Mr.
Hayes: The hon. Lady is right that there is a lot of
extremely useful pre-apprenticeship training. Indeed, the Committee
will doubtless debate this at length as we continue our considerations.
In order to get disengaged people into training, it is necessary to
provide them with bite-sized, accessible, flexible training. That would
not be at apprenticeship level, but would ideally precede it. It would
be useful, but it would not be an apprenticeship. The important thing
is not that we are dogmatic about the character of training, but that
we are clear about different levels and types of training and that we
do not
include too much training under the umbrella title
“apprenticeship”. As I said, that would have the effect
of damaging the reputation and the reality of the
brand. The
Skills Commission is shortly to publish a report that recommends that
programme-led apprenticeships in which learners are involved full time
in college courses with the intention of progressing to a full
apprenticeship should be rebadged “pre-apprenticeship
training” in exactly the way that I advocated. It argues that
programmes of apprenticeships that take place solely in an FE college
on a vocational basis tend to
“to progress a
smaller proportion of learners than other types of PLAs into
employer-led
apprenticeship.” Ofsted
noted that
“not all the
college courses offered the specific qualifications needed to support
entry on to an
apprenticeship” and
that students finishing these courses had
“minimal work
experience and an NVQ that had not been assessed in the
workplace”. In
our anxiety to encourage more people into training, I suspect—I
accuse Ministers of no ill-will in this regard—that we have
included under the banner of apprenticeship kinds of training that
should not be there. If we are to revitalise the apprenticeship system,
as I want to, we need to be firmer about the frameworks, stricter about
the rigour and more certain about the workplace-mentored element. All
the evidence from third parties and Select Committees insists that that
is the only way to deliver an apprenticeship system which is respected
by employers and valued by learners. Indeed, part of the reason for the
amendments is to get more people to do apprenticeships. What counts is
not just employers’ perception of what an apprenticeship means,
but encouraging people to see them as a desirable route to
employment.
In selling
apprenticeships, we must be sure that they deliver what they promise,
and that is the slight problem with entitlement. I am rather
sympathetic to the idea of an entitlement, as long as we can be
absolutely certain about the capacity to deliver on it, and that means
rebuilding the apprenticeship system from the bottom up. When one hears
the great fanfares from Ministers and others about the recent expansion
of apprenticeship programmes at Rolls-Royce and similar expansions at
other major employers, one is of course pleased, because the
apprenticeship schemes at Rolls-Royce, Honda, BT, British Aerospace and
others are world class. However, my constituents in Sutton Bridge, in
Lincolnshire, live a long way from Derby. Most do not go there
regularly, and I suspect that many have never been there in their
lives. It therefore matters little to them when they are told that
dramatic things are happening at Rolls-Royce in Derby. A potential
apprentice cannot get on a bus and go to Derby every morning.
The only way
for rural constituencies such as mine, and for small towns and villages
across the country, to make the apprenticeship system more attractive
to potential learners is to ensure that apprenticeships are
available locally through small and medium-sized enterprises.
Ironically, the Government’s preoccupation with those large
employers—Ministers are a bit starry-eyed about the glitz and
glamour of the corporate sector—displaces attention from the
need to rebuild the apprenticeship system among SMEs, where we could
make a significant difference.
Mr.
Stuart: I, too, support the idea of an entitlement to an
apprenticeship, but such an entitlement should surely not be included
in a Bill until the Government have delivered it on the ground through
an exercise in political will. Merely putting it in a Bill will not, in
itself, ensure that it is delivered, and in so far as it does, that
might be at the expense of quality.
Mr.
Hayes: Leading academics at the Skills Commission and
others are concerned that in providing for that entitlement, the
Government might do two things. First, they might boost the number of
public sector apprenticeships, which is a good thing in itself, but not
provide for the rigour necessary to make them worth while. Secondly,
they might boost the number of programme-led apprenticeships—the
term “significant expansion” has been used—to
present headline figures that tell a story that is superficially
impressive only until we look at the real competences the apprentices
have gained. Therefore, we are concerned that the entitlement will set
in motion a stream of public policy levers, which will not be good for
the apprenticeship system and, perversely, may do it further
damage.
