder to understand, less transparent
structure that is not going to be good for either learners or
employers. That is at the heart of our complaint.
Our anxiety,
reflected in amendment 15, relates to establishing whether the
Government will charge. I am still at a loss—I hope the Minister
might intervene—as to why this particular measure forms part of
the Bill if there is no intention at all, at any point, to
charge.
Mr.
Simon: To be clear, there is no intention to make a
general charge for the issue of apprenticeship certificates, as is
currently done. The intention is that the cost of apprenticeship
certificates will be subsumed in the
programme budget, although it is thought that the NAS might, in future,
wish to consider charging for duplicates—for copies of
certificates that have been lost—in order that the
administrative cost is kept within a reasonable
limit.
Mr.
Hayes: That is a helpful explanation. Essentially,
although the clause ostensibly might be taken as a green light for
charging, the Minister has assured us that there is no such intention
and that it is there simply as a catch-all for, as he describes, lost
or stolen
certificates.
Mr.
Simon: To restate my earlier point, there is currently a
charge for certificates. SSCs are independent bodies which currently
charge. Clearly, the right to charge currently exists. We are simply
maintaining the current right to charge, although we are explicitly
saying that we have no intention to charge other than, perhaps, in
fairly exceptional
circumstances.
Mr.
Hayes: That is a useful and helpful assurance. As I said
at the outset, this is a probing amendment. The Minister has given us
the opportunity to explore one or two deeper and wider matters,
particularly in respect of the Government amendment, which forms a part
of the group. It has set the scene for a debate that I expect we will
have throughout our consideration about whether the new structure is
fit for purpose. Nevertheless, I take the Minister’s assurances
in the spirit in which they were offered, and I beg to ask leave to
withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
4.30
pm
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 16, in
clause 1, page 2, line 18, at
end insert— ‘(f) that the
person has undergone supervised training in the
workplace.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: amendment 17, in clause 2, page 3,
line 2, after ‘provide’, insert
‘provided that such evidence includes evidence of
supervised training in the
workplace’. Amendment
47, in
clause 25, page 11, line 33, at
end insert— ‘(d) must
specify that these requirements include some element of supervised
training in the
workplace.’. Amendment
22, in
clause 30, page 13, line 35, at
end insert— ‘(e) that the
employer agrees to provide supervised workplace
training.’. Amendment
48, in
clause 80, page 50, line 6, after
‘agreement’, insert ‘that
includes specific requirements for supervised training in the
workplace,’. Amendment
113, in
clause 80, page 50, line 7, leave
out subsection
(b). Amendment
49, in
clause 85, page 52, line 13, at
end insert— ‘(d)
arrangements for courses of training at a college or other institution
must include some form of specific training in the
workplace.’.
Mr.
Hayes: I rise again on the issue of apprenticeships, the
matter absorbing the early parts of our consideration. The amendments
in this large group concern work-based
training and ensuring that apprenticeships are what most average members
of the public and laymen would regard as appropriate. By that I mean
that they should be work-based and mentored and, as I said, should
confer competences by teaching and testing the things that make people
more employable. The workplace element in that is
essential.
Most people
take that as read, but it is important that we are clear about it. Over
time, some apprenticeships have become less work-related than we might
wish. That is perhaps understandable, given the difficulties of
engaging employers in particular sectors and parts of the country. It
is certainly sometimes hard to get employers involved in the
apprenticeship system. As an aside, that is why it is important in my
estimation and that of my party to incentivise them to do so. However,
we shall not discuss the glories of Conservative thinking on that
subject but address the amendment
specifically. At
no point in the legislation as drafted do the completion conditions
specify work-based training, the key element of any real
apprenticeship. Supervised work-based training should be part of all
apprenticeship frameworks. Indeed, amendment 16 would add in clause 1
the requirement that
“the person has
undergone supervised training in the
workplace”. The
other amendments in the group follow in the same spirit. Amendment 17
makes it clear that evidence must include evidence of supervised
work-based training where evidence of the appropriateness of an
apprenticeship leads to completion. According to the explanatory notes,
clause 2
“would permit
the issuing of a certificate where persons have not entered into an
apprenticeship agreement or where they have done the training for the
principal qualification before entering into an apprenticeship
agreement.” The
clause as drafted does not specify what evidence someone would have to
provide before being issued with a certificate. It would be possible
for a certificate to be provided without any evidence of training by an
employer, as the principal qualification for many apprenticeships is an
national vocational qualification, and NVQs can of course be studied at
a college.
I do not want
to exaggerate the problem, but I remain concerned that there are
apprenticeships where the apprentice’s foot barely finds its way
into the workplace. The lack of a workplace element in some
apprenticeships, particularly a mentored workplace element, is an
ongoing cause for concern. I know that the Government have focused on
that and have offered assurances that they too believe that workplace
training should form part of all apprenticeships, but in the spirit of
integrity and straightforwardness that the Minister personifies and
illustrated in dealing with the first group of amendments, he will
acknowledge that that has been a worry for employers, Government and
others. Apprenticeships taught in colleges without enough of the
workplace element simply do not do the job that they are supposed to
do. They do not equip people properly for the world of work or offer
confidence to potential employers. In the end, they do not make people
more employable, which has to be the acid test of an
apprenticeship.
Mr.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con): In the
light of our discussions this morning, my hon. Friend will be aware of
my concern that fulfilling the
obligation in the Bill to offer apprenticeship places to everyone could
lead to a diminution in the quality of the apprenticeships offered.
Many people who gave evidence to the Committee share that view. Does he
agree that because of that promise, it is all the more important to put
firm guarantees of quality in the Bill, including ensuring that there
is genuine workplace involvement?
Mr.
Hayes: Absolutely. My hon. Friend is right that most
people’s vision of an apprentice is of someone learning their
trade at the knee of an experienced craftsman in the workplace.
However, in recent years, many apprenticeships have been virtual,
involving little or no employer engagement. In some cases, employers
provide little of the training that the apprentices they employ
undertake, most of which is provided by a further education college or
independent training
provider. That
is not just my view. Two of the leading academics in the field,
Professors Lorna Unwin and Alison Fuller, describe such schemes as
“restrictive apprenticeships”. Other apprenticeships
involve little or no time in the workplace, either in work or in
training, as a result of branding training that is not in the workplace
“programme-led apprenticeships”.
One of the
doubts that the Conservatives have was articulated admirably by my hon.
Friend this morning. In offering an entitlement, the Government could
dilute the quality of the apprenticeships that are offered to meet the
ambitious targets that they have set. If they aim to entitle everyone
to an apprenticeship and set ambitious targets for numbers, there is an
obvious temptation to rebadge all kinds of training as
“apprenticeships”, to weaken and dilute the necessary
standard and, in so doing, to damage the valuable apprenticeship
brand.
The Select
Committee on Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills expressed a
similar concern when it scrutinised provisions for programme-led
apprenticeships in the draft Bill,
concluding: “Business
was clear that for ‘apprenticeship schemes to work they must be
employer led’ and based ‘in the workplace to make them
effective’...so called programme-led apprenticeships could
provide a useful preparation for an employer-led apprenticeship but
they are not apprenticeships within the meaning of the proposals in the
draft
Bill.” Alison
Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport) (Lab): On employer-led
apprenticeships, my local FE college in Plymouth believes that some of
the group training schemes that it runs—they are not necessarily
employer led, but they are popular with employers—do not
diminish quality. Has the hon. Gentleman come across those
schemes?
| 
