Mr.
Hayes: I can reassure the Minister that I am not cynical
in the slightest; it is a mix of playfulness and insight, which he
mistook for cynicism. Will he give me just one example of an employer
who would regard the wording in this amendment as so inflexible that
they could not build their apprenticeship around that definition? I
cannot think of a single example. If he can give me one or
two, or five or 10, I would be delighted to hear
them.
Mr.
Simon: The point that I am making is not that there is
necessarily an inherent contradiction or an obvious flaw in the wording
of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment, but that to provide a very
short and what might be called a core definition, as he wants to do,
potentially hamstrings people and provides inflexibility, in the way
that having a very detailed, substantive definition—which the
definition in the Bill is—does not do and specifically seeks to
avoid doing.
I support the
intention that apprenticeships must involve a mixture of on-the-job
training and structured learning that takes place away from the
immediate work station and leads to competence in the relevant trade,
profession or occupation. We know that that is what an apprenticeship
is and all those elements are provided in the Bill as
drafted.
The SASE,
which is currently out for consultation, requires all frameworks to set
out the principal qualification—namely, the level of knowledge
and competence required to complete the framework—and requires
all frameworks to specify the minimum number of guided learning hours
to be delivered away from the work station. The apprenticeship
agreement will require both the apprentice and the employer to agree
the levels of on-the-job training and structured learning away from the
work station. We are committed to high-quality apprenticeships as an
employer-led experience. That is why we are putting this whole
specification on a statutory basis. We are strengthening the
requirements that all frameworks must meet and we are introducing an
apprenticeship agreement as a contract of service between an apprentice
and his or her employer. Taken together, these will deliver a high
quality
apprenticeship.
Mr.
Stuart: I wonder whether the Minister could explain why
the SASE specifies the amount of time to be spent training away from
the work station but provides
no requirement as to the amount of time to be spent at work as part of
the apprenticeship, to check that it is a genuine
job.
Mr.
Simon: Regarding the first point, the SASE specifies the
amount of time to be spent away from the work station because, although
we have not focused on it much this afternoon, that is an important
part of an apprenticeship. The apprenticeship must be based in a job,
but it must also include high-quality, guided and instructed formal
learning.
As for why
the amount of time that has to be spent at work is not specified, as I
said, where else could that job take place? It is a truism to say that
a job has to be at work. Who are these employers who are going to
employ people, hire them, train them but divorce them from the
workplace? We do not believe that that is an issue. The issue is the
quality, specificity and the wide scope of definition that we have in
the Bill. Parts 1 and 4 give us a high-quality definition of what an
apprenticeship is, how the system works, and how it can deliver skills
and training for learners and skilled learners for businesses and
employers, which is what we need. On that basis, I encourage the hon.
Member for South Holland and The Deepings, although I understand his
motivations, to withdraw his
amendment.
Mr.
Hayes: If the history of apprenticeships were rather
different, if we had not had analysis that suggests that some
apprenticeships are not work-based, or at least have not been so
historically, if academics had not claimed—I think
authoritatively—that it has been possible to be an apprentice
historically without setting a single foot in the workplace, if we did
not know that some of the so-called employers are training providers
whose
job it is to sell apprenticeships and nothing else, and if we
did not have the difficulty of programme-led apprenticeships, which the
Minister implicitly and intrinsically acknowledged were a problem, then
I might be minded to withdraw the amendment. But as all those things
are so, it is critical that we define what an apprenticeship
constitutes on the face of the Bill. That is in the interests of all of
us who want apprenticeships to be of growing significance in meeting
Britain’s skills gap to make our country more economically
competitive. I do not doubt that he shares that ambition and I invite
him to vote with the Opposition when I press this matter to a
vote. Question
put, That the amendment be made:—
The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
9.
Division
No.
3] Question
accordingly negatived.
Ordered,
That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Ms
Butler.) 6.56
pm Adjourned
till Thursday 12 March at Nine
o’clock.
|
