Stephen
Williams: I thank the Minister for his clarification.
Clause 111 refers to adult apprenticeships. Will this provision that
disabled people, whatever their disability, can access an
apprenticeship also apply to young
apprentices?
Mr.
Simon: The clause in question will clearly apply to
adults. I am answering for adults and we are dealing with the adult
part of the Bill. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Schools and
Learners, if pressed or perhaps even spontaneously, may deal with
children later on when we come to these
points.
Annette
Brooke: I am sorry to keep referring to the explanatory
notes, but they appear to define clause 111 as assistance for adults
with a learning difficulty. My amendment was suggested by the RNIB. We
might have someone with a physical disability and no learning
disability. I do not think that clause 111 answers my
points.
Mr.
Simon: In that case, I can only restate what I said to the
hon. Lady earlier. Learners with disabilities will be covered under the
existing Act. They will be covered in the future Act and they will be
covered by the consultation that reports in May and to which disability
groups have been specifically asked to contribute. In response to the
hon. Gentleman, I am told that clauses 40 and 80 will cover
16 to 18-year-olds. I now realise, in response to the hon. Lady, that
the definition of a learning disability in clause 111(3)(b) includes a
physical
disability.
Annette
Brooke: I thank the Minister for his reply. I appreciate
that there was a bit of thinking while standing. This Bill offers us a
real opportunity. We have just been through a very tough process, for
example, with Remploy shrinking its factories when it had been moving
towards expanding them. It is people who might have gone into sheltered
accommodation whom we are particularly looking to support. Not only
should the minimum be there, but there should be genuine opportunities.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Mr.
Hayes: I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 10,
page 6, line 4, at end
insert— ‘(c) involve an
agreement with an employer to train a person, using the practices,
equipment and personnel of his or her enterprise in doing
so, (d)
involve a mixture of on and off-the-job learning,
and (e) lead to a generally
recognised level of proficiency in a trade, profession or
occupation.’. As
I mentioned earlier, the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills
Committee criticised the draft Bill for not defining an apprenticeship,
despite calling for
the “ambitious
expansion and strengthening of the Apprenticeship
Programme”. The
Government have yet to provide such a
definition. 6.30
pm
I raised the
matter with Ministers during the witness session this morning, because
there is a line to be trod between being clear about what
constitutes an apprenticeship and the impossible business of trying to
specify all available apprenticeships in detail. One would not do the
latter in guidance, still less in the Bill. However, the Bill could
contain a core definition of an apprenticeship. Indeed, amendment 20
would go some way to providing such a definition. It is not an
unreasonable definition, but if the Government believe that they can do
better, they can refine it. Accordingly, I would be happy to hear from
the Minister.
The Minister
may say that it is the Government’s intention to tighten the
Bill in that regard; following my searching questions this morning,
Ministers may have put their heads together and agreed to introduce a
Government amendment to define apprenticeship more clearly. However, in
the absence of such an assurance, it is vital that we proceed with
amendment 20.
The Select
Committee provided a possible definition, drawn from the Cassels report
on reforming modern apprenticeships, published in 2001. That is the
inspiration for the amendment. Such definition would exclude
programme-led apprenticeships and some level 2
apprenticeships—ones in which the employer has no involvement in
training. The Committee argued that
“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”. That
is certainly in line with what employers expect and want. They want
apprenticeships that deliver real competencies. To that end, they want
apprenticeships that are carefully and clearly defined.
One reason
for my scepticism—I would never call it cynicism, for I am not
cynical in any element—is that we have heard much about the
Government’s apprenticeship ambitions. In 2003, when he was
Chancellor, the Prime Minister said that there would be 320,000
apprenticeships by 2006. In fact, there were about 239,000. In 2007, he
said that he would double the number to 500,000, but the number fell by
something like 13,000 in 2008.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness said earlier that the
expansive targets that have peppered Government announcements on the
subject have undermined faith in their determination to increase
apprenticeship numbers. But more significantly, to do so with a product
that is worthy of the name, apprenticeships should be in line with
those in other countries, which are all at level 3, as that would be
more in line with public expectations, too.
