 House of Commons |
Session 2008 - 09 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill |
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, James Davies,
Committee Clerks † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 12 March 2009(Morning)[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning BillClause 10Apprenticeship
frameworks:
interpretation 9
am
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and
Skills (Mr. Siôn Simon): I
beg to move amendment 157, in
clause 10, page 6, line 14, leave
out from ‘sector’ to end of line 16 and insert
‘stated in
it.’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to take
Government amendments 163, 171, 173 to 178, 186 and
187.
Mr.
Simon: Good morning, Mrs. Humble. We
are about to discuss technical, drafting amendments.
Subsection (2)(b) of clause 10 requires that the
apprenticeship sector concerned must be stated in the framework.
Amendment 157 is intended to make it clear that only one apprenticeship
sector will be stated in each apprenticeship framework. The original
drafting on that point was ambiguous.
Clause 15
enables the Secretary of State to make an order providing certain
transitional provisions for an apprenticeship framework. The technical,
drafting amendment to clause 15 has a mirror amendment to clause 20 on
Wales. Amendments 163 and 171 put it beyond doubt that the sector to
which the clauses refer is an apprenticeship sector as defined under
clause
38. Clause
23 provides the Secretary of State with the power to direct the chief
executive of Skills Funding to prepare modifications to the
specification of apprenticeship standards for England and submit them
to the Secretary of State. Clause 23(4) makes it clear that the
Secretary of State may not make an order bringing modifications into
effect unless he is satisfied that the modified specification complies
with the requirements of the content of the specification under clause
25. Amendment 173 is a technical, drafting amendment merely
intended to achieve consistency with clause 22(2), which deals with the
same point when an order is made bringing a specification of standards
into effect for the first time. Amendment 174 is a mirror amendment in
respect of
Wales. I
draw attention to several drafting amendments to clause 30, which sets
out the meaning of “apprenticeship agreement” in England
and Wales. The agreement will be a contract entered into between the
apprentice and the employer. It will contain terms that will be set out
in a prescribed form. It is intended that the agreement will
include, among other things, on-the-job training and learning away from
the work station. Amendment 175 reflects the fact that clause 30(4) is
making provision about circumstances in which an agreement will be
treated as meeting one of the criteria for being an apprenticeship
agreement under subjection (2). Removing “apprenticeship”
from the first line of page 14 of the Bill avoids circularity in the
provision. Amendment
176 ensures that the three-year period specified under clause 30(5) is
instead specified under subsection (4)(a), the subsection to which it
relates. Amendments 177 and 178 are consequent on that amendment, and
amendment 186 corrects a cross-reference under clause 79. Finally,
amendment 187 is a technical, drafting amendment to make it clear that
the statutory instrument containing regulations made under
clauses 5 or 9 is subject to an annulment by resolution of
the National Assembly for Wales.
Mr.
John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con): The
amendments are technical and require no further comment from me on the
basis of incomprehension and the need to press
on. Amendment
agreed
to. Clause
10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 11English
issuing
authority
Mr.
Hayes: We return to our efforts to make this bad Bill
better with enthusiasm and vigour—and if the second is rather
less than the first this morning, it is because the lobster thermidor,
which the Minister specifically recommended to me and on which I dined
in the small hours, rested more heavily on me in the slightly larger
hours than I would have wished; however, not as heavily as the Bill
rests on his shoulders, and we have tabled the amendment in that
spirit.
The
explanatory notes make it clear that sector skills councils will issue
apprenticeship frameworks for England. The Opposition support that. I
have said before that we strongly support the role of sector skills
councils for reasons that we have set out and for many of the reasons
set out by the Minister. Their closeness to employers means that they
can articulate their skills needs and ensure that frameworks match
those
needs. Subsection
(1)(a) allows a body to “issue apprenticeship frameworks
generally”, rather than for a specific sector. The risk is that
that could lead to generic apprenticeships. As I have argued, we are
anxious that apprenticeships be tailored at every level and in all ways
to particular needs. The prospect of a ubiquitous apprenticeship does
not sit comfortably with our vision. The Government have started to
advance amendments by which frameworks will relate specifically to one
sector. Indeed, we have heard something of those and will no doubt hear
more. I am at a loss to understand why they do not leave this
contradiction alone all together and step beyond it.
When taking
the evidence of expert witnesses, it was made clear to the Committee
that generic apprenticeships—or ubiquitous apprenticeships, as I
have described them—are not worth the paper they are written on
because they are not respected by employers and so do not add to the
employability of apprentices. In the evidence session, the CBI said
that the most important thing is
that “the
programme is more fit for purpose—delivering the sort of skills
that are in demand by businesses.”—[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 6,
Q5.] We must
therefore ensure that frameworks are of the highest
quality. I
do not know whether you, Mrs. Humble, or other Committee
members shared my feelings last week, but I felt that I was beginning
to deliver this point with persuasiveness sufficient to change the
Minister’s mind. I felt once or twice that I touched his heart.