4.45
pm I
am not against entitlement in principle, but we must have the
mechanisms in place to make that dream a reality for those many young
people who could and should sign up for apprenticeships. We want all
apprenticeships to be real and employer-based; we want expansive
apprenticeships, not restrictive apprenticeships. Apprentices should
receive training both on and off the job under the guidance of
experienced mentors. Those are the intentions behind amendments 16, 17,
47, 22, 48, and 49. As you will have noted, Mrs. Humble,
with all the diligence for which you are known, they are tabled in this
manner because they follow each other consequentially through the Bill.
At each point, we intend to reinforce the workplace element of an
apprenticeship.
Having spoken
about amendments 17 and 47, I shall now turn to amendment 48. The
words, “that
includes specific requirements for supervised training in the
workplace”, should
be added after “agreement” to clause 80 on
page 50. The reason is clear: it ensures that the
apprenticeship function—the actual carrying out of
apprenticeships—includes work-based training.
Subsection (2) of the amendment ensures that due account is
taken of learner needs and requirements in work-based training.
Amendment 49 adds the
words, “arrangements
for courses of training at a college or other institution must include
some form of specific training in the workplace.”
Clause 85 defines the
meaning of an “apprenticeship place”, but it does not
specify the necessity of workplace training. The reference to training
at “a
college or other institution”
does not specify
work-based training, which is a vital part of all real
apprenticeships. The
determination of Opposition Members on the Committee is that
apprenticeships should be fit for purpose. I am sure that the Minister
shares our ambitions, and I cannot believe that he is any less an
advocate of rigour than I am. I find it impossible to imagine that he
will not clamour to accept these amendments in the positive spirit in
which they have been proposed, as they are improvements that will make
his apprenticeship entitlement of greater significance by giving it
greater effect. In that spirit, I happily look forward to hearing what
the Minister and other Committee members have to say about
them. Stephen
Williams: I am sure that you, Mrs. Humble, and
the rest of the Committee will be relieved to hear that I propose to
deal briefly with this group of amendments, as we are still on clause 1
and it is 4.49 pm —I think that is what it
says on the monitor. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings
is correct that the characteristics of an apprenticeships are a mixture
of work-based learning and off-the-job learning, usually provided by a
further education college or a private sector provider. That is
certainly how a layman would understand apprenticeships, and we are all
laymen in this room. An apprenticeship is also a brand. It is very
important that the quality of that brand is not
diluted. It
is largely for that reason that my hon. Friends and I tabled amendment
113, which would prevent the Government from broadening the definition
of “apprenticeship training”
to “any
other contract of
employment”. That
reference appears in clause 80(5)(b). It is important that an
apprenticeship is an apprenticeship agreement—some other
agreement for employment or training should not be rebadged as an
apprenticeship. I
would like the Minister to clarify whether certain scenarios would meet
the criteria for an apprenticeship certificate to be issued under the
framework. First, does the person need to be an employee? What if
someone works for an employer in an unwaged capacity? The Government
have their much-vaunted internship programme for unemployed young
people. A press release was issued on that, but it does not seem to
have been developed any further. Can an intern become an
apprentice? Secondly,
what if someone is self-employed? They may be doing the relevant
qualifications—NVQs and other formal learning—that will
be part of the apprenticeship framework, but who will certify that they
have done the work-based training that is essential to become an
apprentice if essentially they are apprenticed to themselves or perhaps
to a member of their family? In the third scenario, what if someone has
done part of the training with another employer or has done the formal
qualification with another employer? How will those different elements
of the apprenticeship be brought together so that whoever is certifying
that someone has met the conditions of the apprenticeship can be
satisfied that all the conditions have been
met?
Mr.
