Stephen
Williams: I do not think that the Minister has dealt with
my point about training vehicles. He might have a case for saying that
he may not want several employers and training providers to be listed
on the certificate. None the less, having that information together in
a training record is
important.
Mr.
Simon: There are two issues. On what training the
apprentice has done, the assumption is that that will be covered by the
apprenticeship framework, which comprises the syllabus that the
apprentice studied. On what evidence of completion will be sought and
who will seek it, the NAS will seek evidence covering all elements of
the framework, including knowledge and competence in occupational and
functional skills. A training record, such as the one described by the
hon. Gentleman, will be held at the Skills Funding Agency as part of
the individual learner record, although I am not sure whether it will
contain the detail that he may have envisaged in his question. On that
basis, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be persuaded to withdraw the
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes: Again, I take at face value the Minister’s
assurance that he has some sympathy with my amendment and those of the
Liberal Democrats. Furthermore, he has at least hinted that the
Government might return to the issue in
guidance.
Mr.
Simon: I did not really intend to hint that we had a plan
to return to the issue; I do not think that we do. We have concluded
that the best way to proceed is as we have described. We recognise that
arguments such as those made by hon. Members are valid and
reasonable;
we considered them ourselves. We have included a power in the Bill, so
that if an overwhelming case emerges in future, we will be able to
include additional information further on. However, that is not quite
the same as saying that we have a plan to return to
it.
Mr.
Hayes: How clever of the Minister to recognise that that
is not the same thing. However, that does at least provide the scope
for a change of view at some later juncture, as he suggested. I share
the view of the hon. Member for Bristol, West that, on balance, there
are pros and cons. He is right that one of the cons is that there could
be a gradation or differentiation between apprenticeships on the basis
that some might be deemed to be taught at a better place and supervised
by a bigger employer with a more famous name. However, I am not sure
whether that is a bigger argument in the end than the one that says
that clarity about apprenticeships brings value. If people are clear
that someone has trained under an employer and been to a recognised
college, such additional clarity about the process brings additional
value. I
am particularly anxious that the details should be put on the
certificate, so that there is absolute certainty about the work-based
element, because in that respect there indeed needs to be a degree of
gradation or differentiation. I am worried that what are known as
employers for the purposes of apprenticeships may actually be training
providers whose sole or at least principal job is to offer
apprenticeships. That is not the same as doing an apprenticeship with a
large degree of work-based, mentored instruction in a large company or
an SME. In those terms, what we put on the apprenticeship certificate
has value of a different kind that involves the certainty that real
work-based learning has taken place. That would be made clear by what
the certificate
said. For
that reason and because of my determination that apprenticeships should
be as rigorous as possible and that that rigour should be as clear as
crystal, I am not inclined to withdraw my amendment but inclined to
press it to a vote. If the Liberal Democrats wish to press their
amendments, they will have the support of the official Opposition. It
is not that we do not respect the Minister’s remarks, but we
feel strongly about the definition of what an apprenticeship is and
should
be. Question
put, That the amendment be
made. The
Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes
10.
Division
No.
2] Question
accordingly
negatived.
Stephen
Williams: On a point of order, Mrs. Humble. I
am still an apprentice in Committee procedure. Presumably that vote was
on the first Conservative amendment in the group. Am I allowed to call
for a vote on subsequent amendments? The hon. Member for South Holland
and The Deepings implied that I
could.
The
Chairman: The hon. Gentleman should have indicated that he
wished to press for a vote during the debate when he spoke to his
amendment. He also had an opportunity to do so before the hon. Member
for South Holland and The Deepings sat down. Sadly, it is now too
late. Clause
9 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
10Apprenticeship
frameworks:
interpretation Annette
Brooke (Mid-Dorset and North Poole) (LD): I beg to move
amendment 227, in
clause 10, page 6, line 2, at
end insert— ‘(aa) meet the
requirements of the disability accessibility standard,
and’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment 228, in
clause 10, page 6, line 4, at
end insert— ‘(2A) In this Chapter
“disability accessibility standard” means specified
criteria to ensure the inclusive design of framework and assessment
processes to meet the needs of apprentices with learning
difficulties.’.
Annette
Brooke: The two amendments apply to framework
specifications. Amendment 227 states that specifications must meet the
requirements of the disability accessibility standard. Amendment 228
defines the disability accessibility standard. These are probing
amendments so I will not press for a
vote. We
want reassurances from the Government on the record that frameworks and
assessments will be accessible for disabled apprentices. The Bill
provides some wonderful potential opportunities for people with
disabilities, but it is obviously important that wherever possible,
assessment and examination procedures are fully inclusive of disabled
apprentices. Reasonable adjustments such as certificate indications or
enhancements should be considered only as a last
resort. The
amendment was suggested by the Royal National Institute of Blind
People. It is particularly anxious that there is recognition of how
serous this issue is and of how inequalities for disabled people could
be intensified for those who wished to become apprentices, if the
framework and assessment procedures are not inclusively
designed.
6.15
pm
Mr.