As I have
argued, most people believe that an apprenticeship would be a serious
qualification it if was pitched at level 3, if it was employer-based
and mentored and if it was in line with learner demands that were truly
seductive and that attracted more young people into a golden vocational
route—a pathway of quality, leading to the opportunity of
employment.
The
Government should have defined apprenticeships more clearly in the Bill
if they were serious about reinvigorating apprenticeships as a core
element in the mission to skill the nation more
effectively.
Mr.
Stuart: In light of the data in this area, some of which
my hon. Friend has shared with us, did he share my surprise
when the Minister said categorically in this morning’s sitting
that the Government had not missed any of their headline targets for
the provision of apprenticeships? If we are to make progress
with the Bill, we must do so on the basis of the
facts—not the facts as we wish them to be, but as they
are. Does my hon. Friend share my hope that the Minister
will set the record straight when he responds to the
amendment?
Mr.
Hayes: There are targets, damned targets and the Prime
Minister’s hyperbole. When he was Chancellor, his hyperbole led
us to believe that there was an intention to create 500,000
apprenticeships. I know that it will shock you, Mrs. Humble,
as much as it shocked me and that it will distress Committee members to
hear that there is a realistic prospect of France achieving 500,000
apprenticeships. France—a country with no history of
apprenticeships equivalent to ours—has leapfrogged us in this
area. It is a nation with which we compete and with which we aim to
compete still more
effectively.
Stephen
Williams: As the hon. Gentleman is so knowledgeable about
the matter, will he tell us whether France has a statutory definition
of an
apprentice?
Mr.
Hayes: All our principal competitors not only have
statutory definitions of apprenticeships, but pitch them at level 3. An
apprenticeship in France or Germany is what we call an advanced
apprenticeship. As I mentioned earlier, all apprenticeships were level
3 before this Government came to power. That is why they are so fond of
saying that there was a big leap in apprenticeship numbers after 1997.
As the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee pointed out, that was
due largely to the rebadging of much training that was already taking
place as apprenticeships and the creation of level 2 apprenticeships
accordingly. We
began debating apprenticeship numbers this morning. That debate is
contentious because, historically, apprenticeship numbers have been
measured using average numbers. The problem with that from the
Government’s perspective is that it does not necessarily reflect
increasing completion rates. Ministers have fairly argued that there
has been some progress on completion—I freely acknowledge
that—but starts matter too, because they reflect how attractive
the product is to young people and to adult apprentices. I am concerned
that the record for starts is not as rosy, partly because people do not
perceive apprenticeships as having the value that they should
have.
I am not
saying that there are no great programmes, that great apprenticeships
are not taking place in SMEs and major employers or that I do not
celebrate people who achieve apprenticeships. I celebrate the young
people and less young people who through an apprenticeship gain extra
employability and get good jobs. However, problems remain. The main
problem is the clarity of definition, the rigour and the
Government’s willingness to be firm about what constitutes an
apprenticeship. That is why we tabled the
amendment. The
amendment is in line with the 2001 Cassels report and reflects the
findings of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee. It builds on
the work of Select Committees that have looked into these matters and
is inspired by the weight of academic evidence from people such as
Lorna Unwin and Alison Fuller, whose work is broadly in line with my
analysis. If we are going to get this right, let us be clear about it
in the Bill. I can see the Minister becoming increasingly persuaded by
my argument. As he looks at me across the room, I can see that my
seductive oratory has
begun—
Mr.
Simon: I intervene because the ironic satire with which
the hon. Gentleman speaks might not be apparent in the written
record.
Mr.
Hayes: I misinterpreted the Minister’s tiredness as
my persuasiveness. No, I can see that he is up for it, so I shall keep
going. [ Hon. Members: “No.”] I
have him on the cusp, and if I can push him over it, he might accept
the amendment. Let us have clarity and certainty, and let us send a
ringing signal out from the Committee that employers would recognise as
a genuine rejuvenation of the apprenticeship system, a statement in the
Bill of what we expect an apprenticeship to
be.