Simon: I shall start with the three scenarios set out by
the hon. Member for Bristol, West. I think that I know the answer in
each case: all three are in the Bill, but I have to confess that I
cannot remember off the top of my head exactly which bit refers to
exactly which bit. However, I am sure that someone can look that up
afterwards, if the hon. Gentleman is
interested. I
shall describe the exceptional circumstance in which it is assumed that
unwaged people could be apprentices. Let us say that an apprentice
approaching the end of
their apprenticeship, loses the employment—the employer cannot
sustain it any longer—and they cannot find, despite the vacancy
matching service and everyone’s best efforts, another employed
form in which they can continue it, but they can find voluntary work
that enables them to do similar work and complete that
apprenticeship, but not for reward. It is envisaged that that would be
counted. [Interruption.] I am now told that that
is in clause
1(6)(b). With
regard to someone who is self-employed, again the opportunity is in the
Bill, in clause 1(6)(a), but it is envisaged that the power for
self-employed apprenticeships would be used only in very exceptional
circumstances, as I believe is currently the case in, for instance, the
film industry, in which the conventional industry practice is that
although people might work for someone in a conventional
apprenticeship-type way, their employment status is freelance. The hon.
Gentleman’s third scenario, of switching employer, is in clause
30(4). We envisage that as a much more mainstream part of what should
be possible under the new structures, because it is the kind of thing
that happens all the time. We want it to be the case that within the
same framework, an apprentice can change employer during the
apprenticeship, transfer over and complete the
apprenticeship.
Stephen
Williams: For clarity’s sake, on point about waged
people and interns, it is envisaged that for the majority of the
apprenticeship period the person should be employed and paid. It would
only be in exceptional circumstances, through loss of earnings because
of difficulties that the employer has got into, that an apprenticeship
certificate would still be issued.
Mr.
Simon: That is absolutely right. The fundamental
underlying principle of an apprenticeship is that it is a paid job. We
have put a power in the Bill which, in very exceptional circumstances,
allows someone to complete an apprenticeship with some unwaged work.
However, we envisage that being used only in the circumstances that I
have
described. Naturally,
I do not share the analysis that the hon. Member for South Holland and
The Deepings made of the Bill’s deficiency, but I understand and
sympathise with the spirit and the intention of his amendments. As he
said, I am nothing if not clamorous for quality. This is an
occasion—and not all of politics is so—on which we agree
wholeheartedly on the ends and are merely disputing the means. I shall
refer to the amendments in detail, then we can move on to talk about
the principles behind them.
Amendment 16
would place a further completion condition on the person applying for
an apprenticeship certificate under clause 1, and it would require that
they have undergone supervised training in the workplace. Amendment 17
would require apprentices applying for a certificate under clause 2 to
present evidence of supervised training in the workplace to the
certifying authority. Amendment 47 would require the specification of
apprenticeship standards for England to include some element of
supervised training in the
workplace. Amendment
22 would require the employer to agree to provide supervised workplace
training as a condition of the apprenticeship agreement. Amendment 48
would require an apprenticeship agreement for the purpose of
the apprenticeship scheme to include supervised workplace training.
Amendment 49 would require that for an apprenticeship place to count
for the purpose of the apprenticeship scheme, it must include
supervised workplace training. I certainly
agree that all apprenticeship frameworks must include supervised
training in the workplace. There is no doubt about that, and the
Government have never been equivocal about that. Supervised workplace
training is central to the apprenticeship experience. It is what all
apprentices have a right to expect. It is an experience that all
employers who take on apprentices later in their careers will expect
them to have. The system of certification that the Bill introduces
includes a number of safeguards to ensure that guided workplace
learning forms part of the apprenticeship experience.
We will go on
to discuss the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s adverse
criticisms, which is the notion that under the system as envisaged
there is insufficient compulsion on employers to put apprentices in the
workplace. It seems a slightly tautologous argument. It is important to
pause at this point and note how important it is, as the hon. Gentleman
mentioned in passing, to be explicit about the requirements for
high-quality guided learning hours away from the work station. An
apprenticeship is a job, but it is not just work; it is learning.
Although it involves on-the-job learning, it must involve off-the-job
learning: theoretical knowledge of the sector, functional skills and so
on.
5
pm As
hon. Members know, we are consulting on the specification for
apprenticeship standards for England. We have given assurances that it
will include a requirement that all apprenticeship frameworks must set
out what instruction and practical experience an apprentice must
receive and how many guided learning hours they are to receive per
year. The minimum will be 280, which includes guided learning both at
work and off-workstation. I can reassure the Committee that we expect
supervised training or learning in the workplace to be included as a
term of the prescribed form for the apprenticeship agreement. The
agreement will have to specify explicitly the quantity and quality of
the—
| 