I do not know whether it was due to the intellectual force of my
argument or the silky persuasiveness with which it was delivered, but
on occasion he looked as if he had the stomach to acknowledge the force
of our argument and the weakness of his own. That proves beyond doubt
that the way to a man’s stomach is through his heart. He did
not, however, go as far as he might have done on the frameworks. The
purpose of the amendment is to push him that extra
mile. I
think that all Committee members, and certainly the Minister, will
agree that quality will come from getting the frameworks right. In the
evidence sessions, Keith Marshall of the Alliance of Sector Skills
Councils made that clear when he
said: “The
key to this is the framework. If we get the framework right, it will
ensure that the quality is
maintained.”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill Committee,
3 March 2009; c. 9,
Q19.] If a
generic framework is issued, the quality of all apprenticeship
frameworks will be undermined. It will also damage the apprenticeship
brand, which I am determined we should avoid. As I said, I know that
the Minister is gradually and grudgingly coming to the same
conclusion. A
tangential issue is the status of sector skills councils. It was clear
from the evidence session that Mr. Marshall, the
representative of sector skills councils, was not entirely happy about
the way their status is diminished in the Bill; they play little part
in it. The Minister is right that they play a large part in the
explanatory notes, but I am not sure that that satisfies sector skills
councils or us. Sector skills councils are particularly important in
the development, publication and implementation of frameworks, which is
why they are so pertinent to the amendments and to these
clauses.
In the
evidence sessions, the Minister for Schools and Learners asked the
representative of the sector skills
councils: “should
we mention that in primary
legislation?”, to
which Mr. Marshall
replied: “You
specifically mentioned other organisations and agencies in other parts
of the overall system, but not
there.” The
Minister open-mindedly—I thought—went
on: “And
you would like us to?”——[Official Report,
Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Public Bill
Committee, 3 March 2009; c. 21,
Q60-61.] Mr.
Marshall unequivocally answered that he would.
So those
representatives of business—the Minister spoke fondly of them
when we met last—clearly want to be mentioned not just in the
explanatory notes, but in detail in the Bill. The Minister surely
agrees that the sector skills councils are the bodies to take forward
apprenticeship frameworks. If that is the case, why not agree to the
amendment? More
significantly, sector skills councils favour tailoring frameworks to
one sector. Why, therefore, is there the need to “issue
apprenticeship frameworks generally”? The clause should be
specific on that, so that educators, employers, learners and potential
learners receive the training that they need and so that they know that
they will receive it. It is imperative that the amendment is agreed
to. Once
again, I see that my case is beginning to resonate here and elsewhere.
We debate the Bill in a context in which the representatives of
employers have been sceptical, the champions of adult learning have
been doubtful, and the colleges, in the Minister’s words, have
been surprisingly critical. The Minister seems to stands alone, and I
want to assure him by the means and in the detail of today’s
amendments that he is not alone. We are on his side in trying to make
this bad Bill
better.
Mr.
Simon: I start by addressing the hon. Gentleman’s
remarks about my stomach. I remind him—this is
pertinent—of the words of the great reformer and radical William
Cobbett, who memorably said that you cannot agitate a man on a full
stomach. I was up very early this morning, as is often my custom, and
have therefore had two breakfasts since my rising. I have a full
stomach and am afraid that I am not susceptible to agitation in the
manner he has described. The hon. Gentleman also wondered whether he
had succeeded in inciting my feelings or intellect. He is almost
beginning to incite some feelings but my intellect remains absolutely
steely against his silken
words. Turning
to the substance of the matter, I wish to reassure him that there is no
such thing as generic apprenticeships and no intention to create them.
The word “generally” in the clause does not in any sense
imply “generic”. The clause enables the Secretary of
State to designate a person to issue apprenticeship frameworks in
England, either generally or for particular sectors. Clause 16 contains
a similar measure for Wales. The frameworks are high-level curricula
for an apprenticeship in a specified career and it is essential that
the right issuing bodies are identified and maintained in order to
ensure that high standards of apprenticeships are
preserved.
9.15
am I
understand the intention behind the amendment, which would mean that
the Secretary of State could not designate the person to issue
frameworks generally across a range of sectors.
Last year, in
“World-class Apprenticeships: Unlocking talent, building skills
for all”, we set out our commitment to streamlining and reducing
bureaucracy in the process of developing and approving apprenticeship
frameworks. Our intention is to designate sector skills councils as
English issuing authorities. Working in partnership with standard
setting bodies, SSCs will have a key role in ensuring quality
apprenticeship frameworks that comply with the specification of
apprenticeship standards for England. We look to SSCs to focus their
activities on
working with employers to increase the number of good quality
employer-led apprenticeship places and to support employers in bringing
forward frameworks tailored to their business
needs. We
welcome the work being led by the Alliance of Sector Skills Councils to
develop streamlined arrangements for the development and issuing of
apprenticeship frameworks, which will prepare the way for an even
brighter future. It is important to recognise—this is the
crucial point—that we do not have full sector skills coverage
for every occupation in which there may, occasionally and
exceptionally, be a need to have apprenticeship frameworks. It
therefore makes sense to retain the possibility, against such an
eventuality, that a pan-sector body such as the Alliance of Sector
Skills Councils could issue frameworks if
necessary.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2009 | Prepared 13 March 2009 |