Hayes: These Liberal Democrat amendments are designed, as
the hon. Lady said, to ensure that the appropriate frameworks meet the
disability accessibility standard. You will not be surprised to learn,
Mrs. Humble, that I am particularly concerned about that,
given my interest in disability issues. It is right to ensure that
students with learning difficulties are not excluded from
apprenticeships and that frameworks are fully inclusive. The Liberal
Democrats have done the Committee an important service by drawing this
to the Minister’s attention and giving him an opportunity to
comment on
it. Organisations
representing the needs of disabled students support the argument. They
make the case that a prescriptive stance on qualifications may
disadvantage some disabled learners and that eligibility should be
broadened beyond qualifications. However, Skill has also critiqued the
lack of statutory guidance in the implementation of assessments in
sections 139A and 140 of the Learning and Skills Act 2000. That
critique could prove pertinent to these amendments. Skill argued that
there was little to no guidance on how local education authorities
would identify and assess all learners who needed a learning difficulty
assessment, which professional should carry out the assessment and how
to identify those with hidden or progressively worsening learning
difficulties. The amendments will suffer a similar fate, but having
said that, I still think that they serve a purpose in highlighting
these matters and by giving the Minister a chance to
respond. The
reason for the critique is that it is easy to assume that disability is
static; we think, for example, of someone with a spinal injury
permanently confined to a wheelchair or someone with a permanent sight
problem. However, many disabilities are dynamic in nature and their
changing condition changes people’s learning needs and
capabilities. Legislation must always be sufficiently flexible to take
account of those changes. That would be a reasonable rationale for
amending the Bill; nevertheless, the fundamental argument behind the
amendments—that we need an inclusive programme of vocational
learning and apprenticeship frameworks for disabled learners—is
well made and deserves amplification and explanation in the
Committee.
Mr.
Simon: I am extremely sympathetic to the point made by
both the hon. Members. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset
and North Poole for giving me the opportunity to say a few words on
this issue. As I said in the oral evidence session this morning, under
clause 101, the chief executive of skills funding may provide or secure
a range of services to assist “effective participation”
of learners undertaking apprenticeships. We interpret that to include
such services as would assist learners with disabilities to access
apprenticeships. Therefore, funding for any apprenticeships is designed
to support the whole scheme, including any necessary and appropriate
support for people with learning
difficulties. As
the hon. Lady said, amendment 227 would require all apprenticeship
frameworks to meet the disability accessibility standards as defined in
amendment 228. Those employing apprentices are already required to
comply with the existing Disability Discrimination Act 2005 and will be
covered by the provisions in the single equality Bill when it is
enacted.
Mr.
Hayes: For the benefit of the Committee, will the Minister
let us know the approximate number of apprentices who are disabled? If
he does not have that information to hand, could he bring it to the
Committee? Is that
number growing or falling and how does it break down in terms of type of
disability? Those are highly important questions for disabled people
and their
champions.
Mr.
Simon: I will look into that. I understand why he wants to
know. I cannot tell him with certainty that that information
necessarily exists in a collected and distributable form. I will look
for it and if we can find it I will write to the Committee.
“The
Specification of Apprenticeship Standards for
England”—the overarching standard document which we
issued for consultation last month, copies of which are here and have
been sent to Members by letter—sets out the standards for
apprenticeship frameworks. We think that the details of these issues
are more appropriately covered under SASE and in that consultation
rather than in the Bill. We have invited all those with any interest in
the apprenticeship programme, including everybody with an interest in
disability and accessibility, to respond to the consultation, currently
ongoing and due to report in May. Similar arrangements will apply in
Wales, where Welsh Ministers will be consulting on the specification of
apprenticeship standards for Wales. Once the respective specifications
for England and Wales are in place, under the new arrangements we will
also expect the sector skills councils to have regard to particular
groups, including but not exclusively those with learning difficulties
and disabilities, in preparing and issuing apprenticeship frameworks.
We share the commitment of hon. Members to ensuring that
apprenticeships are accessible to all members of the community and hope
that on the basis of these
assurances—
Mr.
Simon: I give way to the hon. Member for South Holland and
The
Deepings.
Mr.
Hayes: I was going to defer to the hon. Member for
Bristol, West but the Minister has given way to me. While I appreciate
that the Minister does not have the numbers to hand, what he will be
able to bring to our attention are the steps currently taken to
facilitate the kind of outcomes that the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and
North Poole and I want to see. He has mentioned sector skills councils.
He will be able to collate and make available to the Committee
information about good practice, where best practice currently exists
and how it might be exported. That would be the least we might expect
in order to support the assurances he has given about his commitment to
the subjects raised by these
amendments.
Mr.
Simon: I will do my best to find the kind of information
and examples the hon. Gentleman is looking for and bring those to the
Committee. My point remains that we are committed to do what these
amendments seek. There is the power in that phrase in clause 101 which
puts a duty on
the—
Stephen
Williams: The Minister referred to clause 101, suggesting
that it would support what my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and
North Poole
wishes to achieve with our amendments. The explanatory notes for clause
101 say that it simply provides for and gives statutory basis to the
national apprenticeships vacancy matching service, which has already
been launched. So I am not sure how clause 101 is helpful in this
regard. Perhaps the Minister could explain
that.
Mr.
Simon: Unless I have my numbers wrong, the phrase that we
interpret to confer funding of disabled people and those with learning
difficulties is “effective participation”. We interpret
that to mean any extra support that any learner might need for any
reasons beyond the average or the norm. I have the number wrong,
apparently. It is clause 111. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman
wants to intervene again now that I have given him the right number.
The phrase is “effective participation”. We take that to
mean a duty on the chief executive to fund learners and to support
learners with learning difficulties and disabilities. They are already
covered by the DDA and will be covered by the single equality Bill. We
share all the aims and ambitions for them of Opposition
Members.
| 