Stephen
Williams: Hon. Members will be relieved that I do not
propose to dwell for long on the amendment. We have a lot of ground to
cover before 7 o’clock. None the less, I congratulate the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings on making a reasonable fist
of getting a definition of the triangular relationship between the
employee, the employer and the training undertaken to complete an
apprenticeship. I do not know whether all the words in the amendment
are his or whether he had some assistance in the drafting, but the only
word I would quibble with is “profession”. I think that
to be in a professional someone must complete a qualification verified
by a professional institute, so we should be careful about the language
that we use and about whether we refer to apprentices or professionally
qualified people. But on balance, if he wishes to press the amendment
to a vote, we, or rather I as the only Member of my party left in the
room, could support
it.
Mr.
Simon: I thank the hon. Member for Bristol, West for his
brevity. My friend, the hon. Gentleman who leads for the official
Opposition on the Committee said that he has no bone of cynicism in his
body. Knowing him as I do and have done for a while, I was then minded
to rise in agreement and to say that he is one of the less cynical
people whom I know. People who know him would say that he is far more a
romantic than a cynic, and good for him. But he then disappointed by
going on to the most cynical set of disingenuities.
The hon.
Gentleman talked about the Prime Minister’s moving targets, for
example. He repeated the inaccurate statement about missing the Prime
Minister’s targets, and in the oral evidence session, he said
that the Prime Minister, while Chancellor, led us to believe that there
was a real intention to create more apprenticeships. We have lots of
real targets about which we are scrupulous, all of which we have either
hit or are well ahead of hitting. For instance, this morning in the
oral evidence session, the hon. Gentleman said clearly—he does
this kind of thing often—that apprenticeship starts were higher
in 2003 than last year. That is simply not the case. In 2003, they were
at their highest level for a decade. Off the top of my head, there were
something like 203,000 or 204,000 starts in 2003, and there were
225,000 in 2007-08. The truth is that completions and starts have gone
up and
up. 6.45
pm
Mr.
Stuart: Can the Minister tell us a little about the
numbers at level 3 over the past decade or
so?
Mr.
Simon: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the
numbers at level 3—no, I cannot tell him, actually. Yes, I
can—
Mr.
Stuart: Are they up or
down?
Mr.
Simon: Numbers at level 3 are clearly up, and they were up
last year from the year before. Level 3 as a proportion is also
slightly up, although it has remained broadly stable for a long
time.
This is the
key point. The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said that
what employers want is level 3 apprenticeships. If that is what they
really want, why are almost 200,000 employers choosing voluntarily to
recruit and pay for level 2 apprentices? Some employers want level 2
apprentices and some want both level 2 and level 3 apprentices. It is
employers who lead this market and who determine the kind of apprentice
that is employed.
Does the hon.
Member for Bristol, West want to intervene before I move on to the
substance of the amendment and away from the
knockabout?
Stephen
Williams: I can assure the Minister that this is not
knockabout; I simply believe that factual information should be placed
on the record and he said that he did not have that information. The
House of Commons Library very helpfully gives us some statistics. The
number of advanced apprenticeships is lower than it was 10 years ago,
at 72,900 starts in 2007-08 as opposed to 76,800 in 1999-2000. Given
that level 2 apprenticeships have risen over that period, as seems to
be generally acknowledged, that means that advanced apprenticeships
have also fallen as a proportion of the total. I am just putting this
on the record to be helpful, but in both cases I do not think that the
Minister was entirely
accurate.
Mr.
Simon: I am not going to continue the knockabout any
further. I stand by what I said previously and I am happy to do the
knockabout another time. I am conscious that I have only seven or eight
minutes to deal with the substance of the amendment.
The hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings clearly wants a very short
definition of an apprenticeship in the Bill and the hon. Member for
Bristol, West seems to want the same thing. The reason that there is
not a short definition is that employers do not want one, because it is
potentially constraining and inflexible. If it should happen that the
13th word of the definition does not fit with their slightly
unconventional situation, all of a sudden their apprenticeship will not
be deemed an
apprenticeship. The
fact is that, as I said this morning, parts 1 and 4, as far as I am
concerned, provide a definition of an apprenticeship. That is what the
Bill does; it defines an apprenticeship in great detail, at great
length and makes it absolutely clear. It does not define an
apprenticeship in 14 words. That is because if we defined it in 14
words, we would hamstring the users and the employers and rob them of
flexibility. There is no need to provide a short
definition.
| 
